Foreign Relations of the United States, 1945–1950, Emergence
of the Intelligence EstablishmentForeign Relations of the United States1945–1950Emergence of the Intelligence EstablishmentC. Thomas Thorne, Jr.David S. PattersonGlenn W. LaFantasieUnited States Government Printing OfficeWashington19961031601604520829780160452086frus1945-50Intel1945 to 1950This publication contains 3 associated files. For page images, see the
facsimile element.
Released in 1996 as printed book
The following errors in the original edition have been corrected:
2008-12-29 PA/HO JW: Created volume shell for HCLForeign Relations of the United States1945–1950Emergence of the Intelligence EstablishmentDepartment of StateWashington, DCEditor: C. Thomas Thorne, Jr.David S.
PattersonGeneral Editor: Glenn W. LaFantasieUnited States Government Printing OfficeWashington1996 DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION
10316OFFICE OF THE HISTORIANBUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRSFor sale by
the U.S. Government Printing OfficeSuperintendent of Documents, Mail Stop:
SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328ISBN 0-16-045208-2
Preface
The Foreign Relations of the United States series presents
the official documentary historical record of major foreign policy decisions and
significant diplomatic activity of the United States Government. The series
documents the facts and events that contributed to the formulation of policies
and includes evidence of supporting and alternative views to the policy
positions ultimately adopted.
The Historian of the Department of State is charged with the responsibility for
the preparation of the Foreign Relations series. The
staff of the Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, plans,
researches, compiles, and edits the volumes in the series. This documentary
editing proceeds in full accord with the generally accepted standards of
historical scholarship. Official regulations codifying specific standards for
the selection and editing of documents for the series were first promulgated by
Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg on March 26, 1925.
These regulations, with minor modifications, guided the series through 1991.
A new statutory charter for the preparation of the series was established by
Public Law 102–138, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992
and 1993, which was signed by President George Bush on
October 28, 1991. Section 198 of P.L. 102–138 added a new Title IV to the
Department of State’s Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 USC 4351, et seq.).
The statute requires that the Foreign Relations series be
a thorough, accurate, and reliable record of major United States foreign policy
decisions and significant United States diplomatic activity. The volumes of the
series should include all records needed to provide comprehensive documentation
of major foreign policy decisions and actions of the United States Government,
including facts that contributed to the formulation of policies and records that
provided supporting and alternative views to the policy positions ultimately
adopted.
The statute confirms the editing principles established by Secretary
Kellogg: the Foreign Relations
series is guided by the principles of historical objectivity and accuracy;
records should not be altered or deletions made without indicating in the
published text that a deletion has been made; the published record should omit
no facts that were of major importance in reaching a decision; and nothing
should be omitted for the purposes of concealing a defect in policy. The statute
also requires that the Foreign Relations series be
published not more than 30 years after the events recorded.
The editors of this volume, which was completed in 1991, are convinced that it
meets all regulatory, statutory, and scholarly standards of selection and
editing.
Scope and Design of This Volume and Its Relationship to the
Foreign Relations Series
By the beginning of the 1980s a significant amount of previously highly
classified information about wartime and post war intelligence activities of the
United States Government had been disclosed in formal testimony to the Congress
or in unofficial books and articles by individuals with varying degrees of
knowledge and access to the record and experience of the intelligence community.
It became apparent to the editors of the Foreign
Relations series that intelligence institutions and operations became
an increasingly important element in the formulation and execution of American
foreign policy in the administration of President Truman and in succeeding Presidential administrations. Nearly
all of more than 50 volumes documenting the foreign policies of the Truman administration had been researched,
declassified, and published by the early 1980s. Only scattered bits of the
record of the impact of intelligence on policymaking and execution had been
included in these volumes. Nearly all of that material came from the papers
preserved at the Harry S. Truman
Presidential Library and the copies of papers submitted to or emerging from the
National Security Council and available to official historians at the Department
of State and other government agencies. Access, which was severely limited, did
not, in any case, guarantee inclusion of selected documents in the Foreign Relations volumes as many sensitive issues
remained undeclassifiable. The lack of understanding of the record of
intelligence operations, analysis, and clandestine activities combined with the
special information security protections for these records severely handicapped
the compilers of the Foreign Relations volumes of the
Truman years.
Recognition by the editors of the Foreign Relations series
of the important gaps in the published volumes coincided with a steady slippage
beyond the 30-year line in publishing the 75 or more volumes documenting the
foreign policy record of President Eisenhower. The notion
of a Foreign Relations retrospective volume to publish
important documents not available or declassifiable at the time of original
publication arose at this time. The Foreign Relations Advisory Committee, which
was established by the Department of State in 1955 and met annually,
periodically considered with general favor such a supplementary volume as a
possible method of gathering and disclosing important documents not included in
earlier volumes.
By the mid 1980s the editors of the Foreign Relations
series decided to explore the possibility of a retrospective volume for the
Truman administration or some portion
of that period. As a first step the editors aimed at a volume that would document the institutional foundations
of the interrelationship between foreign policy and intelligence. Preliminary
research indicated that a significant segment of the important, high-level
record of this aspect of intelligence activities was already available or could
probably be declassified. Such a volume could lay the groundwork for subsequent
volumes on substantive issues, if declassification became possible.
During the mid and late 1980s, research went forward slowly on the proposed
1,000-page volume on the institutional foundations of foreign policy and
intelligence through 1950. Initial research by staff members of the Office of
the Historian was expanded and completed by C. Thomas Thorne,
Jr., a retired Deputy Director of the Department of State’s
Bureau of Intelligence and Research. The CIA History Staff, headed by Dr.
J. Kenneth McDonald, provided important cooperation.
More than 1,000 documents from the CIA and from CIA records accessioned by the
National Archives and Records Administration were collected during the initial
research. In light of the large quantity of documentation available the editors
decided to confine this volume to the major aspects of the organization of the
high-level administration of intelligence in 1945–1950. These were more clearly
the formative years of the intelligence institutions and their relationships to
the Department of State. As it emerged, therefore, the project appeared to be
manageable and clearly focused and one that would provide the Foreign Relations series with an appropriate initial retrospective
volume.
This volume confronted the editors with unprecedented documentary editing
challenges. The documents used to compile this volume were special and unique by
Foreign Relations standards. Rather than diplomatic
correspondence or the record of negotiations and formulation of foreign policy
decisions, the editors compiled a record of high-level governmental plans,
discussions, administrative decisions, and managerial actions that established
institutions and procedures for the central coordination of intelligence
collection and analysis and covert action. Although the proposals and efforts of
the leaders of the Department of State influenced the emergent central
intelligence institutions, much of the record included in this volume documents
the advice, actions, and initiatives of principals and groups in other
departments and agencies, all of whom helped to lay the foundations for the new
centralized intelligence bureaucracy. The editors adopted a generally
chronological approach to the presentation of the documents but organized the
volume into separate, topical chapters. Each chapter is preceded by an
introductory essay that seeks to explain the documents included and place them
in a broader historical context. These chapter introductions cite unpublished
records as well as published sources and narrative texts.
In preparing this volume the editors sought to limit their selection of documents
to those dealing with the planning and establishment of national intelligence
coordination and national intelligence policies. The editors did not seek to
document the planning and implementation of specific intelligence operations or
the impact of intelligence appraisals upon particular foreign affairs
policymaking or negotiations. Intelligence reports, estimates, and analyses
dealing with particular regions, countries, or issues have not been
included.
The preparation of this volume raised special compiling problems for the editors
of the Foreign Relations series. The collection of the
organizational planning documents and the records of the administration of early
post-war intelligence activities was particularly difficult. Many of the
relevant records appear to have been destroyed or are widely scattered in
various agency archival holdings. More than the usual number of original
documents were found to be missing or impossible to locate because of the
repeated and rapid shifting of various intelligence functions among
organizations. The high security level of these records also frustrated
research. It also became clear to the editors that some of the most important
decisions were made without written records having been kept.
The selection and editing of this volume was completed in November 1991. The
editors are convinced that this volume presents a full and comprehensive
documentary record of the planning and inauguration of central governmental
institutions with responsibilities for coordinating intelligence activities in
the formulation and execution of American foreign policy. The volume fully meets
the spirit and the letter of the October 1991 Foreign
Relations statute. The declassification process of this volume and the
microfiche supplement was not completed until July 1994. The preparation for
publication of this volume, so unusual by Foreign
Relations series standards, was not completed until the end of
1995.
Since the time this volume was compiled in 1991, Department of State historians
have greatly expanded their access to other relevant bodies of records within
the Department, in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, at the Central
Intelligence Agency, and in other agencies and commissions. There may be
additional documents that might otherwise have been included had they been
available before 1992. The editors decided, however, that the urgency of making
this volume available to readers after nearly 10 years of preparation outweighed
the possible omission of additional relevant information. Should such
information become available during subsequent research, it will be included in
future retrospective volumes on intelligence activities and foreign policy.
Sources for This Volume
The Foreign Relations statute requires that the published
record in the Foreign Relations series include all
records needed to provide comprehensive documentation on major foreign policy
decisions and actions of the U.S. Government. It further requires that
government agencies, departments, and other entities of the U.S. Government
cooperate with the Department of State Historian by providing full and complete
access to records pertinent to foreign policy decisions and actions and by
providing copies of selected records. The editors believe that in terms of
access this volume was prepared in accordance with the standards and mandates of
this statute, although access to some records was restricted, as noted
below.
The editors had complete access to all the retired records and papers of the
Department of State: the central files of the Department; the special
decentralized files (“lot files”) of the Department at the bureau, office, and
division levels; the files of the Department’s Executive Secretariat, which
contain the records of international conferences and high-level official visits,
correspondence with foreign leaders by the President and Secretary of State, and
memoranda of conversations between the President and Secretary of State and
foreign officials.
The editors also had full access to the papers of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman and other White House foreign policy records.
Presidential papers maintained and preserved at the Presidential libraries
include some of the most significant foreign affairs-related documentation from
other federal agencies including the National Security Council, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
All of this documentation was made available for use in this and other volumes
of the Foreign Relations series thanks to the consent of
these agencies and the cooperation and support of the National Archives and
Records Administration.
In preparing this volume, the editors reviewed records in a variety of archives
and sources, many not usually researched for Foreign
Relations volumes. The records of such bodies as the National
Intelligence Authority, the Intelligence Advisory Board, and the Intelligence
Advisory Committee provide fairly satisfactory documentation on policy and
institutional issues in the early history of the intelligence system. At the
same time, recorded discussion of substantive matters at this level of the
national intelligence structure is rare. Perhaps the most satisfactory
documentation in the collection is in the first chapter on the founding of the
national intelligence structure in 1945–1946, where policy debates were well
reflected in the records and where senior levels of government, including the
White House, were actively involved.
Department of State records on intelligence are reasonably good for the critical
period from September 1945 to April 1946. On the transition from the Strategic Services Unit (SSU) to the Office of Special Operations (OSO), and in Latin America, from FBI to OSO, the
material is relatively thin. The background of the intelligence provisions of
the National Security Act of 1947 is fairly well documented at the outset but
both the quality and the quantity of the material quickly diminishes. There are
informative documents on the origins of NSC 4–A
and 10/2, but the subsequent policy record is fragmentary. For the general
history of U.S. intelligence under Directors of Central Intelligence Souers, Vandenberg, and Hillenkoetter the documentary record becomes increasingly
abundant, but it also tends to become more bureaucratic and more formal without
necessarily becoming more informative. Records for these periods give a
generally satisfactory picture of the main issues but often have an impersonal
character that tends to obscure the conflicts and concerns that frequently
motivated the participants.
President Truman took a general interest
in the formation of the intelligence system; thereafter he was satisfied that it
was performing in a way that met his needs and was less involved. The
Presidential and NSC documents used, although
relatively few in terms of the total size of the collection, provide major
insights into key periods and issues covered by the volume. The editors had full
access to these materials at the National Archives and Records Administration
and the Harry S Truman Library, as well
as to the records of the Department of State. The latter, especially the files
of the Executive Secretariat and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, were
relevant to virtually every part of the collection but particularly to the early
post-war debates over intelligence, the struggle over the intelligence
organization of the Department of State, and the Dulles Report and its aftermath.
The Office of Management and Budget records in Record Group 51 at the National
Archives provided much of the information on efforts of the Bureau of the Budget
to shape the emerging national intelligence structure in 1945–1946. The best
documentation on this subject is by an insider, Budget Director Harold Smith, whose diary entries (actually,
memoranda of conversation) for the same period are in the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library. The Leahy files in Record Group 218 at the
National Archives (Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) provided many of the
early documents on the formative period of the intelligence system.
Central Intelligence Agency records constitute the largest single group of
materials used in this compilation and require special description. Basically
three separate collections of CIA records were used.
The first of these was the Troy Papers, in Record Group 263
(Records of the Central Intelligence Agency) of the National Archives and
Records Administration. This collection was compiled by and declassified for
Thomas Troy in connection with the preparation of his
book, Donovan and the
CIA, which was originally issued as a Central Intelligence Agency publication. The
Troy Papers consist mainly of copies of documents from
various archival collections, bringing together material from a number of
sources on the history of U.S. intelligence from the 1930s through the passage
of the National Security Act of 1947 and the creation of the Central
Intelligence Agency, including the most important and relevant military records.
Practically all of these papers have been declassified and are freely available
to researchers.
The second group of Central Intelligence Agency records consists of the
historical collections located in and maintained by the CIA History Staff,
Center for the Study of Intelligence. These collections consist of documents,
some of them still classified, selected over time by personnel of the various
components of CIA as having significant historical value and which have been
transferred to the physical custody of the History Staff to ensure their
continuing availability as part of the historical record. In some cases, it
appears that individual parts of the collections were originally working or
reference files maintained by personnel of various offices of the Agency. A
number of the early records in these collections are typescript copies including
many made for Arthur B. Darling, the first CIA Historian;
these seem to be the only form in which a number of documents have survived.
Documents in the historical collections tend to vary widely in nature and
quality and usually provide only a partial record, but they nonetheless are a
major resource and have been widely drawn upon in the preparation of this
volume.
Members of the CIA History Staff selected materials from the historical
collections for review by the compilers of this volume, who had unimpeded access
to the records thus selected. Documents provided under this procedure remained
classified and, if finally selected for publication, were then submitted for
regular declassification review.
The third category of Central Intelligence Agency records used consists of
archives held either by the Agency’s records management organization or by
individual organizational components of the Agency. In the preparation of this
volume, the CIA History Staff gave the fullest cooperation to Department of
State historians, not least by sharing its knowledge of the history of the U.S.
Intelligence Community. CIA historians gathered records in other parts of the
Agency that appeared relevant to the compilers’ work. These records were first
reviewed by appropriate CIA offices to determine whether the Department of State
Historians’ Office could have access to them. Once access was granted, copies of
selected documents were made available. Copies received under this procedure
remained classified and, if selected for publication, were submitted for
declassification review. From the experience gained in the preparation of this
volume, from discussions with CIA historians, and from references in the records
themselves, it appears that Central
Intelligence Agency holdings of early Intelligence Community records are
scattered and, in many instances, fragmentary or incomplete.
This volume is supported by a microfiche supplement that reproduces additional
documents judged to be of less value but still relevant and useful. In a few
cases the transmittal pages of documents in the print volume are included for
completeness and clarity in the supplement. The microfiche supplement also
contains the complete text of some documents that were judged too long for
inclusion in full in the print volume, and from which only extracts were
printed.
The CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence has also published its own facsimile
volume, entitled CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman (edited by
Michael Warner), which reproduces 81 documents covering
1945–1953. Twenty-five of these documents are included in the printed Foreign Relations volume or microfiche supplement.
Three books among the growing literature on intelligence published in recent
years were particularly useful to the compilers as guides through the
documentation. All were originally CIA internal documents that were sanitized
and published and, although they were written from different points of view,
they provide painstaking, detailed, and heavily documented reconstruction of the
early history of the national intelligence system.
The first, Thomas Troy’s Donovan and the CIA, contains the most
comprehensive account available of the formation of the Central Intelligence
Agency, from the wartime debates over intelligence to the signing of the
National Security Act of 1947. The second, Arthur B.
Darling’s The Central Intelligence Agency: An
Instrument of Government, to 1950, is a published version of an
internal history written by the CIA’s first historian in 1952–1953. And the
third, Ludwell Montague’s General Walter Bedell
Smith as Director of Central Intelligence, October
1950–February 1953, originally a 5-volume classified CIA study with the
same title, deals mainly with events beyond the period covered by this volume.
Montague’s work is valuable both
because he was a participant in, as well as an observer of, many of the events
of which he writes and because he supplemented his own recollections by research
in the records and by extensive interviews and correspondence. Montague regarded his work as a corrective to
Darling’s history which, in Montague’s view, incorporated a number of judgments that were a
“distortion” of the early period of CIA’s history.
The List of Sources, pages XVII–XIX, lists the particular files and collections
consulted and cited in this volume.
Editorial Methodology
The documents are presented chronologically according to Washington time or, in
the case of conferences, in the order of individual meetings. Memoranda of conversation are placed according to
the time and date of the conversation, rather than the date the memorandum was
drafted.
Editorial treatment of the documents published in the Foreign
Relations series follows Office style guidelines, supplemented by
guidance from the General Editor and the chief technical editor. The source text
is reproduced as exactly as possible, including marginalia or other notations,
which are described in the footnotes. Texts are transcribed and printed
according to accepted conventions for the publication of historical documents
within the limitations of modern typography. A heading has been supplied by the
editors for each document included in the volume. Spelling, capitalization, and
punctuation are retained as found in the source text, except that obvious
typographical errors are silently corrected. Other mistakes and omissions in the
source text are corrected by bracketed insertions: a correction is set in italic
type; an addition in roman type. Words or phrases underlined in the source text
are printed in italics. Abbreviations and contractions are preserved as found in
the source text, and a list of abbreviations is included in the front matter of
each volume.
Bracketed insertions are also used to indicate omitted text that deals with an
unrelated subject (in roman type) or that remains classified after
declassification review (in italic type). The amount of material not
declassified has been noted by indicating the number of lines or pages of source
text that were omitted. Entire documents withheld for security reasons have been
accounted for and are listed by headings, source notes, and number of pages not
declassified in their chronological place. The amount of material omitted from
this volume because it was unrelated to the subject of the volume, however, has
not been delineated. All brackets that appear in the source text are so
identified by footnotes.
An unnumbered source note to each document indicates the document’s source,
original classification, distribution, and drafting information. This note also
provides the background of important documents and policies and indicates if the
President or his major policy advisers read the document. Every effort has been
made to determine if a document has been previously published, and this
information has been included in the source footnote.
Additional footnotes summarize pertinent material not printed in the volume,
indicate the location of additional documentary sources, provide references to
important related documents printed in other volumes, describe key events, and
provide summaries of and citations to public statements that supplement and
elucidate the printed documents. Information derived from memoirs and other
first-hand accounts have been used when appropriate to supplement or explicate
the official record.
Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation
The Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, established under
the Foreign Relations statute, reviews records, advises,
and makes recommendations concerning the Foreign
Relations series. The Advisory Committee monitors the overall
compilation and editorial process of the series and advises on all aspects of
the preparation and declassification of the series. Although the Advisory
Committee does not attempt to review the contents of individual volumes in the
series, it does monitor the overall process and makes recommendations on
particular problems that come to its attention.
Declassification Review
The final declassification review of this volume, completed in 1994, resulted in
the decision to withhold 2.24 percent of the documentation selected for the
print volume, including 7 documents denied in full. In the microfiche supplement
2.61 percent of the documentation selected was withheld, including 5 documents
denied in full. The remaining documents provide an account of the origin and
development of the U.S. foreign intelligence structure during 1945–1950.
The Division of Historical Documents Review of the Office of Freedom of
Information, Privacy, and Classification Review, Bureau of Administration,
Department of State, conducted the declassification review of the documents
published in this volume. The review was conducted in accordance with the
standards set forth in Executive Order 12356 on National Security Information,
which was superseded by Executive Order 12958 on April 20, 1995, and applicable
laws.
Under Executive Order 12356, information that concerns one or more of the
following categories, and the disclosure of which reasonably could be expected
to cause damage to the national security, requires classification: military plans, weapons, or operations;the vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations,
projects, or plans relating to the national security;foreign government information;intelligence activities (including special activities), or
intelligence sources or methods;foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States;scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to national
security;U.S. Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or
facilities;cryptology; ora confidential source.
The principle guiding declassification review is to release all information,
subject only to the current requirements of national security as embodied in law
and regulation. Declassification decisions entailed concurrence of the
appropriate geographic and functional bureaus in the Department of State, other concerned agencies of the U.S.
Government, and the appropriate foreign governments regarding specific documents
of those governments.
Acknowledgments
The editors wish to acknowledge the assistance of officials at the Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman Libraries, the National
Archives and Records Administration, and other specialized repositories that
assisted in the collection of documents for this volume. J. Kenneth
McDonald, former Chief Historian of the Central Intelligence
Agency, and Mary McAuliffe, former CIA Deputy Chief
Historian, provided valuable assistance in arranging access to that agency’s
materials.
Neal H. Petersen made the initial collection of documents,
which was later expanded by Edward C. Keefer and
William Deary. C. Thomas Thorne,
Jr., wrote the narrative introductions to each chapter.
Thorne also selected and edited the material presented
in this volume with the guidance of former General Editors John P.
Glennon and Glenn W. LaFantasie.
Thorne planned the volume, and David S.
Patterson conducted a comprehensive final review. Vicki
E. Futscher prepared the lists of sources, persons, and
abbreviations, and she, Rita Baker, and Deb
Godfrey did the copy and technical editing. Barbara Ann Bacon of
the Publishing Services Division oversaw the production of the volume.
Do Mi Stauber prepared the index.
William Z. SlanyThe Historian Bureau of Public Affairs
May 1996
Contents
PrefaceList of SourcesList of AbbreviationsList of PersonsFounding of the National Intelligence Structure, August
1945–January 1946Department of State IntelligenceFrom the Strategic Services Unit to the Office of
Special OperationsSouers’
tenure as Director of Central IntelligenceVandenberg’s
Tenure as Director of Central IntelligenceThe National Security Act of 1947Psychological and Political WarfareHillenkoetter’s Tenure as Director of Central
IntelligenceNational Security Council Intelligence Directives,
1947–1950Index
List of Sources
Department of State
A/MS Files: Lot 54 D 291
Consolidated administrative files of the Department of State for 1949–1960, as
maintained by the Management Staff of the Bureau of Administration.
Central Intelligence Agency
Central Intelligence Agency Records
Records held by the CIA records management organization or by individual
organizational components of the Agency and made available by CIA
historians.
History Staff/Historical Files
Selection of documents from various components of CIA transferred to the custody
of the CIA History Staff.
National Archives and Records Administration, Washington,
D.C.
Record Group 51, Records of the Office of Management and
Budget
Director’s File, Series 39.27, Intelligence Series 39.29, OSS Organization and Functions
Record Group 59, Records of the Department of State
Administration Files: Lot 53 D 28
Subject files of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration for
1944–1947.
Decimal Files, 1945–1949
Diplomatic Branch Reference File, Minutes of the Committee of
Three, 1944–1947
INR Files: Lot 58 D 776
Subject files for 1945–1956, as maintained by the Office of the Special Assistant
to the Secretary of State for Research and Intelligence, which includes
information on the birth of the intelligence organization in the Department of
State and a history of the national intelligence structure.
INR Files: Lot 62 D 42
Subject files mainly from 1957 to 1960, but also containing some pre-1957
documents, as maintained by the Office of the Director of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research.
Bureau of Administration Files: Lot 79 D 137
Intelligence files of the Bureau of Administration for 1942–1951.
Lot File No. 122
Records of various committees covering 1943–1952, including the records of the
Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–1947.
Policy Planning Staff Files: Lot 64 D 563
Master file of documents, drafts, records of meetings, memoranda, and related
correspondence for 1947–1953 of the Policy Planning Staff.
S/S–NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351
Serial master file of National Security Council documents and correspondence and
related Department of State memoranda for 1947–1961, as maintained by the
Executive Secretariat.
S/S–NSC Files: Lot 64 D 148
Miscellaneous files concerning subjects considered by the National Security
Council during 1949–1962, as maintained by the Executive Secretariat of the
Department of State.
S/S–NSC (Miscellaneous) Files:
Lot 66 D 95
Administrative and miscellaneous National Security Council documentation,
including NSC Records of Action for 1947–1963,
as maintained by the Executive Secretariat.
Record Group 80, General Records of the Department of the
Navy
SecNav/CNO Top Secret Correspondence File 1945
Records of Secretary of the Navy James
Forrestal for 1940–1947 and general correspondence for
1944–1947.
Record Group 107, Records of the Office of the Secretary of
War
Top Secret (Correspondence)
Subject file of the Secretary of War, 1945–1947.
Record Group 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Papers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Record Group 263, Records of the Central Intelligence
Agency
Background documents from various sources made available to Thomas
Troy in connection with the preparation of his book on the
founding of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Record Group 273, Records of the National Security
Council
Official meeting minutes file.
Record Group 353, Records of Interdepartmental and
Intradepartmental Committees
Case files of various governmental committees, including the State–War–Navy
Coordinating Committee and State–Army–Navy–Air Force Coordinating Committee,
1944–1949.
RooseveltLibrary, Hyde Park, New York
Papers of Harold
Smith
TrumanLibrary, Independence, Missouri
Miscellaneous material filed by the Administrative Assistant in
the President’s Office, Office of Strategic Services.
Papers of Clark M.
Clifford
Files of Clark M. Clifford, including
National Intelligence Authority and National Military Establishment: CIA.
Papers of George M.
Elsey
Papers of Harry S.
Truman
Files of Harry S. Truman, including
President’s Secretary’s Files, Subject File, and Official File.
Papers of J. Anthony
Panuch
Papers of Samuel I.
Rosenman
Published References
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States:
Harry S. Truman, 1945, 1946,
1947, 1948, 1950. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961,
1962, 1963, 1964, and 1965.
Warner, Michael, ed., CIA
Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry
Truman. Central Intelligence Agency: Washington,
1994.
Memoirs and Histories by Participants
Note: The Department of State takes no responsibility for
the accuracy of these memoirs nor does it endorse their interpretation of
events.
Acheson, Dean, Present at the Creation: My Years in the State
Department. New York: W.W. Norton, 1969.
Braden, Spruille, Diplomats and Demagogues: The Memoirs of Spurille Braden . New York: Arlington
House, 1971.
Darling, Arthur B., The
Central Intelligence Agency: An Instrument of Government, to 1950.
University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1990.
Montague, Ludwell Lee,
General Walter Bedell
Smith as Director of Central Intelligence, October
1950–February 1953. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1992.
Troy, Thomas F., Donovanand the CIA: A History of the Establishment of the Central
Intelligence Agency. Frederick, Maryland: University Publications of
America, 1981.
Truman, Harry S., Memoirs: Year of Decision, volume I. New York: Doubleday,
1956.
____, Memoirs: Years of Trial and Hope,
volume II. New York: Doubleday, 1956.
List of Abbreviations
AAF, Army Air
ForcesACC, Allied Control
Council/CommissionACI, Advisory
Committee on Intelligence, Department of StateAD/ORE, Assistant
Director for Reports and EstimatesADPC, Assistant
Director for Policy CoordinationADSO, Assistant
Director for Special Operations (CIG and
CIA)AEC, Atomic Energy
CommissionAGF, Army Ground
ForcesAMET, American
Mediterranean European TheaterATC, Air Transport
CommandBOB, Bureau of the
BudgetCCC, Combat Command
Chiefs/Congressional Country ClubCCS, Combined Chiefs
of StaffCE, Division of Central
European Affairs, Department of StateCG, Commanding
GeneralCIBI, Counter
Intelligence Corps, BritishCIC, Commander in
ChiefCIG, Central
Intelligence GroupC/L, Legislative
Counsel, Office of the Counselor, Department of StateCO, Commanding
OfficerCOAPS, Coordination,
Operations, and Policy/Planning StaffCON, Office of
Controls; Office of Consular Affairs, Bureau of Administration, Department
of StateCSP, Chief, Special
Projects Division, Office of Policy CoordinationDCI, Director of
Central Intelligence (CIG and CIA)DDCI, Deputy Director
of Central Intelligence (CIG and CIA)DNI, Director of Naval
IntelligenceDOD, Department of
DefenseDRA, Division of
Research for American Republics, Department of StateECA, Economic
Cooperation AdministrationETO, European Theater
of OperationsEUR, Bureau of
European Affairs, Department of StateFBI, Federal Bureau of
InvestigationFBIS, Foreign
Broadcast Intelligence ServiceFC, Division of Foreign
Activity Correlation, Bureau of Administration, Department of StateFE, Office of Far
Eastern Affairs, Department of StateFEA, Foreign Economic
AdministrationG-2, intelligence
section of divisional or higher staffG-5, civil affairs
section of divisional or higher staffGSC, General Staff
CorpsIAB, Intelligence
Advisory BoardIAC, Intelligence
Advisory CommitteeIAD, Acquisition and
Distribution Division, Office of Research and Intelligence, Department of
StateICAPS, Interagency
Coordinating and Planning StaffIIC, Interdepartmental
Intelligence CommitteeINR, Bureau of
Intelligence and Research, Department of StateIPDP, Intelligence
Photographic Documentation ProjectIRIS, Interim
Research and Intelligence ServiceJANIS, Joint
Army–Navy Intelligence StudiesJCS, Joint Chiefs of
StaffJIC, Joint
Intelligence CommitteeJIS, Joint
Intelligence StaffJISPD, Joint
Intelligence Studies Publication BoardJRDB, Joint Research
and Development BoardLe, Legal
AdviserMETO, Middle East
Theater of OperationsMID, Military
Intelligence Division, Department of the ArmyMIS, Military
Intelligence Staff, War Department General StaffMO, Morale Operations,
Office of Strategic ServicesMOB, Morale Operations
Branch, Office of Strategic ServicesMTO, Mediterranean
Theater of OperationsNA, Office of Northeast
Asian Affairs, Office of Far Eastern AffairsNAP, North Atlantic
PactNIA, National
Intelligence AuthorityNIE, National
Intelligence EstimateNIG, National
Intelligence GroupNIS, National
Intelligence Survey; National Intelligence SummaryNME, National Military
EstablishmentNSC, National Security
CouncilNSCID, National
Security Council Intelligence DirectiveNSRB, National
Security Resources BoardOBP, Office of Budget
and Planning, Bureau of Administration, Department of StateOCD, Office of
Collection and DisseminationOCI, Office of Current
IntelligenceODA, Office of
Departmental Administration, Bureau of Administration, Department of
StateOFS, Office of the
Foreign Service, Bureau of Administration, Department of StateOIE, Office of
Intelligence and Educational ExchangeOIR, Office of
Intelligence ResearchOLI, Office of
Libraries and Intelligence AcquisitionONE, Office of
National EstimatesONI, Office of Naval
Intelligence, Department of NavyOO, Office of
OperationsOPC, Office of Policy
CoordinationOPD, Operations
Division, War DepartmentORE, Office of
Research and Evaluation; Office of Reports and EstimatesOSO, Office of Special
OperationsOSS, Office of
Strategic ServicesOWI, Office of War
InformationPSB, Psychological
Strategy BoardR, Secretary of State’s
Special Assistant for Research and IntelligenceR and A, research
and analysisRDB, Research and
Development BoardSANACC,
State–Army–Navy–Air Coordinating CommitteeSHAEF, Supreme
Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary ForcesSI, Secret
Intelligence, Office of Strategic ServicesSID,Strategic Intelligence DigestSIS, Special
Intelligence ServiceSO, Special
OperationsSPG, Special
Procedures Group, Office of Special OperationsSR, Situation
ReportSS, Schutzstaffel
(German elite guard)SSU, Strategic
Services Unit, War DepartmentSWNCC,
State–War–Navy Coordinating CommitteeUNO, United Nations
OrganizationUSCIB, U.S.
Communications Intelligence BoardUSFA, U.S. Forces in
AustriaUSFCT, U.S. Forces,
China TheaterUSFET, U.S. Forces,
European TheaterUSSBS, U.S.
Stragetic Bombing SurveyUSSTAF, U.S.
Strategic Air ForcesWDGS, War Department
General StaffX–2,
counterintelligence unit
List of Persons
Acheson, Dean,
Under Secretary of State, August 16, 1945–June 30, 1947; Secretary of State
from January 21, 1949Allen, George
V., Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs,
March 31, 1948–November 28, 1949Appleby, Paul
H., Director of the Bureau of the Budget from
1946Armstrong, W. Park,
Jr., Acting Special Assistant to the Secretary of
State for Research and Intelligence, October 1, 1947–January 21, 1948;
thereafter Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and
IntelligenceBabbitt,
Theodore, Assistant Director for Reports and Estimates,
Central Intelligence Group and Central Intelligence Agency, July
1947–November 1950Benton,
William, Assistant Secretary of State for Public
Affairs, September 17, 1945–September 30, 1947Bissell, Major General
Clayton (USA), Assistant Chief of Staff for Military
IntelligenceBlum, Robert,
Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1947–1949Braden,
Spruille, Assistant Secretary of State for American
Republic Affairs, August 25, 1945–June 27, 1947Brownell, Brigadier General
George A. (USA), Executive Officer, Office of the
Assistant Secretary of War for AirBush, Vannevar,
Chairman, Research and Development BoardButler, George
H., member, Policy Planning Staff, from February 24,
1948Byrnes, James
F., Secretary of State, July 3, 1945–January 21,
1947Cabell, General Charles
P., Director of Intelligence, Office of the Deputy
Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force; member, Intelligence Advisory
CommitteeCassady,
Thomas, Office of Special Operations, Central
Intelligence Group and Central Intelligence Agency, to 1948Chamberlin, Stephen
J., Director of Intelligence, War Department General
Staff; member, Intelligence Advisory BoardChilds,
Prescott, Chief, Interagency Coordinating and Planning
Staff, from 1947; Chief, Coordination, Operations and Policy Staff, from
October 5, 1949Clark, Tom C.,
Attorney General, June 30, 1945–July 28, 1949Clayton, William
L., Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and
Business Affairs until August 16, 1946; Under Secretary of State for
Economic Affairs, August 17, 1946–October 15, 1947Clifford, Clark
M., Naval Aide to the President until July 1946;
thereafter Special Counsel to the PresidentCorrea, Mathias
F., Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy;
member, National Security Council Survey Committee, 1948Craig, Major General Horace
A. (USA), Chief of the Operations Division, War
Department General Staff; Deputy Chief, Intelligence Advisory Council, from
August 7, 1950; Assistant Director, Office of Special Services, from
December 1, 1950Denfeld, Admiral Louis
E. (USN), Chief of Naval Operations, December 15,
1947-November 2, 1949Donovan, William
J., Director, Office of Strategic Services, until
October 1, 1945Dulin, R. E.,
Deputy Chief, Special Procedures GroupDulles, Allen
W., Chairman, National Security Council Survey
Committee, 1948Dunn, James
C., Assistant Secretary of State for European, Far
Eastern, Near Eastern and African Affairs until November 11, 1946Earman, John
S., secretary to the National Intelligence Authority,
1947; Office of the Director of Central Intelligence from 1947Eberstadt,
Ferdinand, prepared the Eberstadt Report on Service Unification for Secretary of the
Navy Forrestal, 1945Eddy, William
A., Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for
Research and Intelligence, August 1, 1946–October 1, 1947Edgar, Donald,
Chief, Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff, Central
Intelligence Group and Central Intelligence Agency, July 1946–October
1947Elsey, George
M., Assistant Naval Aide to the President, 1945–1946;
Assistant to the Special Counsel to the President, 1947–1949Forrestal, James
V., Secretary of the Navy until September 1947;
Secretary of Defense, September 17, 1947–March 28, 1949Fortier, Brigadier General
Louis J. (USA), Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee of the
Central Intelligence Group (the Fortier Committee), from 1946Foskett, Rear Admiral James
H. (USN), Naval Aide to the President, July
1946–February 1948Foster, William
C., Deputy Administrator, Economic Cooperation
AdministrationGalloway, Colonel Donald
H. (USA), Assistant Director for Special Operations,
Central Intelligence Group and Central Intelligence Agency, July 11,
1946–December 27, 1948Gingrich, Rear Admiral John
E. (USN), Director of Intelligence and Security,
Atomic Energy CommissionGray, Gordon,
Secretary of the Army, June 20, 1949–April 12, 1950Harriman, W.
Averell, Representative to Europe of the Economic
Cooperation Administration, 1948–1950; Special Assistant to the President
from 1950Hill, Arthur
M., Chairman, National Security Resources BoardHillenkoetter, Rear Admiral
Roscoe (USN), Director of Central Intelligence,
Central Intelligence Group and Central Intelligence Agency, May 1,
1947–October 7, 1950Hoover,
Herbert, former President; Chairman of the Commission on
Organization of the Executive Branch of the GovernmentHoover, J.
Edgar, Director, Federal Bureau of InvestigationHouston,
Lawrence, General Counsel to the Central Intelligence
Group and to the Central Intelligence Agency from 1946Huddle, J.
Klhar, Assistant Director for Research and Evaluation
(changed to Assistant Director for Reports and Estimates in late 1946),
Central Intelligence Group, September 1946–May 1947Humelsine, Carlisle
H., Executive Secretary, Department of State, June
1947–January 1950; Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Administration
from January 1950; Assistant Secretary of State for Administration from July
1950; Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration from August
1950Inglis, Thomas
B., Chief of Naval Intelligence from 1945Jackson, William
H., member, National Security Council Survey Committee,
1948; Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, from October 7, 1950Johnson, Louis,
Secretary of Defense, March 28, 1949–September 19, 1950Joyce, Robert
P., Office of Special Operations (Central Intelligence
Group) liaison to the Department of State, 1946–June 1947; Political Adviser
on Trieste, 1947–1948; Senior Consultant (representing the Secretary of
State), Office of Policy Coordination, from September 1948; Policy Planning
Staff, Department of State, from December 1948Kennan, George
F., Deputy for Foreign Affairs, National War College,
August 1946–July 1947; Director, Policy Planning Staff, Department of State,
May 5, 1947–December 31, 1949; Counselor of the Department of State from
August 4, 1949Kent, Sherman,
Vice Chairman, Board of National Estimates, Central Intelligence Agency,
from November 1950Ladd, Milton,
Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of InvestigationLanger, William
L., Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for
Research and Intelligence until July 1946; Chairman, National Board of
Estimates, Central Intelligence Agency, from November 1950Lay, James S.,
Jr., member, Central Intelligence Group from January
1946; secretary, Intelligence Advisory Board, January 1946–September 1947;
Office of Reports and Estimates, Central Intelligence Group, 1947; Assistant
to the Executive Secretary, National Security Council, September
1947–January 1950; Executive Secretary, National Security Council, from
January 1950Leahy, Admiral William
D. (USN), Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief;
presided over the Joint Chiefs of Staff, July 1942–March 1949Lovett, Robert
A., Assistant Secretary of War for Air, to December
1945; Under Secretary of State, July, 1, 1947–January 20, 1949Lyon, Frederick
B., Director, Office of Controls, Department of State,
from 1945Magruder, Brigadier General
John (USA), Deputy Director for Intelligence, Office
of Strategic Services, until September 1945; Director of Strategic Services
Unit, War Department, October 1, 1945–April 4, 1946; Senior Consultant
(representing the Secretary of Defense), Office of Policy Coordination, from
September 1948Marshall, General George
C. (USA), Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, until November
1945; Secretary of State, January 21, 1947–January 20, 1949; Secretary of
Defense from September 21, 1950Matthews, Francis
P., Secretary of the Navy from May 25, 1949McCarthy,
Frank, Assistant Secretary of State for Administration,
September 1, 1945–October 11, 1945McCloy, John
J., Assistant Secretary of War until November
1945McCormack,
Alfred, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for
Intelligence and Research, September 28, 1945–April 23, 1946McDonald, George
C., Assistant Chief of Air Staff; Executive Officer,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of WarMcWilliams, William
J., Assistant Director, Executive Secretariat,
Department of State, from August 23, 1948Montague, Ludwell
L., Chief, Central Reports Staff, Central
Intelligence Group, March–July 1946; Acting Assistant Director, Central
Intelligence Group, 1946; Office of Reports and Estimates, September
1946–November 1950; Central Intelligence Agency representative to the
National Security Council, September 1947–October 1950; Office of National
Estimates from November 1950Moseley, H.
W., secretary, State–Army–Navy–Air Force Coordinating
CommitteeNimitz, Admiral Chester
W. (USN), Chief of Naval Operations, December 15,
1945–December 15, 1947Panuch, J.
Anthony, Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of State for
Administration from November 15, 1945Patterson, Robert
P., Secretary of War, September 27, 1945–July 18,
1947Petersen, Howard
C., Assistant Secretary of War, 1945–1947Peurifoy, John
E., Assistant Secretary of State for Administration,
March 17, 1947–August 10, 1950Pforzheimer,
Walter, Legislative Counsel to the Central Intelligence
Group and to the Central Intelligence Agency from 1946Roosevelt, Franklin
D., President of the United States until April 12,
1945Rosenman, Samuel
I., Special Counsel to the PresidentRoyall, Kenneth
C., Secretary of the Army, September 18, 1947–April 27,
1949Russell, Donald
Stuart, Assistant Secretary of State for
Administration, September 24, 1945–January 20, 1947Sargeant, Howland
H., Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of State for
Public Affairs, from October 1, 1947Smith, Harold
D., Director of the Bureau of the Budget,
1945–1946Smith, Russell
Jack, Office of Reports and Estimates, Central
Intelligence Agency, June 1947–November 1950; thereafter Office of National
Estimates, Central Intelligence AgencySmith, Walter
B., Director of Central Intelligence from October 7,
1950Snyder, John
W., Director, Office of War Mobilization and
ReconversionSouers, Rear Admiral Sydney
W. (USN), Director of Central Intelligence, Central
Intelligence Group, January 22, 1946–June 10, 1946; Executive Secretary,
National Security Council, August 1947–January 1950; Special Consultant to
the President from January 1950Sprague, W.
A., member, Intelligence Survey GroupStimson, Henry
Louis, Secretary of War until September 27,
1945Stone, Donald
C., Assistant Director for Administrative Management,
Bureau of the BudgetStone, William
T., Director, Office of Information and Educational
Exchange, Department of StateSullivan, John
L., Secretary of the Navy, September 18, 1947–May 24,
1949Symington, W.
Stuart, Secretary of the Air Force, September 18,
1947–April 24, 1950Tamm, Edward
A., Assistant to the Director of the Federal Bureau of
InvestigationTruman, Harry
S., President of the United States from April 12,
1945Vandenberg, Lieutenant
General Hoyt S. (USAF), member, Intelligence
Advisory Board, January 1946–May 1947; Assistant Chief of Staff for
Intelligence, U.S. Army, 1946; Director of Central Intelligence, Central
Intelligence Group, June 10, 1946–May 1, 1947; Chief of Staff, U.S. Air
Force, from April 30, 1948Webb, James
E., Under Secretary of State from January 28,
1949Whitney, C.
V., Assistant Secretary of the Air ForceWisner, Frank
G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Occupied
Areas, 1947–1948; Assistant Director for Policy Coordination, Central
Intelligence Agency, from September 1, 1948Wright, Colonel Edwin
K. (USA), Executive Director of the Intelligence
Division, War Department General Staff, February–June 1946; executive to the
Director of Central Intelligence (Central Intelligence Group), June 26,
1946–January 20, 1947; Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, Central
Intelligence Group and Central Intelligence Agency, January 20, 1947–March
9, 1949
Founding of the National Intelligence Structure, August 1945–January
1946
Introduction
This volume takes as its starting point the surrender of Japan in August
1945, but it does so with the realization that the contest over the postwar
U.S. intelligence structure had already begun during the latter stages of
World War II. On November 18, 1944, Major General William J. Donovan, the head of the Office
of Strategic Services, sent President Roosevelt a proposal—subsequently known as the “Donovan Plan”—to place peacetime
intelligence directly under the President’s supervision rather than under
the military, as it was during the war. Under this proposal, the director of
the central intelligence service would have full authority in intelligence
matters, subject only to Presidential control. Although the plan provided
for an advisory board consisting of the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy,
and others the President might choose to appoint, its function was to be
consultative only. Donovan’s paper
signaled the beginning of the controversy over the national intelligence
system.
During the debate over Donovan’s
proposals in 1944 and early 1945, the Department of State was at best a
peripheral participant. The protagonists were Donovan and the OSS on one
side and the armed forces on the other. The Army and Navy opposed Donovan’s plan and by late 1944, the Joint
Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had developed two
schemes for a permanent intelligence organization, the so-called “military”
(or “services”) and “civilian” plans. The former provided for a “federal”
system of intelligence coordination among the State, War, and Navy
Departments, with a supervising body composed of the Secretaries of State,
War, and Navy; an “intelligence directorate” headed by a Department of State
official (with Army and Navy deputies); and a joint intelligence service to
conduct whatever activities of common concern were agreed upon by the three
Departments. The “services” plan explicitly rejected a “national
intelligence service.”
The “civilian” plan took a number of elements from Donovan’s proposal including a central
intelligence agency with an independent budget, responsible for clandestine
intelligence collection and for intelligence coordination. The Director
would be appointed by the President but would be under the “direction and
control” of a board consisting of the Secretaries of State, War, and
Navy.
By late 1944, the Joint Intelligence Committee had instructed its Joint
Intelligence Staff to refine the two plans and by the end of the year they had become a single
proposal—designated as JIC 239/5—which
provided for a national intelligence authority composed of the three
Secretaries plus the Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief; a central
intelligence agency headed by a director appointed by the President on the
recommendation of the national intelligence authority; and an advisory board
to the director composed of the intelligence chiefs of the State, War, and
Navy Departments.
In February 1945, the Chicago Tribune and the
Washington Times-Herald published the texts of
Donovan’s proposal and of JIC 239/5. The resulting public controversy
over the propriety of a permanent intelligence system led the Joint Chiefs
to “withdraw” JIC 239/5. Thereafter, the
official Army and Navy position was that the subject was one to be dealt
with after the war.
President Roosevelt took no action on
the intelligence issue. When he died in April 1945, the future of
intelligence was still uncertain. His successor, Harry S. Truman, was inexperienced in foreign affairs,
mistrustful of secret government agencies, and opposed to the unorthodox
operating procedures that characterized the Roosevelt–Donovan
relationship during the war. The evidence of his thinking about postwar
intelligence suggests that foremost in his mind was liquidation of the
wartime intelligence apparatus as soon as possible.
With the end of the war in August 1945, the future intelligence organization
became a pressing issue. The decision to abolish the OSS was taken before the end of August by a White House
committee charged with the liquidation of wartime agencies. The committee
consisted of Presidential Special Counsel Samuel
I. Rosenman, Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion
Director John W. Snyder, and Bureau
of the Budget Director Harold Smith
(although Smith apparently waited
until September 13 to get the President’s final approval). (Memorandum of
conference with the President by Harold
Smith, September 13, 1945; Roosevelt Library, Papers of Harold Smith, Box 4, Conferences with President Truman 1945; see the Supplement)
Donovan wrote to the President on
August 25, indicating he was moving swiftly on liquidating OSS and enclosing a “Statement of Principles”
to govern a future intelligence agency. (Document 3)
He wrote Harold Smith on the same
date, urging the need for a successor organization. (Attachment to Document 3) In his letter to Truman, Donovan noted that the President had earlier indicated a
desire to talk to him about the subject, but there is only second-hand
evidence that the two ever had a substantive conversation about
intelligence. (Document 5)
In the meantime, as it became clear that the debate over the postwar system
was about to resume, the armed forces revived JIC 239/5. Under the redesignation JCS 1181/5 and with only a few changes, it became the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposal for the
national intelligence system and the model that was ultimately adopted.
The Bureau of the Budget was also advanced in its plans and was about to
become a major contender in the battle over the intelligence system. During
the war, the Bureau had provided organizational and managerial consultation
to various armed services intelligence programs and had worked during
1944–1945 to establish an intelligence office in the Department of State. By
the time of Truman’s succession, the
Bureau was considering the full range of postwar intelligence problems. It
was beginning to draft guidelines for national intelligence organization,
and in an organizational study of the Department of State prepared for
Secretary James Byrnes had urged
greater emphasis on intelligence.
By September 20, 1945, the Budget Bureau had its package of proposals ready
and presented the President with two documents, both of which he signed
immediately. The first was an order that abolished OSS and transferred its Research and Analysis Branch to the
Department of State and the remainder of the organization (primarily its
clandestine intelligence and covert action elements) to the War Department.
As signed by the President, it became Executive Order 9621. (Document 14) The second document was Truman’s letter to Secretary of State
Byrnes, making him responsible
for taking the lead in establishing an interdepartmental group, headed by
the Department of State, to develop “a comprehensive and coordinated foreign
intelligence program” for his approval. (Document
15)
The third element in the Bureau of the Budget’s package was the study on
“Intelligence and Security Activities in the Government,” also dated
September 20 (see the Supplement) but not formally sent to Truman until October 31. (Document 38) It presented a detailed set of
guidelines for a national intelligence organization. In general, the
approach was to emphasize the coordination of existing information
resources; to urge the use of existing intelligence components of cabinet
departments as building blocks for a new intelligence system; and to
downgrade the importance of separate, centralized agencies (although the
Bureau recognized that some subjects of common concern might require a
separate organization). The Bureau had a strong conviction that a peacetime
intelligence organization should be centered in the Department of State and
to this end encouraged the Department to create an intelligence component
and to establish itself as the “lead agency” in forming the national
intelligence community. In these last two endeavors, the Bureau had to
contend with resistance in the Department of State where, with some notable
exceptions (e.g., Under Secretary of State Dean
Acheson), there was little enthusiasm for either
enterprise.
Within hours of the signing of the Executive Order, the Joint Chiefs told the
Bureau of the Budget that their own paper and recommendations on intelligence had been forwarded to
the Secretaries of War and Navy for transmission to the President. They were
informed that the order had already been signed.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation was also involved in the intelligence
debate. In 1941, at President Roosevelt’s direction, the FBI became responsible for clandestine intelligence and
counterintelligence in the Western Hemisphere and for security liaison with
Western Hemisphere governments. This responsibility was reconfirmed by
Roosevelt in 1942 and the FBI’s jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere
made exclusive (except for military and naval intelligence collection by
service attaches). Thus, the OSS was
debarred from clandestine intelligence operations in Latin America.
In December 1944, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover proposed a future
“world-wide intelligence system” to be run by the FBI along the lines of its Latin American operations. By
September 1945, with major decisions on intelligence impending, Hoover sought to maintain the FBI’s Western Hemisphere activity and, if
possible, to win support for the FBI plan.
The attitudes of the Department of State were of particular importance to
the FBI, since the Bureau’s intelligence
work in Latin America was generally well regarded in the Department. (Document 5)
President Truman and Harold Smith did not agree with this view.
Smith discussed the subject with
Truman, who reacted negatively to
the wide-ranging U.S. intelligence activities in Latin America, “and
commented that if we continue our present attitude toward Latin American
countries in this respect we will not be in a position to complain very much
when they send their intelligence people into the United States. He then
said with considerable vigor that he was ‘very much against building up a
gestapo.’” (Roosevelt Library, Papers
of Harold Smith, Box 4, Conferences
with President Truman 1945, May 4,
1945)
Two months later, the subject arose again, and Truman, while approving continued funding for 6 months for
the use of the FBI in South America, added
“that he, himself, had some question, from the standpoint of good neighbor
relations, about our having the FBI in South
America.” (Ibid., July 6, 1945)
In September, Truman told Smith “that he thought the FBI should be cut back as soon as possible to
at least the prewar level; that he proposed to confine the FBI to the United States; and that he had in
mind a quite different plan for intelligence.” (Ibid., September 5, 1945;
see the Supplement)
Nonetheless, the FBI continued to press its
case for the “World-Wide Intelligence Service.” (Documents
7, 8, 10, 19, and 43) Because
Truman had such strong views on
the subject, Hoover’s efforts were
ultimately unsuccessful. By the time the struggle between the Department of
State and the military services over the new system had begun in earnest,
the FBI apparently was no longer a serious
contender. There continued, however, to be strong sentiment in parts of the
Department of State—especially the Office of American Republic Affairs—for a
continuation of the FBI’s Western Hemisphere
role and this issue was revived the following year when the Director of
Central Intelligence sought to establish exclusive control over all
clandestine intelligence.
When Truman told Smith in their September 5 conversation
that “he had in mind a quite different plan for intelligence” he implied
that he had his own blueprint. On September 13, in another conversation with
Smith, “The President again
commented that he has in mind a broad intelligence service attached to the
President’s office.” (See the Supplement) There is no record, however, that
Truman ever conveyed to his
advisers his ideas for an intelligence system, and the debate in the fall of
1945 became a contest between the Department of State and the Bureau of the
Budget on one hand and the Army and Navy on the other.
By early October 1945, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal was the government’s most energetic advocate
of a national intelligence structure. At least two factors seem to have
precipitated his active involvement. One was the looming issue of armed
forces unification; although national intelligence organization was a
distinct problem, many discussions of military unification raised the
question of the future intelligence system. For example, the study that
Forrestal himself commissioned on
unification, the Eberstadt report, had
argued for centralization of intelligence.
The second factor that influenced Forrestal was the speed with which decisions on intelligence
were being taken and in particular the dominant role of the Bureau of the
Budget and the Department of State. The impact of these developments was
magnified by the failure of the Joint Chiefs’ proposals to reach the White
House before the President signed Executive Order 9621 and the letter to the
Secretary of State.
At the end of September, Forrestal and
Secretary of War Robert B. Patterson
had sent the JCS proposal to Byrnes, as coordinator of intelligence
planning, saying they assumed he would send it on to the President. By
October 10, Forrestal was trying to
set up a dinner with the State, War and Navy intelligence chiefs and
J. Edgar Hoover, to discuss a
national intelligence agency. On October 13, Forrestal proposed to Patterson that they should push the JCS plan “vigorously at the White House.” (Document 26) On the same day, he wrote to Byrnes to underscore the importance of the
intelligence problem, and to suggest that it be taken up in the periodic
meetings of the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy. (Document 27)
The Army was also active. Late in October, on instructions from Patterson, Assistant Secretary of War for
Air Robert A. Lovett organized a
study group to consider the future intelligence structure. The Lovett Board report, November 3, 1945, marked
an important step in the decision-making process on national intelligence.
(Document 42) Although the committee prepared
its report in little more than a week, it heard testimony and received
written submissions from a number of persons who had had significant
experience in the intelligence field, which may have given added weight and
authority to its recommendations.
The Lovett Board acknowledged that it
inclined toward the JCS proposals, but
modified them in certain important respects. In part due to General John Magruder’s influence, the
group departed from the Joint Chiefs’ plan by recommending that a future
central intelligence agency should have an independent budget rather than be
financed by allocations from the State, War, and Navy Departments, and that
it should be the sole agency for clandestine intelligence collection.
Lovett’s group also recommended a
strengthened role for the Departmental intelligence agencies on the
intelligence advisory board proposed in the JCS plan.
Thomas F. Troy, in his study entitled Donovanand the CIA: A History of the Establishment of the Central
Intelligence Agency, concludes that the “Lovett report did for Secretary Patterson what the Eberstadt report had done for Forrestal: it provided an independent
justification for the Secretary’s endorsement of the JCS plan.” (page 319) Meanwhile, the Department of State had
not taken the lead on intelligence, as directed by Truman. Indeed, Byrnes’ two key subordinates in this field, Alfred McCormack, the Secretary’s Special
Assistant for Research and Intelligence, and Donald S. Russell, Assistant Secretary of State for
Administration, “had clearly come to a parting of the ways on what should be
done internally; without internal cohesion and growth, State could hardly
play a strong leader role.” (Ibid.)
Another problem was that the military thought that Colonel McCormack was simply too slow. McCormack’s style was deliberate, and he
made a conscious choice early on to establish the State Department’s own
intelligence organization before turning his full attention to the
interagency theater. In part, the decision was dictated by practicality; it
would be difficult for the Department of State to preside over intelligence
planning if it had no intelligence component of its own. Moreover, McCormack faced the deadline set by
Executive Order 9621—the interim arrangements had to be wound up and a
successor unit established in the Department of State by the last day of
1945, a problem compounded by Congressional difficulties over
appropriations.
But by the end of October there was already a rising tide of opposition to
McCormack’s plan for a
centralized Department of State intelligence component, with Russell organizing the opposition of the
geographic and policy offices. Moreover, Russell and McCormack
were at odds on the interagency organization. Russell had proposed to Byrnes an interagency structure that was considerably
different from what McCormack was slowly designing and
close enough to the JCS plan to make
Forrestal say they were basically
the same. Russell had complained to
Byrnes when McCormack did not respond to a memorandum
he had sent McCormack enclosing a
copy of his plan. At the October 30 meeting of the Three Secretaries,
Forrestal was authorized to
discuss the JCS plan in detail with
Russell, suggesting that he had
become a channel between Byrnes and
Forrestal.
On October 31, 1945, McCormack wrote
to Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to
the Commander in Chief, expressing his view “that this Department should
formulate its own plans before going ahead with the interdepartmental group.
That position has been acceptable to the Army and, I think, also to the
Navy, and the Army has had a Board functioning for the purpose of
determining its position on the post-war intelligence problem.” (Document 39)
Leahy and McCormack conferred on October 31 and the letter presumably
followed up on their conversation. Leahy’s diary for that date contains the following entry:
“By direction of the President, discussed with Colonel McCormack of the State Department the
formation of a Central Intelligence Service. Colonel McCormack has a very different plan from
that proposed by the J.C.S.” (Library of
Congress, Manuscript Division, Papers of William D. Leahy, Diaries 1945, page 182)
Beyond this brief reference, no record of the discussion between Leahy and McCormack has been found, nor any record of Truman’s instruction to Leahy. Moreover, there is no specific
evidence of what prompted Truman’s
inquiry about McCormack’s efforts. In
any case, the Leahy-McCormack exchange indicates that Truman had become concerned by the pace of
developments. An even stronger White House intervention occurred a week
later, when a memorandum was put before the President that said that “The
only apparently promising prospect of getting useful action” was for “The
President to call a conference with the Secretaries of State, War and Navy,
and direct them to work together in the preparation of a plan for the
establishment of a Central Intelligence Service,” to be completed not later
than December 31. (Document 44)
The memorandum carries no indication of addressee or authorship (although
Leahy is clearly a strong
candidate for the latter), but it became a Presidential directive when
Truman sent it to his secretary
with the annotation “Set this up.” The minutes of the Three Secretaries’
meeting on November 14 (Document 45) show that
Forrestal and Byrnes were aware of the memorandum and
understood it as a directive. Byrnes’
comments at his November 27 staff committee meeting (Document 50) suggest that the President had told him some action
should be taken on intelligence and that Leahy had been given responsibility.
Although there was still some distance to go (and the contemplated meeting of
the President with the Three Secretaries was never held), the November 7 directive broke the impasse
over intelligence planning. In effect, it overrode the President’s September
20 letter with a new instruction ordering the Secretaries to prepare a plan
jointly. Admiral Leahy’s role also
weighed in favor of the Army and Navy, especially the latter. Moreover, by
specifying a plan for a “Central Intelligence Service” the directive was
weighed against the Budget Bureau/State Department side of the debate.
By mid-November, McCormack had a
Department of State plan ready for consideration. (Document 46) Following closely the Budget Bureau proposals of 2
months earlier, the plan proposed a dual structure for coordinating foreign
intelligence and security intelligence, based on a complex system of
committees. The plan did not rule out the establishment of centralized
agencies to perform common functions; in fact, it envisaged that certain
common services would have to be performed centrally. But McCormack’s plan tended to regard
centralization as a last resort, with the burden of proof on those arguing
for it. This underlying attitude, which saw coordination of existing
activity as the essential problem, separated it fundamentally from the
Lovett Board/JCS blueprints. In one other respect, too, they
were fundamentally at odds. McCormack
took seriously the injunction in the President’s September 20 letter to
Byrnes to “take the lead in
developing a comprehensive and coordinated intelligence program for all
Federal agencies” and proposed arrangements that would put the Department of
State in firm control of the foreign intelligence structure.
At this point, Byrnes was beginning to
have second thoughts about the Budget Bureau guidelines. In his meeting with
the Secretaries of War and Navy on November 14, the day before McCormack formally presented his plan,
Byrnes had already expressed
doubts about the Budget Bureau approach and appeared to endorse the idea of
a central intelligence agency.
By early December, McCormack’s plan
had undergone two revisions in an effort to meet objections. On December 3,
Byrnes sent Patterson and Forrestal the second revision of McCormack’s “Annex I” which set forth a proposed basic
structure for the national intelligence system. (Supplement) In many
respects the thrust of McCormack’s
original proposals was not altered, but there were concessions to Army and
Navy concerns. Even in the first (November 28) revision (see the Supplement)
McCormack had replaced the
original two coordinating authorities (for foreign and security
intelligence) with a single National Intelligence Authority (NIA) consisting of the Secretary of State as
chairman and the Secretaries of War and Navy.
Other revisions provided that while the Executive Secretary (the chief
operating officer of the Authority) would be named by the Secretary of
State, the appointment would be subject to the approval of the Secretaries of War and Navy. In
addition, a new provision spelled out that the Executive Secretariat would
“Act as the executive for the Authority in carrying out such program and all
operating plans approved by the Authority,” phrasing that emphasized the
executive and operational as distinct from the coordination and deliberative
aspects of the plan. There were other changes as well that presumably were
intended to stress the same point—the right to inspect departmental
intelligence operations was added to the NIA’s powers and the language about the NIA’s power to determine which intelligence functions should be
conducted centrally was strengthened.
More important, perhaps, than these changes was Byrnes’ covering memorandum, which defended the basic
structural proposal while suggesting that in practice there would be
possibilities for development along lines presumably attractive to the Army
and Navy. Thus, Byrnes noted: “The
Plan does not preclude any centralized intelligence operations…which may
prove feasible and desirable as the program of the Authority is developed.”
And he added: “With respect to clandestine activities (‘secret intelligence’
and ‘counter-espionage’) I understand the prevailing opinion to be that such
operations, if they are to be conducted, might well be under a central
agency; and the Plan sets up machinery for study of that problem in detail
and for development of specific operating plans in those fields.” (Document 54)
However significant these modifications may have been from the Department of
State perspective, it is doubtful that they even began to meet the armed
services’ concerns. The elaborate committee structure still remained, as did
the explanatory comment that said that “Such Committees will be the primary
means by which the Authority will carry out its missions.” Moreover, despite
the positive references to centralized operations, Byrnes’ memorandum made a distinction
between a single central intelligence agency for the performance of agreed
common functions and the centralization of agreed intelligence activities.
The former was rejected because it was too conspicuous and would compete and
overlap with existing intelligence agencies. The language used in connection
with the latter suggests that the preferred approach was “either (1) by
vesting responsibility for a particular field in a single existing agency or
(2) by bringing together the working units of several agencies on a subject
into a joint staff under direction of the Authority.” Both approaches
differed from the ideas underpinning the Joint Chiefs/Lovett Board proposals.
Finally, the revised McCormack
proposals and the covering memorandum still provided for Department of State
predominance in the intelligence field. For the armed services, this
remained a major stumbling block.
There was more fine-tuning of the McCormack proposals and by mid-December the indicators were
somewhat mixed. The War Department seemed to be wavering on some points and
to be exploring possibilities of compromise. In so doing, the Army was
perhaps reflecting a greater awareness than the other participants that the
Strategic Services Unit (SSU)—the name under
which the OSS apparatus for foreign secret
intelligence had been lodged in the War Department—was a diminishing asset
as time went by and uncertainty about the future led to a loss of
experienced personnel. (See paragraph 2, Document
59.)
There were no indications that the Navy had softened its position. Of the
three Cabinet Secretaries involved, Forrestal seems to have had the strongest convictions about
intelligence. Moreover, the Navy had an ally at the White House in the
person of Admiral Leahy. Byrnes was aware of this. At his November
27 Staff Committee meeting, he had said “it was necessary to bear in mind
that whatever we propose will have to be ‘sold’ to the President. It will be
turned over by the President to Admiral
Leahy, who has strong views on the matter and… we must,
therefore, seek to avoid unnecessary questions of jurisdictional conflict
with the Army and the Navy.” (Document 50)
As 1945 drew to a close, the debate was plainly deadlocked. After the
December 26 meeting of the Three Secretaries, McCormack had spoken to Harold
Smith of “the apparent hopelessness of proceeding without
further direction from the President.” (Document
65) McCormack said as much
again after his December 27 meeting with the War and Navy Department
representatives, telling them at the end of the session that “matters were
at an impasse and that he felt the question would have to be decided by the
three Secretaries and by the President.” (Document
65)
The White House in fact had become involved again. The documentation is
sketchy and neither Truman’s Memoirs nor Admiral
Leahy’s diaries provides any details. But toward the end of
December, Truman apparently set in
motion the developments that would break the deadlock, by seeking the advice
of Rear Admiral Sidney Souers,
Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence. (Document
64) Additional details are in Troy, Donovan and the
CIA, pages 339–340; and a letter from Souers to Montague,
August 13, 1970, in Central Intelligence Agency Records, No. 206102, Job
84–T00286R, Box 2, Folder 12.
During this period, one element of the problem was Secretary Byrnes’ availability in Washington.
Byrnes had been away for meetings
in Moscow from mid-December until almost the end of the month and he was due
to leave for London on January 7, 1946. This time constraint was partly
responsible for forcing the pace of decisionmaking on the intelligence issue
at the end of 1945 and in the first week of the new year. On Sunday, January
6, 1946, Byrnes met with Forrestal and Under Secretary of War Kenneth Royall at his apartment in the Shoreham Hotel.
According to Arthur B. Darling’s recounting of “the
tale still going the rounds,” Forrestal told Byrnes: “Jimmy, we like you, but we don’t
like your plan. Just think what might happen if another William
Jennings Bryan were to succeed you in the State Department.”
(Darling, The Central
Intelligence Agency: An Instrument of Government, to 1950
(University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1990), page
70)
In an oral history interview almost 9 years after the event, Admiral Souers was less colorful. He
recalled simply that Forrestal and
Royall went to Byrnes’ apartment on Sunday afternoon and
told him that they were prepared to submit their own plan for intelligence
to the President, whether or not it had Department of State endorsement.
According to Souers’ account,
Byrnes approved the plan with one
or two minor word changes and it was submitted to the President the next
day. (Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman,
Post-Presidential Memoirs, Sidney W.
Souers interview with William Hillman
and David M. Noyes, December 15, 1954)
No contemporary record of the January 6 meeting has been found and none of
the participants put down his recollections at a later date. What seems to
have been presented to Byrnes was a
letter, dated January 6 and signed by Royall and Forrestal.
(Document 66) The letter rejected the
Department of State plan and proposed two alternatives. The first was a
modification of the Lovett Board
proposal, with the central intelligence agency “at the outset” to “be housed
for administrative purposes in the State Department,” headed by an official
who would be or become a State Department official “unless the President
otherwise determines”, and staffed with personnel detailed from the three
Departments, i.e., it would not be an independent agency with its own
budget.
If this were not acceptable, the letter proposed as a “possible alternative”
acceptance of the Department of State plan as modified up to that point,
with certain further modifications: the Executive Secretary would be
appointed by the National Intelligence Authority and would be or become a
Department of State official unless the President decided otherwise; the
Executive Secretary would have no other Department of State duties; a
specific provision that “evaluation and synthesis on a national level,
direction of foreign espionage and counterespionage, and appropriate
dissemination” were central functions; elimination of the provision that
committees would be the primary means by which the Authority would operate;
and provision for a single advisory group, to have the membership and
functions recommended by the Lovett
Board.
The letter’s sparse marginalia suggest that Byrnes worked through the first alternative, making only
minor changes. The proposal thus approved was basically the JCS plan of September 19, 1945 (Document 13), and thus was closer to the Navy
position, which had always rejected
the independent budget concept, than the Lovett Board proposal. It was also close to the draft
directive that Souers had sent
Clark Clifford on December 27.
The only genuinely new elements in the January 6 letter were the ties
between the Department of State and the new intelligence agency: the
provision that it would be “housed for administrative purposes in the State
Department” and that its chief executive would be, or become, a State
Department official. But these provisions had disappeared by the time the
proposal was signed by Byrnes,
Royall, and Forrestal and sent to the White House the
next day. (Document 68) Presumably Byrnes dropped them during the Sunday
afternoon discussion.
The letter from the three Secretaries to the President was received at the
White House on January 8. Admiral
Souers, and probably Clark
Clifford, immediately started reworking the draft directive.
(Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Papers of William D. Leahy, Leahy Diaries, January 8, 1946; see also
footnote 2, Document 68)
Budget Director Harold Smith seems to
have been unaware of the Sunday meeting. But on Monday, January 7, he saw
Byrnes briefly before the
latter’s departure for London, probably about the State Department’s
internal battle over how to organize its intelligence component. At their
meeting, Smith learned “about a
proposed Executive Order disposing of the matter of the organization of
intelligence activities in the Government.” (Document
69)
On Tuesday, January 8, Smith
telephoned the President’s secretary, Matthew Connelly,
and asked that Truman not sign the
order. The following morning, Connelly telephoned to
tell Smith that the President had
called a meeting on intelligence which was about to convene. Smith hurried across the street to join the
meeting. Besides the President and Smith, the other participants were the President’s advisers,
“and several persons from the Navy Department.” (Document
69; see also Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Papers of
William D. Leahy, Diaries,
January 8, 1946)
Smith’s account (written in the third
person) added that “the War Department and the State Department were not
represented. The implication of most of the statements made at the meeting
was that intelligence could not be handled in the State Department because
that Department was too weak.”
Smith by his own account “took the
part of the devil’s advocate,” arguing that “when a subject is left to three
departments to divide up among themselves, the worst possible compromise
results” and that “in all that he had heard on the subject there did not
seem to be even a clear understanding of what kind of intelligence was being
discussed.” Leahy commented curtly
in his diary that “The Director of the Budget offered many objections that evidently were instigated by the
Department of State.” (Ibid.)
Truman’s account of what is probably
the same meeting (although it could possibly be a January 12 White House
meeting on the same subject) is in the second volume of his memoirs. (Memoirs: Years of Trial and Hope, page 57)
On January 12, 1946, there was another White House meeting and a revision of
the January 8 version of the draft directive. Leahy records that “The President conferred with his
advisers, including Judge Rosenman
and the Director of the Budget on the establishment of a Central
Intelligence Agency.” (Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Papers of
William D. Leahy, Diaries 1946,
page 4) A copy of the draft directive in the Truman Library has revisions that are apparently in
Souers’ hand. The January 12
version simply established the Central Intelligence Agency rather than
leaving the National Intelligence Authority to do so, as the January 8 draft
provided. Consequently, paragraph 4 of the January 8 version, which made the
submission of an organizational plan the first responsibility of the
Authority and the Intelligence Advisory Board, was eliminated and the
subsequent paragraphs renumbered. In old paragraph 5(a), an additional
sentence was added at the end: “Full use shall be made of the staff and
facilities of the established departmental intelligence agencies.” Finally,
in old paragraph 7, the last sentence was changed to read: In the conduct of
its activities the National Intelligence Authority will be responsible for
fully protecting intelligence sources and methods.” A note on the revised
draft indicated it should be cleared with the Bureau of the Budget and
Attorney General Clark. (See the
Supplement)
On January 18, Assistant Solicitor General Harold Judson
had a 3-hour session at the White House with the drafters of the
intelligence directive. Whether this was the only such session is not known
but the version considered at the January 18 meeting differs in several
respects from the January 12 text, suggesting that the White House may have
worked with the Justice Department (and others) to develop the new draft.
The January 18 version, with handwritten changes made at the meeting that
day, is attached to a memorandum from “M.E.H.” to
Clark Clifford, January 18, 1946.
(See the Supplement)
The January 18 text was no longer an executive order but a Presidential
letter of instruction to the Secretaries of State, War, and the Navy. The
language concerning the NIA’s powers seems
slightly weaker; the draft no longer establishes a Central Intelligence
Agency but instead authorizes the three Secretaries to “designate persons
from your respective Departments who shall collectively form a Central
Intelligence Group and who shall, under the supervision of a Director of
Central Intelligence, assist the National Intelligence Authority.”
(Ibid.)
Judson returned to the Justice Department with a
marked-up version of the January 18 draft which included further changes
made during the meeting. He met immediately with FBI Assistant Director D.M.
Ladd, who was unhappy with the provisions demarcating
responsibility between the FBI and the
foreign intelligence machinery. (Memorandum from Ladd to Hoover,
January 18, 1946; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 263,
Records of the Central Intelligence Agency, Troy
Papers, FBI Documents; see the
Supplement)
Among other problems, Ladd was
concerned about paragraph 9. In the January 18 version this had originally
read:
“This directive shall apply to all foreign intelligence activities
carried on by the Federal Government outside the continental limits
of the United States and its possessions. Nothing herein shall be
construed to affect the responsibilities of agencies not within your
Departments in relation to their intelligence activities inside the
continental limits of the United States and its possessions, with
respect to the national internal security.”
The White House meeting had dropped the first sentence, leaving the last as
the complete paragraph. (Ibid.)
Ladd protested that this and other
changes “would leave no protection against this new national intelligence
authority expanding into full investigations in the domestic field.”
Judson replied that “the President did not desire
to replace or duplicate the FBI and that
those drawing up this directive had no intention of doing so.” Ladd countered that “these men may be gone
and others who take their place are the ones who will be interpreting the
phraseology here.” (Ibid.)
Finally, Judson drafted a new paragraph 9: “Nothing
herein shall be construed to authorize the making of investigations,
otherwise than as provided by existing law and Presidential directives,
inside the continental limits of the United States and its possessions.”
(Ibid.)
Ladd was satisfied with this
formulation, but when Judson telephoned Clark to clear it “the Attorney General
suggested milder language in that the President had just this morning
advised members of the Cabinet that because of the strikes, he was so
burdened with work he desired them to avoid conflicts which would
necessitate his becoming involved for decisions. The Attorney General,
therefore, thought that this was not a good time to interject such blunt
language as here suggested and he suggested the phraseology, ‘Nothing herein
shall be construed as affecting the present jurisdiction of any United
States agencies inside the continental limits of the United States or its
possessions.’” (Ibid.)
Ladd thought that this was “a negative
statement which merely meant that although the Bureau would not be precluded
from conducting the same investigative work in which it is now engaged, it
would not prevent this new outfit
from duplicating and coming into the same field.” (Ibid.)
Ladd’s account does not mention any
further exchange with the Attorney General, but notes that
Judson concurred in the FBI view. That afternoon, Judson
telephoned the text of his proposed paragraph 9 to Clark Clifford’s office and with a minor
variation in word order, it remained in the directive as finally issued.
(Ibid.; Memorandum from M.E.H. to Clark Clifford, January 18, 1946; see the
Supplement)
At this point, the directive was close to its final form. There were more
adjustments of language over the next few days, and on January 22 the
Presidential letter of instruction to the Secretaries of State, War, and the
Navy was signed by Truman, bringing a
national intelligence system into being. (Document
71)
1. Memorandum From the Assistant to the Counselor (Doyle) to Secretary of State ByrnesSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/8–2145.
Secret.Washington, August 21, 1945.
SUBJECT
Preliminary Survey of Legal Problems Involved in Establishing New
Intelligence AgencyFuture reliance upon the First War Powers Act to support an executive
order transferring functions among agencies is probably illegal. Section
1 of Title I (the reorganization Title) contains the proviso: “That the
authority by this Title granted shall be exercised only in matters
relating to the conduct of the present war.” It is difficult to see how
any reorganization at this time could meet this requirement.Even if this hurdle could be surmounted, a transfer which depended
upon the First War Powers Act for validity would be short-lived. Title I
is to remain in force during the war and “for six months after the
termination of the war, or until such earlier time as the Congress by
concurrent resolution or the President may designate.” And upon
termination of Title I, all
agencies, departments and offices “shall exercise the same functions,
duties, and powers as heretofore or as hereafter by law may be provided,
any authorization of the President under this Title to the contrary
notwithstanding.”OSS can be abolished by the President
at any time. It was established by Presidential letter of July 11, 1941,
under the name of the Office of the Coordinator of Information. On June
13, 1942, by Presidential Military Order it was renamed OSS and transferred to the jurisdiction of
the Joint Chiefs.If OSS were abolished, its functions
would revert to the Joint Chiefs, or to the Army and Navy separately.
The present functions of OSS are (a) to
collect and analyze such strategic information as may be required by the
Joint Chiefs, and (b) to plan and operate such special services as may
be directed by the Joint Chiefs.
Recommendation: The proposed new intelligence agency,
answerable to the Secretaries of State, War and Navy, should be created by
executive order, based upon the Constitutional authority of the President as
Chief Executive and Commander in Chief. No mention of the First War Powers
Act should be made. The general theory underlying the order should be that
State, War, and Navy all possess inherent and traditional authority to
engage in intelligence operations, and that it is no usurpation of
Congressional authority to amalgamate these functions in a single agency
over which the three Departments will continue to exercise an equal measure
of control.
2. Memorandum From E.R. Baker of the
Bureau of the Budget Staff to the Assistant Director for Estimates
(Martin)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG
51, Records of the Office of Management and Budget, Series 39.19, OSS Organization and Functions, Box 67. No
classification marking.Washington, August 24, 1945.
SUBJECT
Policy question with respect to Office of Strategic Services
Mr. Ramsey’s attached memorandum points out what appears
to be an ambiguity in instructions with respect to O.S.S.In the attached memorandum to
Baker, August 23 (see the Supplement),
G.E. Ramsey, Jr., referred to “The Post V-J Day
Supplement to Report of Reconversion Program Committee,” which
recommended continuation of the OSS
pending development of a permanent plan for foreign intelligence, except
for “operational” activities which should be transferred to the War
Department.
It seems to me that the Reconversion Committee’s general directive is sound
and that the examiners should use this as a guide in testing the details of
the agency’s proposed post V-J Day program. In doing this, however, and in
attempting to reconcile any differences which may exist between the agency’s
submission and the examiner’s point of view, the Bureau’s policy will be
evident to the agency and thus this action might be construed to be in
conflict with the admonition printed at the top of the “Post V-J Day
Supplement to Report of Reconversion Program Committee”.
Mr. Ramsey has just shown me a copy of a memorandum of
this date from Weldon Cooper to
Hoelscher,Not
found. stating that the Director met this morning with Judge
RosenmanSamuel I.
Rosenman, Special Counsel to the President. and Mr.
SnyderJohn W. Snyder, Director of
the Office of War Mobilization an Reconversion. and that they
agree to constitute themselves as a reconversion committee to meet weekly
and to move ahead in the disposal of war agency functions under the War
Powers Act. It seems that this committee agreed on transferring the foreign
information activities of OWI to the State
Department and an Executive order to accomplish this is to be ready by
Monday. Apparently as a result of the formulation of this committee,
Dave Robinson and Stone have agreed that research and analysis of OSS should be transferred to the State
Department and the Director has concurred in this conclusion. We are
informed that an Executive order to accomplish this is to be ready by
Monday, August 27. Presumably secret intelligence and counterintelligence
activities would remain with OSS and that
agency would continue to function, at least for the present, in this field
as the agent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have tried to get both
Stone and
Robinson by phone but find that they are both away;
Dave will probably not be in until tomorrow and
Stone will not be here until
Monday. You may wish to speak to one of them with respect to this.
3. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Strategic Services
(Donovan) to
President TrumanSource: Truman Library, Miscellaneous Material Filed by the
Administrative Asst. in the President’s Office, Office of Strategic
Services. Secret.Washington, August 25, 1945.
I enclose copy of letter I have sent to the Director of the Budget, advising
him that the liquidation of OSS should be
complete about January 1, 1946, and
pointing out the necessity of designating an agency to take over its
functions and its assets.
Also, I enclose a Statement of Principles which I believe should govern the
establishment of a central intelligence agency.
This matter you have stated you wished to explore with me before coming to a
decision. I hope you may find time to discuss it before I leave for Germany
on the War Crimes Case within the next two weeks.
Donovan
Attachment 1
Washington, August 25, 1945.
Letter From the Director of the Office of Strategic
Services (Donovan) to the
Director of the Bureau of the Budget (Smith)
My Dear Mr. Smith: In answer to your communication of
August 23, 1945Not found. There is an August
25 letter on the same subject. (Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–801, Item 27) See the Supplement. in
reference to further reduction of personnel, we are working under what
is in effect a liquidation budget. Within its provisions we have taken
steps to terminate many of our operational (as distinct from
intelligence) activities and to reduce the remaining parts to a size
consistent with present obligations in the Far East, in the occupation
of Germany and Austria, and in the maintenance of missions in the Middle
East and on the Asiatic and European continents.
As our liquidation proceeds it will become increasingly difficult to
exercise our functions so that we have found it necessary to set up a
liquidating committee with procedures and controls to provide for the
gradual elimination of our services in step with the orderly reduction
of personnel.See also the letter from
Donovan to Smith, August 29, in the
Supplement. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 51,
Records of the Office of Management and Budget, Series 39.19, OSS Organization and
Function)
It is our estimate, however, with the strictest economy of manpower and
of funds the effectiveness of OSS as a
War Agency will end as of January 1, or at the latest February 1, 1946,
at which time liquidation should be completed. At that point I wish to
return to private life. Therefore, in considering the disposition to be
made of the assets created by OSS, I
speak as a private citizen concerned with the future of his country.
In our Government today there is no permanent agency to take over the
functions which OSS will have then
ceased to perform. These functions while carried on as incident to the war are in reality essential in
the effective discharge by this nation of its responsibilities in the
organization and maintenance of the peace.
Since last November, I have pointed out the immediate necessity of
setting up such an agency to take over the valuable assets created by
OSS. Among these assets was the
establishment for the first time in our nation’s history of a foreign
secret intelligence service which reported information as seen through
American eyes. As an integral and inseparable part of this service there
is a group of specialists to analyze and evaluate the material for
presentation to those who determine national policy.
It is not easy to set up a modern intelligence system. It is more
difficult to do so in time of peace than in time of war.
It is important therefore that it be done before the War Agency has
disappeared so that profit may be made of its experience and “know how”
in deciding how the new agency may best be conducted.
I have already submitted a plan for the establishment of a centralized
system.Apparent reference to Donovan’s memorandum to Roosevelt, November 18, 1944 (“The
Donovan Plan”), printed
in Troy, Donovan and the CIA, pp.
445–447. However, the discussion of that proposal indicated
the need of an agreement upon certain fundamental principles before a
detailed plan is formulated. If those concerned could agree upon the
principles within which such a system should be established, acceptance
of a common plan would be more easily achieved.
Accordingly, I attach a statement of principles, the soundness of which I
believe has been established by study and by practical experience.
Sincerely,
William J. Donovan
Attachment 2
Paper by the Director of the Office of Strategic
Services (Donovan)
Principles—The Soundness Of Which It Is Believed Has
Been Established By Our Own Experience And A First-Hand Study Of The
Systems Of Other Nations—Which Should Govern The Establishment Of A
Centralized United States Foreign Intelligence System.
The formulation of national policy both in its political and military
aspects is influenced and determined by knowledge (or ignorance) of the
aims, capabilities, intentions and policies of other nations.
All major powers except the United States have had for a long time past
permanent worldwide intelligence services, reporting directly to the
highest echelons of their Governments. Prior to the present war, the
United States had no foreign secret intelligence service. It never has
had and does not now have a coordinated intelligence system.
The defects and dangers of this situation have been generally recognized.
Adherence to the following would remedy this defect in peace as well as
war so that American policy could be based upon information obtained
through its own sources on foreign intentions, capabilities and
developments as seen and interpreted by Americans.
That each Department of Government should have its own
intelligence bureau for the collection and processing of such
informational material as it finds necessary in the actual
performance of its functions and duties. Such a bureau should be
under the sole control of the Department head and should not be
encroached upon or impaired by the functions granted any other
Governmental intelligence agency. Because secret intelligence covers
all fields and because of possible embarrassment, no executive
department should be permitted to engage in secret intelligence but
in a proper case call upon the central agency for service.That in addition to the intelligence unit for each Department
there should be established a national centralized foreign
intelligence agency which should have the authority: To serve all Departments of the Government.To procure and obtain political, economic, psychological,
sociological, military and other information which may bear
upon the national interest and which has been collected by
the different Governmental Departments or agencies.To collect when necessary supplemental information either
at its own instance or at the request of any Governmental
Department by open or secret means from other and various
sources.To integrate, analyze, process and disseminate, to
authorized Governmental agencies and officials, intelligence
in the form of strategic interpretive studies.That such an agency should be prohibited from carrying on
clandestine activities within the United States and should be
forbidden the exercise of any police functions either at home or
abroad.That since the nature of its work requires it to have status it
should be independent of any Department of the Government (since it
is obliged to serve all and must be free of the natural bias of an
operating Department). It should be under a Director, appointed by
the President, and be administered under Presidential direction, or
in the event of a General Manager being appointed, should be
established in the Executive Office of the President, under his
direction.That subject to the approval of the President or the General
Manager, the policy of such a service should be determined by the
Director with the advice and
assistance of a Board on which the Secretaries of State, War, Navy
and Treasury should be represented.That this agency, as the sole agency for secret intelligence,
should be authorized, in the foreign field only, to carry on
services such as espionage, counter-espionage and those special
operations (including morale and psychological) designed to
anticipate and counter any attempted penetration and subversion of
our national security by enemy action.That such a service should have an independent budget granted
directly by the Congress.That it should be authorized to have its own system of codes and
should be furnished facilities by Departments of Government proper
and necessary for the performance of its duties.That such a service should include in its staff specialists
(within Governmental Departments, civil and military, and in private
life) professionally trained in analysis of information and
possessing a high degree of linguistic, regional or functional
competence, to analyze, coordinate and evaluate incoming
information, to make special intelligence reports, and to provide
guidance for the collecting branches of the agency.That in time of war or unlimited national emergency, all programs
of such agency in areas of actual and projected military operations
shall be coordinated with military plans, and shall be subject to
the approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or if there be a
consolidation of the armed services, under the supreme commander.
Parts of such programs which are to be executed in the theater of
military operations shall be subject to control of the military
commander.
4. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Administrative Management of
the Bureau of the Budget (Stone) to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget
(Smith)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 51, Records of the Office of Management and Budget,
Series 39.19, OSS Organization and
Functions. No classification marking.Washington, August 27, 1945.
SUBJECT
Termination of the Office of Strategic Services and the Transfer of
its Activities to the State and War Departments
This memorandum is for your use in discussing with Judge Rosenman and Mr. Snyder the question of the disposition of
OSS and its activities.
The Problem
OSS was established by Military Order of June
13, 1942,See Troy, Donovan and the
CIA, p. 427. and was placed under the “jurisdiction” of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Under the terms of this Order, OSS was directed to:Collect and analyze such strategic information as may be required
by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff.Plan and operate such special services as may be directed by the
United States Joint Chiefs of Staff.
With the close of the war, the question arises as to the disposition of
OSS as an agency and the continuation or
termination of its activities.
Discussion
During the war OSS has engaged in two broad
kinds of activities: (1) the production of intelligence, represented chiefly
by the Research and Analysis Branch; and (2) activities of an operational
nature known within OSS as Strategic Service
Operation.
If our previous recommendation to the State Department for the establishment
of an Office of Research and Intelligence is accepted, that Department will
require a considerable group of trained analysts in the field of economic,
political, and geographic intelligence. By general agreement, the Research
and Analysis Branch of OSS has performed
very creditably in these intelligence fields during the war and its
personnel is available for transfer to the State Department. There is the
advantage also of obtaining for State a going concern which can continue its
work with a minimum of
interruption and confusion. In fact, R&A has done a considerable amount of work for State during
the war and many informal relationships now exist.
It is generally admitted that State lacks proper presentation facilities.
This condition will be further aggravated if R&A should be transferred to State to become a part of its
Office of Research and Intelligence. It seems to us that Presentation should
also be transferred to State.
The remaining activities are not easily described but with a few exceptions
are of a nature that will not be needed in peacetime. The main problems are
the presentation of the records and experience gained, the completion of
some of the OSS assignments overseas, and
the orderly liquidation of its overseas activities. Problems also will arise
with respect to the return and reassignment or separation of the civilian
and military personnel involved. The War Department seems the proper agency
to take care of this job. (This does not resolve the recent intelligence
problem which requires further review.)This
parenthetical sentence was added by hand, apparently Stone’s.
Action Recommended
That you present a proposal to the CommitteeA “Reconversion Committee” consisting of John W. Snyder, Samuel I. Rosenman, and Harold Smith undertook the disposal
of war agency functions. Bureau of the Budget officials, with
Smith’s concurrence, had
agreed that the research and analysis function of OSS should be transferred to the
Department of State. See Document 3.
to transfer the Research and Analysis and Presentation Branches to the
State Department and the remaining OSS
activities to the War Department for salvage and liquidation. A
tentative draft order for this purpose is attached.See the Supplement. This order is not in final
form and should be used for discussion purposes only.If the decision of the Committee is favorable, clearances should be
made with Acheson in State and
McCloy in War as the
receivers of the transferred activities. We are prepared to submit to
State the necessary documents in the form of a draft departmental order
and directives which will facilitate the reception of the transferred
activities.Prior to the issuance of the Order, clearances should be made with the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Navy as interested parties. D.C.S.Printed from a copy that bears
these typed initials.
5. Memorandum From the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(Hoover) to Attorney
General ClarkSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, FBI Documents. Personal and Strictly Confidential. Drafted
by Tamm.Washington, August 29, 1945.
Apropos of our conversation yesterday,No other
record of this conversation has been found. I am attaching hereto
a suggested draft of a letter to the Secretary of State relating to the
matter of continuing the Special Intelligence Service operated by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Western Hemisphere.Not found. In addition, however, there have been
certain developments in this situation in the last twenty-four hours, about
which I wanted to advise you.
I have ascertained that General William
Donovan has recently seen President Truman and is writing him a letterSee Document 3. with
reference to a proposed program for the operation of a World-wide
Intelligence Service. It is reasonable to assume, I believe, that the plan
which General Donovan will advance to
the President will be similar to the one which he has heretofore advocated
and about which I have advised you in detail.
From outside sources I have learned that Colonel Frank McCarthy, new Assistant Secretary of State, has
discussed the FBI’s operation of the Western
Hemisphere Intelligence Service with Secretary of State Byrnes. From the statements made by Mr.
Byrnes to Colonel McCarthy, it appears obvious that the
Secretary of State is not adequately or fully informed as to the nature,
scope or effectiveness of the Bureau’s operations in this field.
Collaterally, I have received information that the State Department is
engaged in the establishment of an intelligence organization to be operated
by and entirely within the State Department’s control but on a world-wide
basis. Apparently the planning of this program has reached an advanced
stage.
I think, consequently, in view of these additional developments, that time is
of the very essence in reaching a decision as to the future of the SIS program. As I have told you previously, I
am not seeking for the Federal Bureau of Investigation the responsibility
for world-wide intelligence system. I am firmly convinced, however, in light
of our experiences during and even before the current world war, that the
future welfare of the United States necessitates and demands the operation
of an efficient, world-wide intelligence service. It is a fact, as you well
know, that the SIS program operated by the Bureau in
the Western Hemisphere has been completely successful. The program has
produced results which were beyond our hope and expectations when we went
into this field and these results were brought about without the slightest
friction in the countries where we operated. Not a single incident has
arisen in which the Government of the United States was subject to any
unfavorable or unfortunate publicity. I think this is a rather remarkable
achievement when you consider the fact that hundreds of agents operated both
undercover and as open representatives of the Government of the United
States throughout the Western Hemisphere, conducting thousands of
investigations resulting in the acquisition, assimilation and distribution
of great quantities of intelligence information. It seems to me, therefore,
that taking for granted the recognition of the need for a world-wide
intelligence service, it is most logical that the system which has worked so
successfully in the Western Hemisphere should be extended to a world-wide
coverage. As I have advised you in previous memoranda, such a step can be
accomplished without the necessity for any legislative enactment creating
operating agencies or empowering them to act. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Military and Naval Intelligence have ample Authority
under the present operating statutes to extend the Western Hemisphere
coverage to a world-wide organization. This, of course, negatives the
necessity for seeking through legislative channels earmarked or otherwise
readily identifiable funds for the carrying on of these operations. If, on
the other hand, the General Donovan
plan or even the plan presently under consideration by the State Department
is accepted, it will be necessary to seek Congressional authority for the
program and to obtain funds which will be earmarked for and otherwise
identified as being for the operation of an international espionage
organization. The resulting publicity from such a step will, of course,
materially curtail the effectiveness of the proposed program. Such publicity
will serve to notify other nations of the program proposed to be carried out
by the United States, but other nations will not similarly publicize their
own intelligence operations, to the point where the United States will be in
a position of advertising its intelligence organization while other nations
will operate on a most secretive basis. As a matter of fact, it is well
known that the British and Russian Governments, while ostensibly
discontinuing their intelligence services or even denying the existence of
such organizations in individual countries, are actually intensifying their
coverage.
I feel very strongly that there is a need for the establishment and operation
of a world-wide intelligence service. While I do not seek this
responsibility for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I do believe that
upon the basis of our experience of the last five years we are well
qualified to operate such a service in conjunction with parallel operations
of the Military and Naval
Intelligence upon the same general basis as these operations have been
carried on in the Western Hemisphere. I think that time is of the essence in
reaching a decision upon this matter and, consequently, I urge that you
personally take the matter up with Secretary of State Byrnes as soon as possible.
Respectfully,
John Edgar HooverPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
6. Letter From the Director of the Office of Strategic Services (Donovan) to the President’s
Special Counsel (Rosenman)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC 801, Item 29. No
classification marking.Washington, September 4, 1945.
Dear Sam: I am enclosing a
copy of my letter to the Bureau of the Budget concerning the liquidation of
the Office of Strategic Services.See Attachment 1
to Document 3.
Since the above meeting with the Budget Bureau, I have submitted a
liquidation budget for presentation to the Congress.
I understand that there has been talk of attempting to allocate different
segments of the organization to different departments. This would be an
absurd and unsatisfactory thing to do. The organization was set up as an
entity, every function supporting and supplementing the other.
It’s time for us to grow up, Sam, and realize that the
new responsibilities we have assumed require an adequate intelligence
system.
Increasingly the President will see the need and I hope a new agency will be
set up to take over a very useful legacy.
Sincerely,
William J. DonovanPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
7. Memorandum From the Director’s Assistant (Tamm) to the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (Hoover)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, FBI Documents. No classification marking.Washington, September 6, 1945.
Pursuant to an appointment made through Bob Lynch, Mr.
Lynch and I held a one-hour conference with Colonel
Frank McCarthy, Assistant
Secretary of State, on Wednesday morning, September 5th.
Colonel McCarthy was informed that you
had instructed me to call upon him for the purpose of determining what the
State Department position is with reference to the continuation of the
SIS Service since you will shortly have
to appear before the Appropriation Committee, and the Bureau of the Budget
and the Appropriation Committee have indicated a desire to be informed as to
the future course of operation which you contemplate for SIS. I pointed out to Colonel
McCarthy that SIS was a service agency for the State
Department and that your program or its future would depend entirely and
completely upon what the Department of State desired done with this
Unit. I traced the background of the organization of the SIS, pointing out that it was set up upon
Presidential instruction issued by Mr. Roosevelt to Mr. Berle, outlined the
functions of the Bureau, the establishment of the Legal Attachés, training
and operation of undercover personnel, the Bureau’s radio stations, the
daily conference with the Military and Naval Attachés and a representative
of the Ambassador, the distribution of the information in Washington to the
State Department and all other aspects of the SIS operation in as brief and specific form as was
possible.
It was rather difficult to make a comprehensive statement to Colonel
McCarthy because of his constant
interruptions with questions as to what the Bureau thought of a “one-man”
intelligence set-up reporting directly to the President, and similar
questions which indicated that Colonel McCarthy was thoroughly familiar with the General Donovan plan. I outlined in detail to
McCarthy the objections to the
so-called “one-man” anonymous director of intelligence, pointing out that
such an organization would be labeled as a Gestapo, that the President could
not directly supervise such an organization, that such an organization
would, despite the descriptive term “one-man” require a large administrative
setup some place in Washington, which would become readily known, subject it
to criticism, publicity, etc. McCarthy was argumentative about this point indicating that
while the identity of the group could be known, just as the identity of
OSS was known, no information need come
out about what it was doing. I pointed out that under the restrictions of
censorship and wartime necessity
this might be true in wartime, but that it would never be true in peacetime
and that such a group would be the target for Congressional criticism,
hostile press representatives, etc. I pointed out that such an organization
would be essentially a political one and that the effectiveness of the
organization would be materially decreased by the probable turnover in the
personnel following a change in administration. McCarthy stated that the OSS
had done a most effective job in the occupied countries and that he had
personal knowledge of this. I stated that I had no doubt but that OSS contained some capable, conscientious and
sincere individuals but that it was one thing to operate on a touch and go
basis during wartime feverish activity and quite another to operate on a
long-term basis a world-wide intelligence service. I pointed out that such a
service could be successful only in professional hands and that the success
of the SIS operation was attested to by its
accomplishments in the Latin American fields in the past five years. I told
Colonel McCarthy that probably the
best source of accurate information concerning the SIS operations would be the Ambassadors, such as Spurille Braden, Norweb
and others, even including Messersmith, who had
first-hand knowledge of the SIS
operation.
I made it clear to Colonel McCarthy
that you were not seeking the SIS operations
for the Bureau but that you felt a world-wide intelligence service was an
absolute necessity, that such a service should be in professional hands and
that it should not operate on any basis of a divided jurisdiction upon a
hemispheric basis. McCarthy stated
that he thought the OSS organization could
quite readily be amalgamated into a White House establishment in which the
President would receive reports direct from its director. I pointed out that
this was the so-called British system which had proved so basically
unsuccessful that while the British Secret Service were basking in the
self-generated light of their own brilliance, the German Intelligence
Service was dispatching agents and saboteurs to the Western Hemisphere on a
wholesale basis and that these agents were arriving without the knowledge or
even suspicion of the much-touted British Intelligence Service. McCarthy indicated that his reports as to
the efficiency of the British Intelligence Service were at considerable
variance with the analysis which I made of the British Intelligence Service.
I told him that probably the source of his information about British
Intelligence had something to sell and that most certainly the Bureau was
not trying to sell anything.
In the interest of brevity I am not setting forth all of the details of my
conversation with McCarthy, although
I covered the field of advantages of SIS
operations, its success, etc. in detail and pointed out the objections not
alone to the so-called “one-man” intelligence service but also the first
General Donovan plan and the Army
plan. The advantages of an extension of the SIS operations to a world-wide basis with the collaboration of
Military and Naval Intelligence
were pointed out, including the lack of necessity of securing enabling
legislation, the fact that no appropriation would have to be specifically
identified or ear-marked and the other advantages which we have heretofore
discussed. I think, frankly, that the logic of our position ultimately
crashed through any prejudices or previously conceived ideas which McCarthy had because after almost an hour
of discussion, he stated that the Bureau’s presentation of the advantages
and disadvantages of the various proposals opened up to him a new concept of
the problem and new avenues of approach which had not theretofore occurred
to him.
Colonel McCarthy stated that he had
reviewed recently a memorandum on the SIS
operationsReference may be to a copy of a
paper entitled “Accomplishments of the Special Intelligence Service,”
September 3, attached to a memorandum from Tamm to Hoover of
the same date. (Ibid.) See the Supplement. which Mr. Clark had given to Mr. Byrnes and that he had referred this
memorandum to the State Department specialist in intelligence matters, Mr.
Fred Lyon, for review and
recommendation as to the position which the State Department should take in
this situation. McCarthy stated that
he would be largely influenced by the position which Fred Lyon would take upon the various
proposals and that he probably would, upon the basis of Lyon’s experience in the State Department,
see eye to eye with him. He stated that he was most anxious, therefore, to
have me go over the entire picture with Fred
Lyon in order that Fred
Lyon might have the advantage of the Bureau’s viewpoint before he submitted his, Lyon’s, statement as to the position which the State
Department should take. McCarthy
indicated that he would probably support Lyon in his major premises in attempting to reach a decision
from Byrnes as to the program to be
followed. I told Colonel McCarthy
that the Bureau’s experience and dealings with Lyon had been always on a satisfactory basis and that I
would in accord with his suggestion be glad to talk to Fred Lyon. McCarthy stated that upon the basis of the statements and
explanations which I made to him it was possible that the views of the State
Department and the FBI might not be so
divergent but that they might be readily reconciled and a completely
satisfactory program worked out.
You will recall that Lyon was out of
his office when I attempted to see him, but he called at my office at five
o’clock last evening. I outlined exactly what had transpired, as set forth
above, to Fred Lyon, pointing out to
him that I was discussing the matter with him in accord with Colonel
McCarthy’s request. At one point
in my discussion with Lyon I told him
that I had advised Colonel McCarthy
of the establishment and operation of the Bureau’s radio stations “with or
without the knowledge and consent of the various Latin American Governments”
since in an intelligence
organization there was a need for a channel of fast secret communication. I
told Lyon that I pointed out that on
two occasions, namely in Ecuador and Paraguay, during revolutions the
Bureau’s radio system had been the only channel of communication between the
Embassy and the State Department in Washington. Lyon expressed considerable surprise that I had told
McCarthy of this and stated that
in a discussion on Wednesday afternoon (subsequent to my discussion with
McCarthy) he, Lyon, had told McCarthy of this radio network of the Bureau’s and McCarthy expressed considerable surprise,
indicating that he did not know the Bureau operated such a radio system.
Fred Lyon stated further that he was
very much surprised and a little confused as to McCarthy suggesting to me that I discuss this situation with
Lyonprior to Lyon
submitting his recommendations to McCarthy because Lyon
had prepared a memorandum containing his views, which as you know were
parallel to the Bureau’s views, and submitted it to McCarthy on Tuesday evening, September
4th,Not found. that is, the afternoon
before I talked to McCarthy.
Lyon stated that he understood
that McCarthy had on Tuesday evening
relayed this memorandum on to Secretary of State Byrnes prior to Byrnes’ departure for London. Lyon of course did not know whether McCarthy had submitted to Byrnes anything in addition to Lyon’s memorandum or whether he had
expressed his own views as being in accord with or contrary to his
views.
Fred Lyon further advised that on
Wednesday afternoon McCarthy had sent
for him, had referred to the fact that I had talked to McCarthy and stated that since Lyon was “pro-FBI”, McCarthy wondered
whether Lyon would be willing to
testify in favor of the Bureau’s appropriation. Lyon stated that he did not think it was necessary for
anyone other than Bureau representatives to testify for the Bureau’s
appropriation, pointing out that all that was normally necessary was for the
State Department to indicate to the Bureau of the Budget that the State
Department approved in general terms the nature and extent of the Bureau’s
operations outside the United States. McCarthy indicated to Lyon, however, that it might be necessary for Lyon to testify with reference to the
Bureau’s appropriation. Fred Lyon
indicated that he would keep us advised of any additional developments in
this matter.
8. Memorandum From the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(Hoover) to Attorney
General ClarkSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, FBI Documents. Personal and Strictly Confidential. Drafted
by Tamm.Washington, September 6, 1945.
I have received information today from two independent outside sources
relating to General William Donovan’s
plans for the perpetration [perpetuation] of his
dynasty within the Office of Strategic Services by the continuation of his
agency under another name in the world-wide intelligence field, which I
thought would be of interest to you. These sources advise that General
Donovan has already selected his
candidate to head up the new organization and that his selection is
Brigadier General John Magruder.
Another and independent source has quoted Donovan as stating that he has submitted John Magruder’s name to Bob
Hannegan to head up the new world-wide intelligence
organization and that Hannegan has approved Magruder for this post.
John Magruder is an Army officer who
during the course of his Army service was at one time chief of the
intelligence branch of the War Department General Staff, was Assistant
Military Attaché in China and was Chief of a Military mission to China in
1942. In addition, Magruder served
in the Philippine Islands and was Military Attaché in Bern, Switzerland.
Magruder has served for some
time under General Donovan as Deputy
Director of the Office of Strategic Services.
John Magruder married Helen
Schurman, who is the daughter of Jacob Gould
Schurman, who has held various diplomatic posts, including
the post of Ambassador to China, Ambassador to Germany and various other
positions intimately associated with the State Department. In addition, my
sources state that Mrs. John
Magruder is reported to be the niece of Jacob L.
Crane, deceased, who held various posts within the State
Department. General Donovan’s
selection of John Magruder, I have
been advised, was prompted in some degree by the good will and support which
are attached to Magruder by a
certain clique in the State Department because of their pleasant
relationships with Mrs. Magruder’s
father and her uncle. This clique consequently is reported to be strongly
supporting John Magruder for the new
post as head of the World-wide Intelligence Service.
General Donovan’s selection of
John Magruder and the reported
approval of his selection by Bob Hannegan is another of
Donovan’s deadly died-in-the-wool
secrets which appear, however, to be matters of general knowledge. Two
independent sources have advised me today that Brigadier General
John Magruder has confided in certain persons that he has
been selected for the post of head of the intelligence service and he has
allegedly even gone to the extent of advising a large business enterprise
with foreign holdings and international interests that he would “look out
for their interests” in the foreign field when he takes over his new post of
duty.
Although, as I have indicated, this information is allegedly very, very
confidential, I have every reason to assume from the source from which I
received it that ultimately this information will appear in the press.
Respectfully,
John Edgar HooverPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
9. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Strategic Services
(Donovan) to
President TrumanSource: Truman Library, Miscellaneous Material Filed by the
Administrative Asst. in the President’s Office, Office of Strategic
Services. No classification marking. Donovan saw the President on September 13, but only for
a brief ceremonial occasion. (Ibid., President’s Appointment Book, File
of Matthew Connelly) Also reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, p.
3.Washington, September 13, 1945.I understand that it has been, or will be, suggested to you that
certain of the primary functions of this organization, more
particularly, secret intelligence, counter-espionage, and the evaluation
and synthesis of intelligence—that these functions be severed and
transferred to separate agencies. I hope that in the national interest,
and in your own interest as the Chief Executive, that you will not
permit this to be done.Whatever agency has the duty of intelligence should have it as a
complete whole. To do otherwise would be to add chaos to existing
confusion in the intelligence field. The various functions that have
been integrated are the essential functions in intelligence. One is
dependent upon the other.According to
Harold Smith’s diary, he
told Truman on September 13
that Donovan “was storming
about our proposal to divide his intelligence service.” Truman told Smith that he had in mind a “broad
intelligence service attached to the President’s Office,” and that
the Bureau of the Budget should recommend “dissolution of Donovan’s outfit even if Donovan did not like it.” Smith agreed with Truman’s view but stated that he
had wanted to check with the President before the Bureau of the
Budget went ahead with its work. (Roosevelt Library, Papers of Harold Smith, Box No. 4,
Conferences with President Truman, September 13, 1945) See the
Supplement.Donovan
10. Memorandum From the Director’s Assistant (Tamm) to the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (Hoover)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence
Agency, Troy Papers, Box 8, Folder 15. No
classification marking.Washington, September 17, 1945.
Pursuant to your instructions I called upon Mr. Tom Clark on Thursday evening, September 13th and advised
him that you had received information from a confidential but thoroughly
reliable source indicating that the President allegedly had expressed the
opinion that the FBI should act only as a
domestic agency. Mr. Clark was
informed that according to your source of information, Colonel Frank McCarthy at the State Department had
indicated to Dean Acheson that he,
McCarthy, had received
information from the Bureau of the Budget with reference to the SIS program that the President has “definitely
expressed in positive terms” his views that the FBI should be only a domestic agency. Mr. Clark was informed that McCarthy received his information from the
Bureau of the Budget and that he had asked Don
Stone to furnish more details concerning the President’s
statement. In view of this fact, McCarthy had
suggested to Acheson that any action
on Mr. Clark’s lettersNot found. concerning the State Department’s
wishes with reference to SIS be held in
abeyance until the first of the week.
While I was talking to Mr. Clark,
Dean Acheson called him from the
State Department and Clark asked
Acheson when he was going to
receive an answer to his letters about SIS
and Acheson stated “in a few days,
that Colonel McCarthy was looking
into the matter”.
Mr. Clark stated that he would
personally speak to the President about the SIS situation on Monday.
11. Memorandum From Arnold Miles of the
Bureau of the Budget Staff to the Assistant Director for Administrative
Management of the Bureau of the Budget (Stone)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 51, Records of
the Office of Management and Budget, Director’s File, Series 39.27,
Intelligence. No classification marking.Washington, September 19, 1945.
Problem
The need to decide what funds should be allotted to the FBI for the continuation of their secret
activities abroad, requires a consideration of the following:Should the Secret Intelligence Service organized by the FBI in the Western Hemisphere be
continued?Should it be extended into Europe?Does the FBI have any foreign
role, or, in a broader sense, what are our needs for the special
category of security or counter intelligence?
Facts Bearing on the Problem
The Secret Intelligence Service in the Western Hemisphere was officially set
up by the FBI as a result of action by the
President immediately following Pearl Harbor, which confirmed steps already
taken (the FBI had begun to conduct secret
activities in South and Central America prior to this). This action had been recommended to the
President by the Interdepartmental Intelligence Committee composed of G–2, ONI and
FBI. Initial approval by the
Interdepartmental Intelligence Committee followed discussions of the need to
expand coverage in the security intelligence (counter intelligence) field.
Almost from the beginning, however, the minutes of the Interdepartmental
Intelligence Committee reflected discontent on the part of the G–2 and ONI
representatives toward the expansion of the SIS into reporting of intelligence on a broad scale.
The SIS, however, has been highly useful
especially in connection with the desire to ferret out Nazi, and to some
extent Japanese, infiltration into the Western Hemisphere. Annually, at
budget time, the program has been strongly endorsed by those officials in
the State Department directly concerned with the use of FBI material (visa and passport control,
safehaven, alien exclusion and internment, etc.).
Other than the initial decision by the President immediately following Pearl
Harbor, however, the broad policy question involved in the maintenance of an
operation of this character in neutral and friendly territories has never
been thoroughly discussed. It should be pointed out though, that there is no
instance known to us, in which the SIS has
caused any official embarrassment with the countries involved.
Discussion
It is important that any decision which will be made in regard to the FBI be consistent with a program for the
Government as a whole on which the Bureau has been working.
The Bureau has advocated the creation of two separate systems of operation in
the field of intelligence, one dealing with foreign intelligence in a broad
means including economic, political and other basic forms of intelligence;
the other dealing with security intelligence and security programs to the
countering of unfriendly, or hostile activities of individuals, groups or
movements.
These plans for the Government as a whole envision two top authoritative
groups under the leadership of the State Department to coordinate operations
in these two respective fields. One top group concerned with the
coordination of operations in the whole field of basic intelligence would
consist of the Secretaries of War, Navy, State, and Commerce. The other,
concerned with the coordination of internal security and security
intelligence operations would consist of the Secretaries of War, Navy,
State, Treasury and Justice.
A foreign role for the FBI. Such security intelligence cannot be secured from
domestic operations alone.
The postwar period will see a number of security operations which will be
continued, and which should be serviced by the best and most efficient
intelligence available: The desire to include security checks in the process of issuing
visas and passports will continue. This need will be serviced in one
way or another. Similarly other operations such as the investigation
of personnel employed in our important Foreign Service, and the
furnishing of background information on individuals involved in
business and international finance or other matters in which the
State Department and Commerce Department will be involved, will
require ready reference to this type of information. In spite of the
obvious advantage of maintaining all available information of this
type to service such needs in one place, this has been impossible to
achieve under the present divided and competitive pattern.In addition to the continuance of a considerable security
intelligence operation, there is the need to continue security
planning. Just as Byron Price pointed out, in
connection with Censorship planning, that a small group would be
needed to continue a nucleus operation, it will be necessary to
maintain a skeleton operation in this whole field.A further need for the continuance of services similar to those
rendered by the FBI is that of
assisting such agencies as the State Department, in insuring the
maximum amount of security with respect to communications, records,
personnel, etc. This last need is quite acute. Our Foreign Service
has been notoriously loose. This has given top officers in the State
Department considerable concern. Some provision to take care of this
problem will undoubtedly be made in the State Department unless it
can secure the service elsewhere.Further a need exists for inclusion in the embassies abroad of
such technicians to represent those Governmental operations which
center in the FBI and to be
concerned with normal police and Surete liaison on such questions as
extradition and international crime in general.
The fulfillment of these operational requirements does not necessarily
involve a decision as to whether secret or clandestine operations will be
permitted. The activities listed above can be, if necessary, conducted
completely in the open, although with greatly diminished effectiveness. In
any event the job will only be properly done if utilization is made of the
skills, records and domestic organization available in the FBI.
There is thus a need for security attachés abroad. The assignment of a
security attaché within a mission should conform to the pattern now in
effect for the assignment of technical personnel from other Government
agencies. Security attachés should be completely coordinated within the
mission abroad. Their channel of communication should be through State
Department facilities.
Secret activities. It is important to distinguish the
two types of questions involved in the problem; one involving the
continuance of secret and clandestine operations, the other involving the
role of the FBI in general in the foreign
field. To lump these questions into one would be to make the same mistake that has been fostered by General
Donovan’s insistence on lumping
the question of the need for and role of a central agency with that of the
continuance of secret intelligence.
The question of whether the FBI will continue
a secret intelligence service, particularly one which will extend into
Europe, should be viewed in the same light as we are viewing the question of
a secret intelligence service for the Government as a whole. In other words,
the high policy question as to whether this country should engage in any
clandestine intelligence activities or not is still an open one.
Until such time as a decision is made on this point, the FBI should not be permitted to extend any
secret activities into Europe. (A few personnel now in Europe on an
individual case-by-case basis can be considered as coming outside this
memo.) Further, it is recommended that should the FBI ever be assigned a role involving the use of secret or
clandestine methods, that; This role should be part of and carefully integrated with a
broader secret intelligence service operating for the Government as
a whole.The FBI’s operations should be
confined to security intelligence.
The conclusion that continuation of secret intelligence activities in the
postwar period is still an open question does not dispose of the problem of
deciding what to do about the SIS which now
actually exists in South America.
Liquidation or curtailment of this service should be viewed as a special
problem. In a considerable number of instances, personnel involved cannot be
abruptly withdrawn. In addition, it is undoubtedly true that for the balance
of this fiscal year at least, the service will continue to be useful to
programs now underway in the State Department. In South and Central America
will be focused the principal remaining effort of the Nazis to maintain some
cohesion and to conserve whatever they can for possible future rebirth. Our
programs, particularly those under the general heading of Safehaven are
designed to prevent this. Normal, open, Foreign Service reporting will not
be sufficient to ferret out the kind of intelligence needed by the Safehaven
programs under the complex arrangements that will have been made for cover.
The detection and preventions of this type of planned infiltration will
continue to require covert methods.
Funds should, therefore, be granted to continue the Service on a curtailing
basis for the balance of this fiscal year with the proviso, however, that it
should be subject to such directives as may subsequently be issued by any
interdepartmental machinery created by the President in this field.
Recommendations
That sufficient funds be allotted FBI
to continue the SIS in the Western
Hemisphere on a curtailing basis for the balance of the present fiscal
year.That a proviso be entered that the SIS
in the Western Hemisphere will be subject to continuous review and to
such directives as may subsequently be issued by the State Department or
by any interdepartmental coordinating group organized in the field of
security and security intelligence.That the question of the extension of the SIS into other areas than the Western Hemisphere be
postponed until:A decision is made as a matter of high policy that this
country will engage in secret or clandestine intelligence
operations in the postwar period.Interdepartmental machinery for planning the precise way in
which the FBI in a role limited
to security intelligence can integrate its operations with those
of a secret intelligence operation for the Government as a whole
covering the whole intelligence field.That a plan for the assignment of security attachés as required by the
State Department in areas other than South America be discussed with
State and FBI with the proviso that:The appointment of security attaches under an agreed upon plan
consistent with Governmental policy in the assignment of
technical personnel abroad.The security attaches will not engage in any clandestine or
secret operations except as authorized on a case-by-case basis
by the Chief of Mission pending the development of a
Government-wide plan of operation in this field.That the security attaché be an integral part of the mission
and his channel of communication be to the State
Department.A.M.Printed from a copy that bears
these typed initials.
12. Memorandum From the Secretary of the Navy’s Special Assistant
(Correa) to Secretary
of the Navy ForrestalSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 80, General Records of the Department of the
Navy, Records of Secretary of the Navy James
Forrestal 1940–1947, General Correspondence 1944–1947,
80–1–19, Box 129. No classification marking.Washington, September 19, 1945.
Annexed hereto JCS Papers 1181/1, 1181/4 and
1181/5.These JCS papers are not attached. The first two papers, 1181/1
and 1181/4, have not been found. For text of 1181/5, see the appendix to
Document 13. These all relate to the
problem of a single central intelligence agency. You have asked me to give
you my views on this. I am not in a position to do that as yet as I wish to
give the matter further consideration and particularly to obtain the views
of people with experience in this field such as J. Edgar Hoover.
To the extent I have gone in my thinking, however, it seems to me that the
draft directive (red tab) which is a part of JCS 1181/5 most nearly approximates what I would regard as the
optimum organization.
In my own approach of the problem the following propositions seem to me basic:There is definite need for centralization of intelligence gathered
by all of the various departments and agencies of this Government
and for coordination of the activities of those engaged in gathering
this information.Any central authority or agency set up should have the primary
function of coordination rather than operation in the intelligence
field.It should be recognized that while in time of war action to be
taken upon intelligence obtained by this government is the primary
responsibility of the armed forces, in time of peace the taking of
appropriate action is the primary responsibility of the State
Department and subject to the State Department’s direction on
national policy of other civilian arms of the Government, having in
mind particularly those departments and agencies which are charged
with responsibility for economic dealings with other nations.
These thoughts are by no means complete nor do they represent as exhaustive
an analysis of the problem as I should like to present.
MFC
13. Memorandum From the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to Secretary of War Stimson
and Secretary of the Navy ForrestalSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 80, General Records of
the Department of the Navy, SecNav/CNO Top Secret Correspondence File
1945, A8, Box 21, Folder A8. Top Secret. Also reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, pp.
8–10.Washington, September 19, 1945.
SUBJECT
Establishment of a central intelligence service upon liquidation of
OSS
The Joint Chiefs of Staff request that the Secretary of War and the Secretary
of the Navy forward the attached memorandum to the President.
For the Joint Chiefs of Staff:William D.
LeahyFleet Admiral, U.S.
Navy Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy
EnclosureTop Secret. Despite the Joint
Chiefs’ request, this memorandum was not directly transmitted to the
President. In a September 29 memorandum (Document
20), Patterson (who
had succeeded Stimson as
Secretary of War) and Forrestal told Byrnes that in view of Executive Order 9621 of
September 20 (Document 14), they had
decided to transmit the JCS
recommendations to the Secretary of State on the assumption that he
would send them to the President. There is no record, however, that
the Department of State did so.Washington, undated.
Memorandum From Secretary of War Stimson and Secretary of the Navy
Forrestal to President
Truman
A memorandum from the Director of Strategic Services on the establishment
of a central intelligence service was referred to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff on 22 November 1944A reference to
Donovan’s November 18,
1944, memorandum to President Roosevelt; see Troy, Donovan and
the CIA, pp. 445–447. for their comment and
recommendation. The matter received careful study and consideration at
that time and the Joint Chiefs
of Staff were prepared to recommend, when opportune, the establishment
of such an agency in three steps, namely: An Executive Order setting up a National Intelligence
Authority, (composed of the Secretaries of State, War and the
Navy, and a representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), a
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (appointed by the
President), and an Intelligence Advisory Board (heads of the
principal military and civilian intelligence agencies).Preparation and submission to the President by the above group
of a basic organizational plan for establishing the complete
intelligence system.Establishing of this intelligence system by Presidential
directive and legislative action as appropriate.
Since their first studies, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have had referred to
them a letter from the Director of Strategic Services to the Director,
Bureau of the Budget, dated 25 August 1945, renewing his proposals on
the subject. Meanwhile, the cessation of hostilities, certain undecided
questions regarding the future organization of the military
establishment, and the development of new weapons present new factors
which require consideration.
The end of hostilities has tended to emphasize the importance of
proceeding without further delay to set up a central intelligence
system.
The unsettled question as to post-war military organization does not
materially affect the matter, and certainly warrants no further delay
since a central intelligence agency can be fitted to whatever
organization or establishments are decided upon.
Recent developments in the field of new weapons have advanced the
question of an efficient intelligence service to a position of
importance, vital to the security of the nation in a degree never
attained and never contemplated in the past. It is now entirely possible
that failure to provide such a system might bring national disaster.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff recognize, as does the Director of Strategic
Services, the desirability of:Further coordination of intelligence activities related to the
national security;The unification of such activities of common concern as can be
more efficiently conducted by a common agency; andThe synthesis of departmental intelligence on the strategic
and national policy level.
They consider that these three functions may well be more effectively
carried on in a common intelligence agency, provided that suitable
conditions of responsibility to the departments primarily concerned with
national security are maintained. They believe, however, that the
specific proposals made by the Director of Strategic Services are open
to serious objection in that, without adequate compensating advantages,
they would over-centralize
the national intelligence service and place it at such a high level that
it would control the operations of departmental intelligence agencies
without responsibility, either individually or collectively, to the
heads of the departments concerned.
In view of the above, the Joint Chiefs of Staff append hereto an
alternative draft directive, which they believe retains the merits of
General Donovan’s proposals,
while obviating the objection thereto.
The success of the proposed organization will depend largely on the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In the opinion of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, he should have considerable permanence in office, and
to that end should be either a specially qualified civilian or an Army
or Navy officer of appropriate background and experience who can be
assigned for the requisite period of time. It is considered absolutely
essential, particularly in the case of the first director, that he be in
a position to exercise impartial judgment in the many difficult problems
of organization and cooperation which must be solved before an effective
working organization can be established.
AppendixTop Secret. This draft is
identical to JCS paper 1181/5. For
the drafting history and the text, see ibid., pp. 297–301 and
459–460.
Draft Directive Regarding the Coordination of
Intelligence Activities
In order to provide for the development and coordination of intelligence
activities related to the national security:A National Intelligence Authority composed of the Secretaries
of State, War and the Navy, and a representative of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff is hereby established and charged with
responsibility for such over-all intelligence planning and
development, and such inspection and coordination of all Federal
intelligence activities, as to assure the most effective
accomplishment of the intelligence mission related to the
national security.To assist it in that task the National Intelligence Authority
shall establish a Central Intelligence Agency headed by a
Director who shall be appointed or removed by the President on
the recommendation of the National Intelligence Authority. The
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall be responsible to the National
Intelligence Authority and shall sit as a non-voting member
thereof.The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall be
advised by an Intelligence Advisory Board consisting of the
heads of the principal military and civilian intelligence
agencies having functions related to the national security, as
determined by the National Intelligence Authority.The first duty of the National Intelligence Authority,
assisted by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and
the Intelligence Advisory Board, shall be to prepare and submit
to the President for his approval a basic organizational plan
for implementing this directive in accordance with the concept
set forth in the following paragraphs. This plan should include
drafts of all necessary legislation.Subject to the direction and control of the National
Intelligence Authority, the Central Intelligence Agency shall: Accomplish the synthesis of departmental intelligence
relating to the national security and the appropriate
dissemination within the government of the resulting
strategic and national policy intelligence.Plan for the coordination of the activities of all
intelligence agencies of the government having functions
related to the national security, and recommend to the
National Intelligence Authority the establishment of
such over-all policies and objectives as will assure the
most effective accomplishment of the national
intelligence mission.Perform, for the benefit of departmental intelligence
agencies, such services of common concern as the
National Intelligence Authority determines can be more
efficiently accomplished by a common agency, including
the direct procurement of intelligence.Perform such other functions and duties related to
intelligence as the National Intelligence Authority may
from time to time direct.The Central Intelligence Agency shall have no police or law
enforcement functions.Subject to coordination by the National Intelligence
Authority, the existing intelligence agencies of the government
shall continue to collect, evaluate, synthesize, and disseminate
departmental operating intelligence, herein defined as that
intelligence required by the several departments and independent
agencies for the performance of their proper functions. Such
departmental operating intelligence as designated by the
National Intelligence Authority shall be freely available to the
Central Intelligence Agency for synthesis. As approved by the
National Intelligence Authority, the operations of the
departmental intelligence agencies shall be open to inspection
by the Central Intelligence Agency in connection with its
planning function. In the interpretation of this paragraph, the
National Intelligence Authority and the Central Intelligence
Agency will be responsible for fully protecting intelligence sources and methods
which, due to their nature, have a direct and highly important
bearing on military operations.Funds for the National Intelligence Authority shall be
provided by the departments participating in the National
Intelligence Authority in amount and proportions to be agreed
upon by the members of the Authority. Within the limits of the
funds made available to him, the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency may employ necessary personnel and make
provision for necessary supplies, facilities, and services. With
the approval of the National Intelligence Authority, he may call
upon departments and independent agencies to furnish such
specialists as may be required for supervisory and functional
positions in the Central Intelligence Agency, including the
assignment of military and naval personnel.
14. Executive Order 9621Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 51, Records of the
Office of Management and Budget, Series 39.19, OSS Organization and Function. The source text is labeled
“immediate release.” Also printed in 3 CFR 431–432. Smith’s account of the signing by the
President is in the Roosevelt
Library, Papers of Harold Smith,
Box 4, Conferences with the President 1945, September 20, 1945. See the
Supplement.Washington, September 20, 1945.
TERMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC SERVICES AND DISPOSITION
OF ITS FUNCTIONS
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes,
including Title I of the First War Powers Act, 1941, and as President of the
United States and Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy, it is hereby
ordered as follows: There are transferred to and consolidated in an Interim Research
and Intelligence Service, which is hereby established in the
Department of State, (a) the functions of the Research and Analysis
Branch and of the Presentation Branch of the Office of Strategic
Services (provided for by the Military Order of June 13, 1942),
excluding such functions performed within the countries of Germany
and Austria, and (b) those other functions of the Office of
Strategic Services (hereinafter referred to as the Office) which
relate to the functions of the said Branches transferred by this paragraph. The
functions of the Director of Strategic Services and of the United
States Joint Chiefs of Staff, relating to the functions transferred
to the Service by this paragraph, are transferred to the Secretary
of State. The personnel, property, and records of the said Branches,
except such thereof as is located in Germany and Austria, and so
much of the other personnel, property, and records of the Office and
of the funds of the Office as the Director of the Bureau of the
Budget shall determine to relate primarily to the functions
transferred by this paragraph, are transferred to the said Service.
Military personnel now on duty in connection with the activities
transferred by this paragraph may, subject to applicable law and to
the extent mutually agreeable to the Secretary of State and to the
Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy, as the case may be,
continue on such duty in the Department of State.The Interim Research and Intelligence Service shall be abolished
as of the close of business December 31, 1945, and the Secretary of
State shall provide for winding up its affairs. Pending such
abolition, (a) the Secretary of State may transfer from the said
Service to such agencies of the Department of State as he shall
designate any function of the Service, (b) the Secretary may curtail
the activities carried on by the Service, (c) the head of the
Service, who shall be designated by the Secretary, shall be
responsible to the Secretary or to such other officer of the
Department of State as the Secretary shall direct, and (d) the
Service shall, except as otherwise provided in this order, be
administered as an organizational entity in the Department of
State.All functions of the Office not transferred by paragraph 1 of this
order, together with all personnel, records, property, and funds of
the Office not so transferred, are transferred to the Department of
War; and the Office, including the Office of the Director of
Strategic Services, is terminated. The functions of the Director of
Strategic Services and of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff,
relating to the functions transferred by this paragraph, are
transferred to the Secretary of War. Naval personnel on duty with
the Office in connection with the activities transferred by this
paragraph may, subject to applicable law and to the extent mutually
agreeable to the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy,
continue on such duty in the Department of War. The Secretary of War
shall, whenever he deems it compatible with the national interest,
discontinue any activity transferred by this paragraph and wind up
all affairs relating thereto.Such further measures and dispositions as may be determined by the
Director of the Bureau of the Budget to be necessary to effectuate
the transfer or redistribution of functions provided for in this
order shall be carried out in such manner as the Director may direct
and by such agencies as he may designate.All provisions of prior orders of the President which are in
conflict with this order are amended accordingly.This order shall, except as otherwise specifically provided, be
effective as of the opening of business October 1, 1945.
Harry S. TrumanPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature. A signed copy is reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, pp.
11–13.
15. Letter From President Truman to Secretary of State ByrnesSource: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United
States: Harry S. Truman,
1945, p. 331. On the same date Truman also sent a letter to General Donovan informing him of the signing of
Executive Order 9621 and thanking him for his services. (Ibid., p. 330)
see the Supplement.Washington, September 20, 1945.
My Dear Mr. Secretary: I have today signed an
Executive order which provides for the transfer to the State Department of
the functions, personnel, and other resources of the Research and Analysis
Branch and the Presentation Branch of the Office of Strategic Services. The
order also transfers the remaining activities of the Office of Strategic
Services to the War Department and abolishes that Office. These changes
become effective October 1, 1945.
The above transfer to the State Department will provide you with resources
which we have agreed you will need to aid in the development of our foreign
policy, and will assure that pertinent experience accumulated during the war
will be preserved and used in meeting the problems of the peace. Those
readjustments and reductions which are required in order to gear the
transferred activities and resources into State Department operations should
be made as soon as practicable.
I particularly desire that you take the lead in developing a comprehensive
and coordinated foreign intelligence program for all Federal agencies
concerned with that type of activity. This should be done through the
creation of an interdepartmental group, heading up under the State
Department, which would formulate plans for my approval. This procedure will
permit the planning of complete coverage of the foreign intelligence field and the assigning and
controlling of operations in such manner that the needs of both the
individual agencies and the Government as a whole will be met with maximum
effectiveness.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. TrumanPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
16. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Administrative Management,
Bureau of the Budget (Stone) to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget
(Smith)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 51, Records of the Office of Management and Budget,
Series 39.19, OSS Organization and
Functions. No classification marking.Washington, September 20, 1945.
SUBJECT
Attached Letter from Joint Chiefs of Staff Relating to the OSS Executive OrderNot found.
On receipt of this letter I asked Arnold Miles to call
General McFarland to tell him that the Order had
already been signed. Arnold reminded
McFarland that in their discussion it was made
clear that the Order was not submitted for formal clearance but for
information and for comments if any. Miles also
reminded him that the President might sign the order at any time.
McFarland agreed this was the case.
McFarland stated that one of the Joint Chiefs raised the
question as to whether this was the correct time for this action and
instituted a study of the matter for that purpose.
McFarland said that the study would be continued
and Miles asked that we be kept informed of any matters
which required action.
It was made clear to McFarland that the signing of the
Order does not freeze the intelligence situation but clears the ground for
consideration of the problem in its entirety.
Stone
P.S. Donovan was out of town, so I
talked to Louis Ream, his deputy. He took it very
calmly and will cooperate in arrangements.The postscript, apparently by Stone, is handwritten.
17. Memorandum From Attorney General Clark to President TrumanSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 51, Records of
the Office of Management and Budget, Director’s Files, Series 39.27,
Intelligence. Secret. In a covering memorandum to a slightly different
draft of this memorandum, September 21, Hoover told Clark
that “it is essential to consummate the Government program upon this
subject at the earliest possible date, and accordingly, I believe that
any affirmative action which may be taken to advance this program should
be taken very promptly.” (Ibid., RG 263, Records of the Central
Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers, FBI Documents) See the Supplement. The
memorandum apparently was not sent to Truman. In October 22 covering letters, Clark sent Smith and Appleby
of the Bureau of the Budget copies of this plan. See the Supplement for
the October 22 letters. (National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 51, Records of the Office of Management and Budget, Director’s Files,
Series 39.27, Intelligence)Washington, undated.
A PLAN FOR U.S. SECRET WORLD-WIDE INTELLIGENCE COVERAGE
Secret world-wide intelligence coverage for the benefit of the United States
Government must have as its primary objectives the providing to the
executive branches of the Government basic data on a world-wide scale upon
which plans may be formulated and action taken, and the insuring of internal
security from the threat of infiltrating foreign agents, ideologies, and
military conquest. Intelligence coverage must be had immediately. There is
no time for training and organizing a new corps.
There is in operation in the Western Hemisphere an intelligence plan based on
simplicity of structure and flexibility of operations which has functioned
efficiently, secretly, and economically since prior to Pearl Harbor, and has
proved its adaptability to world-wide coverage by the effectiveness of its
operation in the Western Hemisphere field.
It is proposed that the time-proved program in operation in the Western
Hemisphere be extended on a world-wide basis with certain modifications.
The Plan
The plan provides for the joint operation in every country of the world of a
service reporting through State Department channels composed of a member
from each of the Office of Military Intelligence (military attaché), the
Office of Naval Intelligence (naval attaché), and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (legal attaché), each as a specialist in its own field and
able to operate without a duplication of effort but closely correlating
their operations to insure complete coverage.
A committee to control basic policy would be composed of the Secretaries of
State, War and Navy and the Attorney General. There would be an operational committee set up by the
President composed of an Assistant Secretary of State, the Directors of
Military Intelligence, Naval Intelligence and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
A unit for evaluation and analysis would be established in the State
Department to which the three operating agencies would furnish intelligence
data and appropriate review, analysis, and utilization in international
matters.
Facility of Operation
The program proposed is somewhat similar in operation as that presently
operating in the Western Hemisphere. It has proved its effectiveness,
requires no elaborate superstructure and the interested agencies have
available trained personnel and operating facilities for recruiting,
training, and dispatching additional personnel. The plan, consequently, can
be placed in operation immediately by the President merely setting up the
policy board, creating the evaluation and analysis section in the State
Department and then extending the authority heretofore given to the
Directors of Military and Naval Intelligence and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for operation in the Western Hemisphere to operate on a
world-wide basis.
This plan has produced in the Western Hemisphere a maximum amount of
information with a minimum of operating personnel and expense, and has not
resulted in any embarrassment whatsoever to the United States Government.
Its secrecy is assured through the dissemination of the operations among the
already existing Government agencies which have previously operated
successfully for a long period in their respective fields.
Points for Consideration
Foreign and domestic civil intelligence are inseparable and constitute one
field of operation. The German-American Bund and the Italian Fascist
organizations in the United States originated and were directed from abroad.
The Communist movement originated in Russia but operates in the United
States. To follow these organizations access must be had to their origin and
headquarters in foreign countries as well as to their activities in the
United States. Every major espionage service has operated on a world-wide
basis except that of Britain which has had a separate organization for
domestic and foreign intelligence, but Britain is in the process at present
of consolidating the two services based on their experiences through the war
period. In order to cope with the activities of various subversive agents in
the United States with speed and dispatch, it is entirely evident that their
activities must be followed throughout the various countries by one
intelligence agency of the United States Government. Valuable time, as well
as efficiency and effectiveness, is
lost if one agency covers their activities in Europe, another in Latin
America and another in the United States.
The theory that police work and intelligence coverage cannot be combined has
been entirely dispelled. Police arrests under modern police practice is only
one of the important functions of a police agency. In fact, all police work
specifically involves the gathering of information in the nature of
intelligence. Extensive intelligence coverage must necessarily precede the
arrest of the enemy agent in the United States and it is not possible to
separate the gathering of intelligence from police functions in view of the
numerous criminal statutes such as those relating to espionage and sabotage
which must be enforced by police action although directly concerned with
intelligence. One of the major factors in the control of subversive
activities in the Western Hemisphere during the war was the coordination of
efforts of the various police organizations throughout the United States and
Latin America through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
A hazard in intelligence operation is the possibility of a charge being made
that the organization is a “Gestapo.” Also, a police agency which engages in
intelligence operation may be called a “political police.” Both charges are
obnoxious to American citizens. The set-up operating in the Western
Hemisphere throughout the war has engaged in both police and intelligence
activities and its record of protecting civil liberties has been highly
praised even by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Respectfully,Printed from an unsigned
copy.
18. Memorandum From G.E. Ramsey, Jr., of
the Bureau of the Budget Staff to the Assistant Director for Estimates of
the Bureau of the Budget (Martin)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 51, Records of the Office of Management and Budget,
Director’s Files, Series 39.27, Intelligence. No classification
marking.Washington, September 24, 1945.
SUBJECT
Disposition of OSS
Schwarzwalder, Cooper and I spent
the better part of Saturday morningSeptember
22. with General Donovan
and his top staff discussing problems incident to the disposition of OSS.
Donovan and his staff had read into
the executive orderE.O. 9621 of September 20;
Document 14. the abolishment of all
of the positions that were organizationally associated with the Director’s
office and had concluded that their connections with the outfit would
terminate October 1. Our assurance that the order only related to the legal
entity of the Office of the Director and not to individual positions, except
that of the Director, was not too reassuring. We are taking steps to get a
further clarification of this as it would be undesirable for all of the key
people to leave on October 1.
It is entirely possible that Donovan’s
interpretation of the order was for the purpose of introducing a confusing
issue at the opening of our discussion as he makes it abundantly clear that,
in his opinion, the order is a mistake and that the Director of the Bureau
of the Budget has made a decision without full knowledge of the facts
involved. Although he says that he has talked to Snyder and Rosenman
about the intelligence problem it is evident that he fixes the
responsibility of the recent executive order on the Bureau.
He states that the termination date of October 1 is evidence of our lack of
understanding of the real problems involved. With respect to the date he has
a point. Aside from the short time allowed for taking care of the actual
mechanics of the switch there is much to be said in giving Donovan an opportunity to remove certain
individuals who have been working under special “cover” arranged by
Donovan. There appear to be
several other human relation problems incident to demobilization of some of
the units which should be handled with care. Through an oversight the
effective date of the Executive Order was not changed as the issuance of the
order was delayed and instead of allowing from three to four weeks for the transfer as the earlier
drafts would have done the order as issued allowed only ten days. Since we
still have (at 9 a.m., September 24) to establish or firm up the points of
contact in the State and War Departments for taking over the parts of OSS to be transferred our problem is further
aggravated. Lawton has suggested that the War
Department might continue Donovan in
charge of the part of OSS transferred to it
for an interim period and this seems to be a desirable thing to do
notwithstanding the fact that Donovan
will continue to agitate for a centralized intelligence agency.
Lawton’s reaction was passed to Don Stone yesterday and Don expects to discuss this problem further
with McCloy this morning and perhaps
suggest that Donovan or General Magruder, Donovan’s assistant, be continued to give
continuity.
It is equally important to announce the appointment of the person who is to
handle the parts to be transferred to the State Department. Unless these two
areas are clarified promptly it would seem highly desirable to extend the
termination date of OSS to at least October
15.
19. Memorandum From the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(Hoover) to Attorney
General ClarkSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, FBI Documents. Personal and Confidential.Washington, September 27, 1945.
I learned last night that Colonel Alfred
McCormack has been assigned to the State Department for the
purpose of forming a World-wide Intelligence organization. This information
is confirmed by a news story appearing in this morning’s Washington Post, a copy of which I am attaching hereto for your
convenience.Not printed. I have
reason to believe that the information contained in this newspaper article
is accurate, and, in addition, I am advised that Colonel McCormack will have the complete
determination as to the nature of the World-wide Intelligence organization
to be set up, the scope of its operations and all other details with
reference thereto. According to my source of information, Colonel McCormack’s views will be approved by the
Bureau of the Budget. Colonel McCormack will be released from the
Army in the immediate future and will have a civilian status in the State
Department where he will first set up an interim intelligence organization,
which will be replaced around the first of the year by a permanent
organization. By way of background, it may be noted that Colonel McCormack was formerly associated in the
practice of law with Assistant Secretary of War J.J. McCloy. I am not at all optimistic as to the sympathy
which Colonel McCormack may have
toward our program.
I think that the announcement of Colonel McCormack’s appointment clearly indicates that the
World-wide Intelligence Service will be operated by and as a State
Department project. I think, consequently, that it would be well if you have
not already done so, to bring to President Truman’s attention in the immediate future our views as to
the most desirable way to establish the World-wide Intelligence Service.
Respectfully,
J. Edgar Hoover
20. Letter From Secretary of War Patterson and Secretary of the Navy Forrestal to Secretary of State ByrnesSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–802, Item 9. Top Secret.Washington, September 29, 1945.
Dear Mr. Secretary: During the war the Army and
Navy have given continuing thought to the problem of how best to serve the
national interests in the field of intelligence in peacetime.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, after extended consideration, have submitted their
conclusions on the matter to the Secretaries of War and the Navy for
transmission direct to the President. In view of the Executive Order of 20
September which terminated the Office of Strategic Services, and the
President’s letter of the same date which charged the Secretary of State
with taking the lead in developing a comprehensive and coordinated foreign
intelligence program for all Federal agencies concerned with that type of
activity, the Secretaries of War and Navy have decided to transmit the
recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff herewith to the State Department.See Document 13. It is assumed that you
will transmit these recommendations to the President for his
information.
Sincerely yours,
Robert P. PattersonPrinted from a copy that
bears these typed signatures.James Forrestal
21. Memorandum From the Director of the Strategic Services Unit of the
Department of War (Magruder) to the Assistant Chief of Staff for Military
Intelligence, War Department General Staff (Bissell), the Acting Director of Naval Intelligence
(Inglis), and the Secretary of
State’s Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence (McCormack)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–135. No classification marking.Washington, October 1, 1945.I wish to propose the immediate establishment of an informal interim
committee to effect liaison as well as to discuss and prepare
recommendations with respect to cooperation in intelligence matters
within our respective authorities arising from the implementation of the
Executive Order dated 20 September 1945.The purpose of this informal committee is to effect immediate
coordinated working arrangements within the spirit of the Executive
Order and the President’s letter to the Secretary of State dated 20
September 1945.I should appreciate an early expression of your views in this letter
and, if you agree, the designation of a representative to meet as soon
as practicable.John MagruderPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Brigadier General, USA
22. Memorandum From Morton B. Chiles of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Director (Hoover)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG
263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, FBI Documents. No classification marking.Washington, October 2, 1945.
This morning I visited President Truman for approximately 35 minutes at which time we
discussed thoroughly the Bureau’s participation in World Wide Intelligence
in the Western Hemisphere and the advisability of expanding the Bureau’s
jurisdiction to world wide coverage.
Mr. Truman requested me, after World
Wide Intelligence was mentioned to familiarize him with the Bureau’s
activities in this field and the reasons the Bureau should continue in these
operations on a world wide basis. I had the opportunity to fully explain to
him the Bureau’s plan, the Bureau’s method of operation and all of the
reasons why the Bureau should expand to coverage of the world. Mr. Truman during the course of this
conversation asked me questions and appeared to be most interested in
gaining a complete picture of the intelligence operations. He agreed that
there could be no satisfactory separation in the handling of domestic
intelligence and foreign intelligence. He expressed concern regarding the
possibility that a World Wide Intelligence organization would gain the
reputation of a “Gestapo.” Concerning this, the Bureau’s reputation and
experience in the handling of intelligence matters during the past several
years without such incident were explained to him.
The President stated that he had been seriously considering a World Wide
Intelligence organization the past few days and that he intended to make
some decision in this matter in the immediate future. He indicated that he
had in mind some type of intelligence agency that would report to and be
responsible directly to the White House. Mr. Truman commented that he was shocked at the amount of
“crookedness” prevalent in public office at the present time, but did not
elaborate on this.
I suggested to the President that prior to the making of a definite decision
that he consider conferring with you. He appeared pleased with this
suggestion and stated that should he desire further information concerning
the organization to handle World Wide Intelligence he would call upon
you.
The President during this interview, which was spent in part in discussing
our families and other matters of mutual interest, displayed a most
congenial attitude toward the Bureau and stated that he felt that it was the
most efficient organization in Government service.
It may be of interest to you to know that I arrived at the White House
approximately 20 minutes early for my appointment, and Mr. Truman came immediately to the Reception
Room and escorted me to his office which afforded us more time for the
interview.
23. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (McCormack) to the Director of the Strategic Services Unit,
Department of War (Magruder)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–135. No
classification marking. Copies were sent to Stone, Inglis,
and Bissell.Washington, October 4, 1945.Your memorandum of 1 October, addressed to the A.C. of S., G–2, the Acting Director of Naval
Intelligence and myself,Document 21. Replies by General Bissell and Commodore Inglis both October 4, are ibid.
See the Supplement. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–135) is acknowledged. In accordance with our oral
discussions I think that liaison is necessary in order that the
activities and administration of the Interim Research and Intelligence
Service may be coordinated with the activities of the organizations
under you. Such coordination is a temporary problem relating to the
period between now and the end of the year.Your letter, however, appears to contemplate a committee which will
function in lieu of the interdepartmental group provided for in the
President’s letter of 20 September 1945 to the Secretary of State. That
does not seem to me to be in order. The President’s letter directed the
Secretary of State “to take the lead in developing a comprehensive and
coordinated foreign intelligence program for all Federal agencies
concerned with that type of activity … through the creation of an
inter-departmental group, heading up under the State Department.…” It is
my view that the Secretary of State, as a first step in the development
of a government-wide intelligence program, must develop the State
Department’s intelligence program. As you know, only the preliminary
moves have been made toward such a program by the Department.In the development of such a program the first problem affecting the
War Department relates to that part of the 20 September 1945 Executive
Order which provides for transfer to the State Department, in addition
to the Research and Analysis
Branch and the Presentation Branch, of those other functions of the
former OSS which, as determined by the
Director of the Bureau of the Budget, relate to the functions of the
R & A Branch and the
Presentation Branch. In the ten-day period between the issuance and the
effective date of the Executive Order, the Bureau of the Budget was
unable to make a determination as to what other functions of the OSS were related to those of the R & A and Presentation Branches, and
therefore the transfer of such other functions, if any, was postponed
and only the two named Branches were transferred.Investigation may reveal that some activities transferred to the War
Department would more appropriately be performed in the Department of
State. In addition, many problems have been created by the manner in
which the OSS organization was split,
notably those growing out of the transfer to the War Department of the
entire Administrative Service organization.I agree with you that it would be helpful to appoint liaison officers
to function on such matters and on the matters referred to in paragraph
1 above; and as soon as I get a staff I will appoint a liaison
officer.Offhand, however, I see no reason for a liaison committee. MIS and DNI
should be consulted on all problems which affect them, but most of the
problems between the respective heirs of the former OSS are administrative and of no interest
to the military intelligence units of the services. Unless you have
something in mind that does not appear from your letter, my preference
is to conduct liaison directly with G–2,
MIS and DNI.With respect to the creation of a group to function on the problem of
a government-wide intelligence program, I anticipate that the Secretary
of State will initiate action in that direction in due time.Alfred McCormackPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
24. Memorandum From the Director’s Assistant (Tamm) to the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (Hoover)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence
Agency, Troy Papers, FBI Documents. No classification marking.Washington, October 4, 1945.
I think that your apprehension about the form the World-wide Intelligence
Service will take is well-founded, in view of the inclination in the
attached memorandum that “Departmental” activity will be continued.Not further identified. I think that if the
final die is cast in line with what we recognize as the General Donovan plan in this program, we should
still try to get out of this mess.The words “we
should still try to get out of this mess” have been underlined in the
source text, and directly below, apparently in Hoover’s hand, is written: “I most
certainly agree. H.”
Respectfully,
Edw
25. Memorandum From the Chief of Naval Operations and Commander in Chief,
U.S. Fleet (King) to Secretary of the Navy
ForrestalSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 80, General Records of the Department of the Navy,
SecNav/CNO Top Secret Correspondence File, 1945, Box 21, Folder A8. Top
Secret.Washington, October 9, 1945.
SUBJECT
Intelligence
REFERENCE
Memo from Admiral S.M. Robinson dated 4 October
1945 on the subject of IntelligenceKing was
responding to an October 5 note from Forrestal (ibid.), asking for his comments on an
October 4 letter from Admiral Samuel M.
Robinson, Chief of the Navy’s Office of Procurement
and Material. (Ibid.)Admiral Robinson’s memorandum is on a subject of
great importance to the United States. It is, as he says, most important
that there be provided a proper intelligence department in this
Government.As you know, and as Admiral Robinson probably
does not know, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have recognized the inadequacy
of present organizations in various Governmental departments and have
submitted to the Secretaries of War and Navy their recommendations for
the creation of a central coordinating authority for the operation of an
intelligence service of the United States.It is understood the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have
been forwarded by the Secretary of Navy and the Secretary of War to the
Secretary of State for further transmittal to the President for his
information. As you know, this recommendation provides for setting up a
national intelligence authority composed of the Secretaries of State,
War and Navy and a representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with a
Director of a central intelligence agency appointed by the President and
an intelligence advisory board.In my opinion, the present unsettled question concerning the
reorganization of intelligence activities of the Government should be
resolved at the earliest practicable date. I recommend that the Navy
Department press for an early establishment of the central intelligence
agency along the lines recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. EJ King Fleet Admiral, U.S. Navy
26. Memorandum From Secretary of the Navy Forrestal to Secretary of War PattersonSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–31, Item 22. No classification marking. The
source text is an extract transcribed in July 1952 for the CIA
Historian. The original document has not been found.Washington, October 13, 1945.
It occurs to me that these subjects which have common interest to both
Departments might be the basis of a discussion between us some time in the
near future:…
2. Joint Intelligence. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, as you know, made a
recommendation to the President for a national intelligence organization,
the general outline of which provides for intelligence supervision by the War, State and Navy
Departments, with a director charged with the working responsibility
functioning under these individuals as a group. I think this is a subject
which should have our close attention. The Joint Chiefs of Staff paper seems
to me soundly conceived and, if you agree, I think we should push it
vigorously at the White House.…
James ForrestalPrinted from a copy that
indicates Forrestal signed
the original.
27. Memorandum From Secretary of the Navy Forrestal to Secretary of State ByrnesSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG
59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49,
101.5/10–1345. No classification marking.Washington, October 13, 1945.
I am enclosing memoranda as follows:Captain Souers, Assistant
Chief of Naval Intelligence, to Mr. Eberstadt, who dealt with the question of central
intelligence in his report to me on the proposed unification of the
Armed Services;Printed as enclosure
1.A memorandum from me to Admiral King;In this memorandum, October 4, Forrestal proposed a meeting
with Hoover, McCormack, Inglis, and Bissell. (Ibid.) Attached to
the same memorandum Forrestal apparently sent a copy of enclosure 1
and asked for King’s “suggestions as to Navy objectives and
recommended methods of implementation.”A response from Admiral King.Printed as enclosure 2.
I wish you would regard this as an informal transmission and return these
papers after reading. Subsequently, I would like to suggestAt this point Forrestal added by hand in the margin the words “for
your consideration.” that you put on the agenda of one of the
meetings with Bob Patterson and myself,A reference to the periodic meetings of the Secretaries
of State, War, and Navy known as the “Committee of Three.” this
question, which it seems to me is one of the most important, considering the
state of the world, that we have before us as a government.
James Forrestal
Enclosure 1No classification
marking.Washington, September 27, 1945.
Memorandum From the Assistant Chief of Naval
Intelligence (Souers) to
Ferdinand Eberstadt
As your programA reference to the
Eberstadt
Report. envisages the creation of a strong central
intelligence agency, I would like to invite your attention to
certain developments which may possibly facilitate the program but
if prompt and adequate action is not taken may make it difficult if
not impossible of accomplishment in a form satisfactory to the
Navy.The President on 20 September 1945 directed the Secretary of State
to take the lead in developing a comprehensive and coordinated
foreign intelligence program for all federal agencies concerned with
that type of activity and suggested it be done through the creation
of an interdepartmental group heading up under the State
Department.This morning it was announced in the press that Colonel Alfred C. McCormack, Director of
the Intelligence Group of MIS, has
been selected by the State Department to head up the unit of OSS transferred to State and presumably
to develop the program for the Secretary of State in line with
paragraph 2.That part of OSS not awarded to
State has been transferred to the War Department. The Navy was
ignored in the disposition of the functions and assets of OSS.To adequately protect the interests of the Navy during this
crucial period, it would appear that aggressive action is required
and the following recommendations are respectfully submitted: The Secretary of the Navy attempt to arrange with the
Secretary of State for the early creation of a committee or
group which would include representatives of the Secretaries
of War and Navy. This would make available at the working
level the requirements of the services for the guidance of
the Secretary of State.The Naval officer selected should be thoroughly familiar
with the intelligence requirements of the Navy, should be
thoroughly trained in intelligence and understand the
detailed operations of ONI
and should understand the manner in which the departmental
intelligence agencies operate and overlap.S.W. SouersCaptain, USNR
Enclosure 2Secret.Washington, October 12, 1945.
Memorandum From the Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet
(King) to Secretary of the Navy Forrestal
Replying to your memorandum of 4 October,See footnote 2
above. it is my thought that the Navy has four main
objectives in the field of Intelligence. Maintenance of an adequate and efficient Naval
Intelligence Service with control by the Navy of collection,
processing and dissemination of operational communication
intelligence and other functions necessary to the exercise
of naval command.Elimination of all unnecessary duplication in ONI of those intelligence
functions which properly belong to the State or War
Department.Unification of intelligence activities of common concern
to the State, War and Navy Departments in order to
synthesize Departmental intelligence on the strategic and
national policy level.Improve facilities for the acquisition of secret foreign
intelligence for the use of the U.S. Government.With the reorganization of the Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations all intelligence functions in the Navy will be
consolidated under the Chief of Naval Intelligence.In November 1942, General
Marshall and I directed our intelligence services to
explore ways and means of merging their activities in order to
eliminate duplication, reduce overlaps and make headway toward a
unified intelligence agency. Thereafter, a number of joint
activities were established; also each of the services undertook the
performance of certain intelligence functions in behalf of both.
These activities have been successful. It is my desire that those
having peacetime application be continued and that additional joint
projects be established.Complete merger of the intelligence services of the State, War and
Navy Departments is not considered feasible or desirable since each
of these departments requires operating intelligence which is of no
value or interest to the others and in the acquisition and
processing of which peculiar abilities and background knowledge are
indispensable.I recommend establishment of a central intelligence agency, along
the lines of the proposal recently approved by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, to coordinate and as far as practicable unify all foreign
intelligence activities, and to synthesize all the intelligence
concerning military, political, economic and technological developments abroad
for the benefit of those responsible for the determination and
execution of governmental policy pertaining to national
security.If a central intelligence agency is created along sound lines,
with the Navy adequately represented on both the policy making and
working levels so that a flow of intelligence required for naval
planning will be assured, many functions now performed by ONI can be transferred to that
agency.It has come to my attention that in a letter bearing the same date
as the Executive Order abolishing OSS the President directed the Secretary of State to
take the lead in developing a comprehensive and coordinated foreign
intelligence program for all federal agencies concerned with that
type of activity and suggested it be done through the creation of an
interdepartmental group heading up under the State
Department.It is recommended that the Secretary of State be urged to expedite
the establishment of an interdepartmental group for this purpose
which will include representatives of the Secretaries of War and
Navy who know the intelligence requirements of the services and who
are thoroughly familiar with the organization and operating
procedures of the departmental intelligence agencies. E.J. King Fleet Admiral, U.S. Navy
28. Minutes of MeetingSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Diplomatic Branch, Reference File, Minutes of the
Committee of Three, 1944–1947. Top Secret.Washington, October 16, 1945.
PARTICIPANTS
State Department: James F.
Byrnes, Secretary of StateWar Department: Robert P.
Patterson, Secretary of War, Col. Charles
McCarthyNavy Department: James V.
Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy, Major Correa
RECORDER
H.F. Matthews
[Here follows discussion unrelated to intelligence.]
Unified Intelligence Service
Mr. Byrnes said that he would like to
make a suggestion which had been brought to him by Mr. Donald Russell with regard to a unified
intelligence service.This appears to be the enclosure to Document 31. He thought there was general agreement
that there should be a single intelligence service but the question is to
whom should this service report. He suggested that the group of the three
secretaries present should be formalized as a Council of National Defense.
Mr. Forrestal remarked that this was
just what the JCS had proposed in a paper on
the subject.The JCS proposal of September 19; Document
13. Mr. Byrnes
then read from a draft executive order establishing a Council of National
Defense and a unified intelligence service. He pointed out that one problem
arose with regard to the digestion and evaluation of intelligence reports;
he had seen many of General Donovan’s
memoranda but they had become too voluminous and were not coordinated and
what was needed was someone to pull them together. Mr. Forrestal said that Commander Inglis had prepared a very intelligent
presentation of this questionNot found.
and suggested appointment of a Director of Intelligence to concentrate all
the material. The fact that such a director would report to the council of
the three secretaries would answer the argument that in effect we were
setting up a “Gestapo.” Mr. Byrnes
said that this latter argument was the principal objection to Donovan’s plan and that he agreed that
reports should come to the three secretaries. Mr. Patterson said that he agreed; and that the
director must sift out the reports as well as initiate and direct
intelligence activities. Mr. Byrnes
thought it highly important that ours be made the most efficient
intelligence service in the world. Mr. Forrestal stated that he thought the Army and Navy were
pretty close together on this question with the principal difference that
the Navy wished to keep operational intelligence in ONI. Mr. Byrnes
mentioned that a further question is whether such a unified intelligence
service should be set up now or in six months and indicated that he was not
entirely satisfied with the interim arrangement whereunder certain functions
of OSS have been placed in the State
Department. Mr. Forrestal said that
he had sent a memorandum to Mr. Byrnes on Sunday with regard to the intelligence
question.Presumably Document 27, which was dated Saturday, October 13. He
said he thought the general scheme outlined in the proposed executive order
was sound. Mr. Byrnes referred to his
talks in France with General Eisenhower and the high
regard which was held throughout SHAEF of
General Strong, the British Chief of Intelligence. It
was felt that the British Intelligence Service was the best in the business.
Mr. Byrnes also heard a number of our
Air Corps Officers complain of a lack of adequate American intelligence and
praise the high quality of British intelligence. One explanation was that in
the past our Congress had had no confidence in our intelligence service and
consequently was not inclined to grant adequate appropriations. This created a vicious circle where
Congress complained that our intelligence service was deficient and not
worthy of funds and our intelligence service complained that the lack of
funds prevented improvement. Mr. Forrestal pointed out that there is a further contradiction
in Congress at present as they are now attempting to compel the presentation
of the exact text of foreign intercepts. Congress is charging that while we
had the intelligence we didn’t use it properly. There followed some
discussion between Mr. Forrestal and
Mr. Patterson as to whether harm
would be done by making available to Congress official texts of foreign
government communications or whether the fact that we had such
communications was already so well known as to obviate the need for
secrecy.
Mr. Patterson raised the question of
the relationship of the proposed intelligence service and its director to
SWNCC and whether there would be any
overlapping of jurisdiction. It was felt that this question should be looked
into.The State–War–Navy Coordinating
Committee (SWNCC) was established in
1944 to serve as a forum and coordinating group on issues of common
concern to the three Departments. Mr. Forrestal suggested that Mr. Donald Russell get in touch with Commander Inglis on the intelligence question.On the following day Forrestal sent a memorandum to Inglis asking him to “get in touch with
Don Russell of the State
Department and discuss with him the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposal for a
central intelligence agency.” (Memorandum, Forrestal to Inglis, October 17; National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 80, General Records of the Department of the Navy,
Records of Secretary of the Navy James
Forrestal, 1940–47, General Correspondence 1944–47,
80–1–19, Box 129) No other record of this contact has been found except
for the reference in Document 53. At their
October 30 meeting the three Secretaries touched only briefly on
intelligence. The record notes only that “Mr. Forrestal mentioned this question and
the JCS paper on the subject and it was
agreed that he should discuss the question in detail with Mr. Donald Russell, Assistant Secretary of
State.” (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Diplomatic Branch, Reference File, Minutes of
Meetings of the Committee of Three, 1944–1947) No record of a meeting or
discussion has been found. Mr. Byrnes concluded by stating that the proposed plan should
provide for the coordination of foreign policy with intelligence.
[Here follows discussion unrelated to intelligence.]
29. Memorandum From the Director of the Strategic Services Unit,
Department of War (Magruder) to the Assistant Secretary of War (McCloy)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG
263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, Box 10, Folder 73.
Secret.Washington, October 20, 1945.
SUBJECT
National Foreign Intelligence Agency
Discussion
Reference memorandum, with inclosures, for the undersigned, from the
Assistant Executive, Office of the Assistant Secretary of War, dated 18
October 1945.In this memorandum, Colonel
R. Ammi Cutter requested Magruder’s views on a national
intelligence organization for presentation to the Secretary of War.
(Ibid.) See the Supplement. The report was to parallel one being
prepared by the Army Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2, on the same subject (Document
30). Cutter’s request was prompted by an
October 17 instruction (not found) from General
Greenbaum for the preparation of studies on the
subjects that Secretary of the Navy Forrestal had proposed for discussion with Patterson (see Document 26). Cutter transmitted
Magruder’s memorandum to
Patterson under a covering
memorandum dated October 23. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers) See the Supplement.
The Secretary of the Navy has proposed that the Secretary of War and
the Secretary of the Navy join in vigorous support of a plan for the
establishment of a national foreign intelligence organization under a
Director charged with working responsibilities, who would serve and
report to the Secretaries of State, War and Navy, as a group.Document 26.The need for such a foreign intelligence service has long existed and
has been heavily underscored by the national experience during the war
just ended. The implications of the pivotal position which the United
States occupies in world affairs, and the incalculable consequences of
the release of atomic energy, call for the immediate establishment of
such an organization.In the judgment of the undersigned, the essential elements of such a
national foreign intelligence organization are the following:A national foreign intelligence organization must be regarded,
and effectively serve, as the instrument of any and all parts of
the national government concerned with national security or
foreign policy. Since it is the Departments of State, War and
Navy which are most directly and immediately concerned in these
matters, it is appropriate that they should coordinate the
foreign intelligence activities of the federal government and exercise joint
supervision over such a national foreign intelligence
organization.The national foreign intelligence organization should serve as
the central agency within the government for the comprehensive
analysis and synthesis of information concerning foreign
nations. All departments and agencies of the government which
collect such information, whatever may be the manner of
collection, should be required promptly to deposit with the
national foreign intelligence organization such part of the
information collected in such form as may be required by the
national foreign intelligence organization. The information thus
deposited will be collated, analyzed and incorporated into
comprehensive studies. This is not intended to interfere with
the appropriate activities of the several agencies now engaged
in the collection of such information. It is designed to
accomplish the pooling of their product. Such a pooling is
essential to bring together, for presentation to those charged
with responsibility for the formulation of national security and
foreign policy, the comprehensive picture necessary to the
proper discharge of their responsibilities.The national foreign intelligence organization should also be
the national instrument for the procurement of foreign
intelligence by clandestine means. The collection of foreign
information by overt means by the Foreign Service of the State
Department, and by military and naval attachés and other
agencies of the government must, of course, continue. But there
is important information, vital to the security of the United
States, which cannot be obtained except by clandestine means.
Such secret intelligence procurement would include both
espionage and counter espionage.The national foreign intelligence organization should not
engage in the procurement of intelligence by secret means within
the United States. Its clandestine intelligence procurement
operations would be concerned exclusively with areas outside the
United States.The national foreign intelligence organization should not have
any police power.The national foreign intelligence organization should have its
own independent budget.The national foreign intelligence agency should be so
organized as to have great flexibility and to be able to
maintain complete security of operations.
Action Recommended
That the Secretary of War join with the Secretary of the Navy in strongly
supporting the proposal for the establishment of a foreign intelligence
agency, organized in accordance with the principles hereinabove set forth,
under a Director who would serve and report to the Secretaries of State, War and Navy, as a group.
If there should be a merger of the armed forces, the supervisory group might
well consist of the Secretary of State and the secretary for the armed
forces.
John MagruderPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Brig. General
30. Memorandum From the Assistant Chief of Staff for Military Intelligence
of the War Department General Staff (Bissell) to Secretary of War PattersonSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, Box 10, Folder 73. No
classification marking.Washington, October 22, 1945.
SUBJECT
Discussion with Secretary of Navy Regarding Joint IntelligenceReference paragraph 2 (joint intelligence) of the memorandum of 13
October from the Secretary of Navy,Document 26. This memorandum was transmitted
to Bissell under a October
22 memorandum from Colonel L.R. Forney, Acting
Chief of the Military Intelligence Division’s Policy Staff.
(National Archives and Records Administration, RG 263, Records of
the Central Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers,
Box 10, Folder 73) See the Supplement. the important factors
are: By letter of 20 September, the President asked the Secretary
of State to take the lead in developing a comprehensive and
coordinated foreign intelligence program. The letter shows that
the President wants a procedure which will meet the needs of
individual agencies and at the same time serve the Government as
a whole.At the time the President sent the letter, a study by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff on the same subject was being considered
by the Secretaries of War and the Navy. In substance, this study
proposed a national intelligence organization under supervision
of the Secretaries of State, War and the Navy. This JCS recommendation was forwarded to
the Secretary of State
by the Secretaries of War and the Navy under a letter which
included the statement, “It is assumed that you will transmit
these recommendations to the President for his information.”
(See JCS 1181/7).Not found. Until the State Department
has acted on the President’s instructions, it would be
inappropriate for the War and Navy Departments to approach the
President directly with the JCS
recommendations.General Marshall
recently wrote to Admiral King, suggesting
that all Army and Navy intelligence activities be
combined.The War Department has organized an Intelligence Planning
Board under AC of S, G–2. Its
members have made a continuing study of intelligence
organization, including the subject of interdepartmental
intelligence coordination. They have frequently collaborated
informally with naval officers under similar studies under the
Director of Naval Intelligence. a. The outcome of current efforts to merge the armed forces is
unpredictable. Regardless of the outcome, interdepartmental intelligence
coordination must be provided in accordance with the President’s
directive. A necessary first step should be preliminary joint study by
the War and Navy Departments, with a view to determining methods of
combination of military and naval intelligence activities.b. The details of those studies should be worked out by the heads of
military and naval intelligence, under joint authority of the
Secretaries of War and the Navy. The planners who work out these details
should also prepare the details for later coordination with the State
Department pursuant to the President’s letter of 20 September. Any
interim procedures developed for a combination of military and naval
intelligence activities will facilitate the ultimate establishment of
joint procedures involving the State Department. It is recommended that the Secretary of War propose to the Secretary
of Navy that the heads of military and naval intelligence be authorized
to work out plans for combining military and naval intelligence
activity, preparatory to subsequent collaboration with the State
Department.Clayton BissellPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Major General, GSC
31. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration
(Russell) to the
Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence
(McCormack)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, Box 10, Folder 73. No
classification marking.Washington, October 22, 1945.
Colonel McCormack:
In view of General Marshall’s strong
testimony a day or so ago,Apparently a reference
to testimony by General George C.
Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, before the Senate Military
Affairs Committee on October 18. The subject was armed forces
unification and in his testimony General
Marshall urged a unified intelligence system.
would the attached orderThe draft Executive
order, October 1945, is not printed. Title II covers Unified
Intelligence Service. meet the directive of the President to the
Secretary of September 20 and at the same time place us in a better position
to secure the necessary appropriations to continue the functions under Title
II? It is merely submitted for discussion purposes because I am not familiar
enough with the matter to have a considered judgment.No record of a reply by Colonel McCormack has been found.
DR
32. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of War for Air (Lovett) to the Assistant Chief
of Staff for Military Intelligence of the War Department General Staff
(Bissell)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, PenroseDocument No. 12. Secret. Also addressed to the
Assistant Chief of Staff, Operations Division; the Assistant Chief of
Air Staff–2; the Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2, Army Ground Forces; the Director of Intelligence, Army
Service Forces; the Director, Strategic Services Unit; and the Chief of
the Special Planning Division, War Department Special
Staff.Washington, October 23, 1945.
SUBJECT
Report on Intelligence Matters
1. The Secretary of War has appointed the following committee to advise him
on certain intelligence matters, particularly those relating to the subject of the foreign
intelligence activities of the Nation and of the War Department:Robert A. Lovett, Assistant
Secretary of War for Air—ChairmanMajor General H.A. Craig,
OPDMajor General E.R. Quesada, AAFMajor General W.G. Wyman, AGFColonel J.M. Roamer, ASFBrigadier General John
Magruder, SSUBrigadier General C.W. Clarke, G–2
2. The above committee has been directed to make a preliminary report to the
Secretary of War not later than 3 November 1945. It is most anxious to have
the benefit of the views and recommendations of the individuals to whom this
memorandum is addressed at the outset of its consideration of the various
problems involved.
3. Each of the individuals to whom this memorandum is addressed is therefore
requested to furnish to the undersigned not later than 27 October 1945 a
report covering the following subjects, as fully as possible in the time
available:
Part I
The organization of the individual’s particular unit as now
constituted, together with a statement of the functions discharged
thereby based on current directives and practices.A description of the relations that have existed between the
individual’s unit and other intelligence units in the government
during the period of the war.A frank appraisal of the operations of the individual’s unit
during the war period, with particular reference to the fields in
which it is believed intelligence service could have been
improved.A frank appraisal of the over-all operations of all government
intelligence units during the course of the war, with particular
reference to those in the War Department and the Office of Strategic
Services. This part of the report should contain the writer’s
opinion as to the existence of unnecessary duplication, and also of
lack of coordination, if any, between the various government
intelligence units.Such other comments as the writer regards as pertinent on the
over-all intelligence organization of the United States Government
during the war period.
Part II
The individual’s recommendations as to the most desirable
organization and program for the foreign intelligence activities of
the United States Government for the future. There should be
included here the writer’s
views with respect to the desirability of establishing a central
foreign intelligence unit, the place or department in the Federal
Government where this unit should be located, and the broad
functions, responsibilities and composition of such a central unit.
If a central intelligence unit is advocated the report should
contain the writer’s views as to whether its functions should
include those of the collection of information, or whether it should
be limited to such matters as research, analysis and evaluation, and
dissemination.A statement of the field that should be covered by the War
Department in the over-all government intelligence program. This
part of the report should indicate the relationship that should
exist between the War Department intelligence agencies and the
central agency, if recommended, and also the relation between the
War Department agencies and intelligence agencies created in other
departments.A brief statement as to the scope of the intelligence functions
that should be performed under the recommended plan by the Navy, the
State Department and other individual government departments.A description of the recommended division within the War
Department of the intelligence functions which, under the plan
proposed, are to be assigned to the War Department.Recommendations as to the immediate disposition or assignment that
should be made within the War Department, or elsewhere, of the
personnel, facilities and functions of the various units of the
former OSS organization, which have
been recently transferred to the War Department.
4. The above reports are to set forth the opinions of the individuals to whom
this memorandum is addressed, and need not represent the formal conclusions
of the units to which the individuals belong. However, each individual is
requested to consult freely with the officers in important positions in his
unit, and if views are held by others in the unit which differ radically
from those expressed in the reports, either a statement to that effect
should be appended, or memoranda setting forth the differing views should be
submitted.
5. Reports are to be submitted directly to the undersigned without formal
clearance through channels. Eight copies of each report are desired.
By direction of the Secretary of War:Robert A.
LovettPrinted from a
copy that bears this typed signature.
33. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration
(Russell) to
Secretary of State ByrnesSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/10–1345. No
classification marking.Washington, October 24, 1945.
The Secretary:
The directive of September 20, 1945 from the President to you to take the
lead in developing a coordinated foreign intelligence program for all
federal agencies concerned therewith went to Colonel McCormack for action.
A few days ago I set to Colonel McCormack for his consideration, in connection with his
recommendations to be submitted to you in compliance with the President’s
directive, a copy of the suggested order that I gave you on this subject
sometime ago.Document 31
and footnote 2, thereto. I have heard nothing more from
Colonel McCormack on this
subject.
While the ideas expressed in the memorandum of Admiral
KingEnclosure 2 to Document 27. would be satisfied by the
order I gave you, I believe that this subject should be discussed by you
with Colonel McCormack. May I request
that if you have such a conference, no reference be made to the fact that I
have heretofore submitted to you this proposed order.
I am returning herewith the file that you sent me.The October 13 memorandum from Forrestal and its enclosures, Document 27.
Donald Russell
34. Report by the Director, Strategic Services Unit, Department of War
(Magruder) to the
Assistant Secretary of War for Air (Lovett)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
Penrose Papers. Secret. Attached to the source
text is an October 26 memorandum from Magruder to Lovett. This memorandum, and Part I of the report, and
two appendices are in the Supplement.Washington, undated.
INTELLIGENCE MATTERS
[Here follows Part I, an 11-page survey and appraisal of current intelligence
operations and coordination.]
Part II
a. Recommendations as to the Foreign
Intelligence Activities of the United States Government.
1. In general outline, the most desirable organization and program for the
foreign intelligence activities of the United States Government for the
future would involve a continuation of the present department services with
the addition of a central foreign intelligence unit. To this unit would be
delegated some of those functions now carried on, by necessity or choice, by
the present services but which are not strictly related to their functions.
The present departmental services would be expected to continue their
operations without change, under the sole limitation that they concern
themselves primarily with the overt collection of foreign intelligence
peculiar to their respective activities, together with the evaluation,
analysis and dissemination of such intelligence. A further discussion of War
Department intelligence service functions appears in paragraph (b)
below.
2. Preceding paragraphs have brought out clearly the need which the American
Government has for a central foreign intelligence service as exemplified by
conditions during the recent war. The need for a central foreign
intelligence service has long existed, but it has been heavily underscored
by the national experience during the past four years. Looking toward the
future, the situation becomes even more acute in view of the implications of
the pivotal position which the United States occupies in foreign affairs and
the incalculable consequences of the release of atomic energy. The
Government of the United States cannot afford to rely, as it has in the
past, on information provided by other governments unless that information
is subjected to the keenest scrutiny for evidence of bias or self service.
Nor can it depend entirely upon the haphazard contributions of its own departmental intelligence
services, whose major functions are to service the departments to which they
belong rather than the needs of the Government as a whole. It is essential
that the product of all sources of foreign intelligence which are available
to the Government should be coordinated in a central agency through which it
may be made available to the different departments of the Government with
the least possible delay and in the form most likely to be of immediate
value in the formulation of policy.
3. Regarding the broad functions, responsibilities and composition of the
central intelligence unit, the essential elements may be summarized briefly
in the following six major points:
(a) Organization and control. The national foreign
intelligence organization must be regarded, and effectively serve, as the
instrument of any and all parts of the national government concerned with
national security or foreign policy. Since it is the Departments of State,
War and Navy which are most directly and immediately concerned in these
matters, it is appropriate that they should coordinate the foreign
intelligence activities of the Federal Government and exercise joint
supervision over such a national foreign intelligence organization.
The question will undoubtedly be raised as to why such an organization cannot
be ancillary to one or the other of these departments. The major reasons for
the insistence upon the independence of the central intelligence agency are
four in number: Every safeguard is required to prevent the
agency from becoming an instrument of policy of a single
government department. The agency is expected to serve
equally and without prejudice all the interested branches of the
Government. It might be able to do so if it
were attached to one department, but experience has shown that those
departments having no part in its control would be most likely to
feel that their interests were not properly represented.The agency itself should be completely denied
any policy-making function, in order that its objectivity
may be preserved and that it may not succumb to the inevitable
temptation to tailor its reports to support a policy in which it has
an interest. It should be apparent that this danger will be more
readily avoided if the central intelligence agency does not find
itself a part of a single policy forming department.Only a separate agency solely concerned with
intelligence matters can successfully be the repository of
powers and functions delegated to it by all interested
departments. It should be immediately apparent that the War
Department would be exceedingly hesitant to rely upon a branch of
the State Department to obtain on its behalf clandestine
intelligence of a military nature. It would be almost inevitable,
were the central intelligence agency to be attached to the State
Department, that the War Department would feel the necessity of
conducting its own operations in the clandestine field. If, on the
other hand, according to the present proposal, the intelligence
agency should be at least partially responsible to the War
Department (which would contribute to its staff of experts), the War
Department would be more
confident that its needs would be given proper attention and
competent handling.The proper functions of the central intelligence
agency include the provision of foreign intelligence to all
branches of the Government and it must be in a position to serve
them all. Granting the lines which have grown up between
the regularly established government departments, the central
intelligence functions, involving receipt of intelligence from all
departments as well as dissemination of it to all departments, can
be successfully fulfilled only where the agency charged with that
function is independent of any one of them.
(b) Provision for the comprehensive analysis and synthesis
of information concerning foreign nations. The present American
intelligence system resembles a costly group of factories, each
manufacturing component parts without a central assembly line for the
finished product. This function of analysis and synthesis by a central
intelligence agency represents the assembly line which has heretofore been
lacking.
All departments and agencies of the Government which collect information
concerning foreign nations, whatever may be the manner of collection, should
be required to make freely available to the national foreign intelligence
organization such part of the information collected in such form as may be
required by the central agency. The information thus centralized will be
collated, analyzed and incorporated into comprehensive studies. This is not
intended to interfere with the appropriate activities of the several
agencies now engaged in the collection of such information. It is designed
to accomplish the pooling of their product. Such a pooling is necessary in
order to bring together for presentation to those charged with
responsibility for the national security and for the formulation of foreign
policy the comprehensive picture essential to the proper discharge of their
responsibilities.
Comprehensive studies of the type required can only be successfully
accomplished if all possible material is available from all possible
sources. Recent experience has shown that certain sources of information
within the Government have been unwilling, for real or imagined reasons of
security, pride of ownership, or interdepartmental jealousy, to make
available the products of their intelligence activities to other departments
to which these products were of vital interest. If the central intelligence
agency is vested with sufficient authority in its establishment to require
the cooperation on the part of individual departments which experience has
shown does not occur on a voluntary level, it can approach an optimum
capacity for turning out definite studies of value to all departments
individually or in functional groups.
Such studies would be made in part at the request of individual departments
of the Government. Within the central intelligence agency they would be
drawn up by a staff of specialists with wide background and experience drawn
from all phases of governmental and civil life and therefore in balance, without departmental or political
preoccupation. A large proportion of the studies would deal with fields in
which civilians are experts and military men are laymen, and the staff
should therefore contain a concentration of the best civilian talent
available in the country. Such a staff could not be maintained by any single
department of the Government which would be forced to justify the expense
involved in terms of its own professional activities.
(c) Sole responsibility for the procurement of foreign
intelligence by clandestine means. The collection of foreign
information by overt means by the Foreign Service of the State Department
and by military and naval attachés and other agencies of the Government
must, of course, continue, but there is important information vital to the
security of the United States which cannot be obtained except by clandestine
means. Such secret intelligence procurement would include both espionage and counter-espionage.
Reference is made to the memorandum hereto attached which discusses in detail
the basic reasoning behind the maintenance of a clandestine intelligence
organization. (See Tab B.) It describes the wide variety of information,
including political, economic, sociological, psychological, military and
counter-espionage aspects, which is obviously essential for the security and
guidance of the Government, but which is available almost entirely through
clandestine means and not through overt channels. It also outlines the basic
requirements for successful organization of a clandestine intelligence
system.
It is not generally recognized in the United States that the operation of
clandestine intelligence is a highly professional pursuit which should be
undertaken only by experts. The problem of placing and maintaining agents in
foreign countries with proper safeguards, both for the agents themselves and
for the information which they secure, is so complex that it must be
centralized in one separate operating unit acting on behalf of the United
States Government. The professional hazards are such that no country can
afford to increase them by permitting uncoordinated clandestine operations
to be indulged in by various departments whose normal responsibilities are
so great that clandestine operations necessarily constitute a minor
interest.
Special facilities in the nature of training, documenting, financing,
equipping, and maintaining communications with clandestine agents are all
required for the successful performance of the clandestine intelligence
function. Few, if any, of these are generally available in the intelligence
agencies of the Armed Forces and few of these are capable of supporting the
experienced staff essential to successful work along these lines. Adequate
clandestine intelligence coverage of the world for the United States
Government is no small undertaking and requires a concentration of talents
and experience on a scale surpassing the probable estimates of any but
professionals in the field. The Strategic Services Unit of the War Department possesses the nucleus of
such an organization and is in a position to provide figures concerning its
detailed organization and probable cost.
Clandestine intelligence operations involve a constant breaking of all the
rules of correct procedure according to which the regular government
departments must operate. To put it baldly, such operations are necessarily
extra-legal and sometimes illegal. No regular government department, be it
War, State or Navy, can afford to house such operations within itself or
otherwise identify itself with them. Independence of association with them
is therefore essential.
The clandestine intelligence function should be assigned to the central
intelligence agency rather than to any separate department of the Government
because its service, like that of the analytical branch, will be for the
benefit of all departments and will require in even greater degree the
cooperation of all interested branches. Security requires that clandestine
intelligence operations be handled in an agency whose security practices are
of a special character. Association of these operations within an agency the
functions of which are concentrated upon the processing of intelligence will
increase the security by removing the operations from departments containing
large numbers of personnel whose activities are in no way related to
intelligence. Furthermore, the more or less overt analytical branch of the
central agency will provide, in a way, cover for the clandestine operations.
The cover of one of the regular departments of the Government might be more
satisfactory from the point of view of its overt dissociation from
intelligence activities, but such a connection would involve hazards
considerably in excess of the advantages to be gained. In particular, it is
essential that those departments of government charged with the handling of
relations with foreign governments, should be in position to deny with truth
that they have a controlling interest in or knowledge of clandestine
intelligence operations.
Such operations to be successful will require the assistance of all
departments of government on request. For example, any or all of them may,
at one time or another, be asked to provide cover for an agent; the State
Department will be required to provide passports, or authority to issue
passports without too close inquiry into identities or reasons for travel;
the War Department may be asked for arms, for faked plans of operations or
materiel for use in double agent operation. Such types of assistance will be
more freely given to a professional agency of recognized standing in which
the departments have a participating interest than to one which is wholly
under the control of a single department.
(d) Concentration on foreign intelligence. The
national foreign intelligence organization should not engage in the
procurement of intelligence by secret means within the United States. Its
clandestine intelligence procurement
operations would be concerned with areas outside the United States.
The existence of the central intelligence agency would be a matter of
justifiable suspicion if it were subject to the possible criticism that it
could be used as a political tool within the country. Complete concentration
upon foreign intelligence will make it impossible for any administration to
use secret intelligence for its own internal political ends. Whether or not
any administration would choose so to use the agency is a question of no
importance inasmuch as any administration in power would inevitably be
charged by its opponents with so using it.
(e) Denial of police power. For reasons related to
those discussed in paragraph (d) the national foreign intelligence
organization should possess no police power. The alternative would involve
the danger of too great a concentration of power for action in the hands of
the director of the agency and would tend inevitably to affect the
objectivity which is one of the major advantages possessed by a central
organization as opposed to one more closely associated with a policy-forming
department. In addition, the concentration of the central intelligence
agency upon foreign intelligence obviates any practical value to the
possession of police powers which could only be used within the national
boundaries. Any action to be taken as a result of intelligence operations in
foreign countries would of necessity be taken by the departments of the
Government which are properly concerned with foreign relations.
(f) Independent budget. The national foreign
intelligence organization should have its own independent budget for reasons
which have been hinted at in paragraphs (b) and (c) above. These may be more
clearly stated as follows: The cost of maintaining the central intelligence agency will be
considerably in excess of that which could be justified by a
government department charged with more specific functions. No money
value can be assigned to successful intelligence accomplishments.
Budgetary standards of efficiency and economy are not generally
applicable.The maintenance of a clandestine intelligence service requires
certain strict controls on the availability of information
concerning its expenditures, which are not in accord with usual
government practice. Publicizing of amounts paid for the purchase of
information, or even of salary lists of foreign operatives, would
jeopardize the success and the safety of the operations, which would
immediately lose their clandestine nature. It is absolutely
essential that the identities of agents abroad, and even in some
cases those of operational staff members in the home office, be kept
from public scrutiny and that of the exceedingly capable
intelligence agents of foreign nations.
The independent budget of the national foreign intelligence organization
should therefore be considered by the Congress without detailed or open
inquiry into the specific expenditures involved. Experience has shown that such inquiries divulge too great
a quantity of information for the security of clandestine intelligence
operations.
b. Field to be covered by War Department
intelligence.
Under the over-all Government intelligence program, present functions of the
War Department intelligence services will be maintained with perfect freedom
in their own specific fields. These services will, however, be relieved of
the necessity for carrying on intelligence operations the results of which
are not clearly related to the established functions of the War Department.
Intelligence not of a strictly military character which is required by the
War Department will be immediately available to it through the central
intelligence agency in a form more comprehensible, comprehensive, and
significant than is presently possible. The superiority of the new system
arises from the availability to the central intelligence agency of the
intelligence products of all agencies, which products
will have been subject to searching analysis and synthesis by experts of the
central intelligence agency. Those experts, incidentally, will in part be
contributed or assigned by the War Department itself to the central
intelligence agency, thus assuring the participation in the staff studies of
men indoctrinated in the requirements of the War Department.
The intelligence services of the War Department itself will thus be able to
concentrate their facilities on functions in which military men are experts
and civilians are laymen, namely, the collection, evaluation, analysis, and
dissemination of foreign intelligence pertinent peculiarly to the military
service. Typical of such subjects are: TacticsStrategyDoctrineTechniqueCompositionStrength and organizationOrder of battleEquipmentArmamentSupplyInstallationsCapabilities and intentions of the foreign military
services.
c. Scope to be performed by State, Navy
and other Departments.
It is unnecessary to attempt any further statement regarding the scope of the
intelligence functions which should be performed under the recommended plan
by the Navy, State Department, and other individual Government departments
than to say that they in their respective fields should maintain
intelligence activities appropriately serving their normal operations.
d. Division of War Department intelligence
functions.
Those intelligence functions respecting the subjects indicated in paragraph b
above as being appropriate to the War Department should be assigned as
follows: Information regarding foreign Army Ground Forces—to the Military
Intelligence Division.Information regarding Foreign Air Forces—to the Air Intelligence
Division.
It is recognized that a wide overlap exists in the above intelligence fields
which must be adjusted between the A. C. of S, G–2 and A. C. of S, A–2.
e. Disposition of SSU.
The assets, facilities, and functions of SSU
should be maintained in their present state under the supervision and
direction of the Assistant Secretary of War, until such time as a definite
decision has been reached with respect to a central intelligence agency.
In the event that no central intelligence agency results from present
deliberations, it is believed that the SSU
should revert to the operational control of the A. C. of S, G–2, War Department, and operate as a unit under
his jurisdiction. However, integration of SSU personnel and activities into MIS would neutralize its peculiar assets and minimize its
effectiveness.
John MagruderBrig. Gen., USA
35. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Administrative Management,
Bureau of the Budget (Stone) to the Assistant Director, Bureau of the Budget
(Appleby)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 51, Records of the Office of Management and Budget,
Director’s Files, Series 39.27, Intelligence.
Confidential.Washington, October 26, 1945.
SUBJECT
Comments on Proposal “U.S. Secret World-Wide Intelligence
Coverage”Document
17.
Attached is a draft of a reply from you to Tom
Clark covering his plan for a new intelligence setup.The draft is not printed. For the reply as sent,
see Document 37. The plan is analyzed
below.This and the preceding sentence are
handwritten on the source text. This memorandum does not comment
upon the question as to whether this country will or will not engage in any
clandestine intelligence operations. Also, comment is limited to the
proposal as presented. This is more difficult to do than if the plan had
been presented in more detail. Other than stating that the plan is similar
to that in operation in South America and supplying a chart, the document
only contains three paragraphs outlining the plan itself. These three
paragraphs provide for a joint operation in every country of the world
without stating how joint operation is to be achieved; for a top group to
determine basic policy, and for an operational committee, without stating
either what basic policy is or what the operational committee would do; and
provides a unit for evaluation of material supplied by the three agencies. (Later a reference is made to one agency.)
Certain elements of the proposal and of the arguments in support of it appear
to have validity.
There is a need for a “legal” (or perhaps it would be better referred
to as “security”) attaché. I have previously commented on this in a
memorandum of September 19, a copy of which is attached.Document 11.Geographic concepts as a basis for delimiting the operations of
several agencies in the security intelligence field are not
valid.“Police” functions and the collection of a limited kind of
intelligence relating to the police function can be combined.
The weaknesses of the proposal as presented are largely those of
omission.
In using the South American experience as the basis for planning a
world-wide system the proposal fails to consider the vast difference between the two situations. In
South America, our operations were not directed primarily at the
countries in which they were conducted. Our operation there was not
secret in the sense that it would have to be in the big league. It was
aided greatly by Hemisphere defense agreements. Most of the countries
were at war as allies. A whole series of actions resulting from our
intelligence was possible by agreement (the interning of alien suspects,
the Proclaimed List, cooperation of the countries involved in shutting
down radios, effecting travel control, etc.). Even under these most
favorable conditions, the operation in South America could not be
characterized without reserve, as it is in the document, by such phrases
as secret, economical, efficient, proved effectiveness, no elaborate
superstructure, simplicity of structure, flexibility of operations,
assured secrecy, no embarrassment.The plan seems to contemplate the centering under the legal attaché of
all undercover agents and liaison with other intelligence agencies. It
also apparently envisions no other secret intelligence operation in the
Government. The memorandum clearly indicates the limited view of
intelligence from which this springs. Security intelligence properly
done requires the use of some secret activity. To center all secret
intelligence, however, in the security agency would be to inhibit the
development of any really basic intelligence and would probably find us
in any future emergency again, as at Pearl Harbor, on alert no. 1 (i.e.,
against sabotage). Daily conferences with the Ambassador under this
system would tend to enshroud him in a picture of “threats to democracy”
and “intrigue” that would warp his over-all view.The same objection arises from centering coordination in the security
agency. The proposal simply adds an Assistant Secretary of State to the
present Interdepartmental Intelligence Committee, calls it an
Operational Committee, and apparently relies on it for
coordination.A Presidential directive of
June 26, 1939, instructed the FBI
and Army and Navy Intelligence to coordinate their investigations of
espionage and sabotage cases and ordered the heads of the three
services to act as a coordinating group. A Department of State
representative participated informally. For details, see
Troy, Donovan and the CIA, pp.
12–14, 16–21, and 46–51. The present IIC has been a device for securing cooperation in
triplication rather for attaining any coordination. Such a committee,
working only under basic policy and relying principally on daily
meetings in the Embassy, is not an adequate coordinating mechanism.
Delimitation by dictionary, i.e., “legal,” “military,” “naval” will not
work. Coordination can only be achieved by the central preparation of
detailed operating plans. Coordinating authority should be centered in
the interdepartmental committee which the President on September 20
directed Secretary Byrnes to set
up. If the current thinking of key persons in this field is any guide to
the possible decision of the interdepartmental committee, secret intelligence will not be
centered in any one department but will be conducted primarily centrally
or under strong central direction. The Justice proposal actually would
permit FBI to have all responsibility
for secret intelligence under only the mildest kind of direction.
Attached is a suggested reply to Mr. Clark. Both this memorandum and the reply to Mr. Clark have been cleared informally with
Colonel McCormack, Special Assistant
to the Secretary of State for Research and Intelligence.
Stone
36. Memorandum From the Assistant Chief of Staff, Operations Division,
Department of War (Hull) to the Assistant
Secretary of War for Air (Lovett)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the
Central Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers, Box 10,
Folder 73. Top Secret.Washington, October 28, 1945.
SUBJECT
Report on Intelligence Matters
The following report is submitted as requested in your memorandum dated 23
October 1945, subject as above.Document 32. Headings of paragraphs below
correspond to those in your memorandum. Since OPD is not an intelligence agency, no answers are submitted to
questions in paragraphs a, c and e, Part I and d, Part II.
Part I
The following relations existed between OPD and the indicated intelligence agencies during the
period of the war:G–2OPD in collaboration
with G–2, maintained
current estimate of the situation for use in connection
with the preparation of over-all strategic and
operational plans.OPD reviewed and
coordinated all intelligence matters under consideration
by JCS or CCS.OSSOSS activities in
theaters were under theater commanders, who in turn were
under OPD in the
latter’s capacity as command post for the Chief of
Staff.OSS functioned under
general policies and directives issued by JCS, OPD having reviewed and
coordinated all JCS
matters within the War Department.It is believed that in time of peace the military attaché system
serves a definite purpose in obtaining certain military information
limited to that which foreign governments are willing to part with, or
that which is obtainable without arousing the suspicion of such foreign
governments. However, this system both in time of peace and particularly
in time of war is unable to obtain vital military information and vital
economic, political and scientific intelligence both of which are
essential in determining capabilities and intentions of foreign
governments. On the other hand, it is believed that OSS in certain of its fields contributed
considerably to the war effort. Its work in connection with resistance
movements and research and analysis were of inestimable value. Its
sabotage, intelligence and counter-intelligence activities were of
considerable value. It is felt that there was unfortunate rivalry and
duplication of effort between G–2 and
OSS during the war. It is believed
that a well organized and thoroughly integrated national intelligence
system in peace would have considerably increased our capabilities to
make sound and timely estimates in the years prior to this war and would
have materially improved our wartime intelligence.
Part II
a, b and c. The Operations Division agrees with the concept contained in the
directive proposed by the JCS in JCS 1181/5 regarding the coordination of
intelligence activities. This directive sets forth, particularly in
paragraph 5 thereof, in broad outline, the missions and functions of the
Central Intelligence Agency.
It is recognized that the final answer on the difficult problem presented
must be obtained as a result of study of the synthesis of the views of all
the War Department agencies concerned.
The field of intelligence should be considered as a whole. It is
believed dangerous to attempt tight compartmentalization into technical
subdivisions, e.g., air, ground, naval, political, scientific,
etc.While probably broad policies must be evolved on the committee basis
for the Central Intelligence Agency, the administration and operations
undertaken by this Agency should not be subject to the details,
compromises and inefficiencies inherent in discussions by committees and subcommittees, but rather
should be the responsibility of single heads of subdivision responsible
to the Director of the Agency.One of the first tasks in producing a comprehensive national
intelligence system is the development of a comprehensive intelligence
plan. This plan should begin by setting down intelligence objectives
which probably could be broken down into two categories: (a) routine
objectives such as strengths and dispositions of foreign forces and (b)
special projects, such as present Russian actions with reference to
uranium. The comprehensive plan should go on from the objectives to the
scheme for collecting information thereon and this scheme should include
the way in which the various agencies undertaking intelligence
operations will function in the over-all pattern.Two functions of the Central Intelligence Agency should include
assuring adequate arrangements so that each item of war intelligence is
made available to every organization possibly having an interest
therein. The exact procedure in accomplishing this objective must be a
subject of further study. There is some question as to whether the
Central Intelligence Agency can support an organization adequate to act
as a “clearing house” for every item of raw intelligence.The Central Intelligence Agency should be charged with development of
a plan and program as a matter of priority for an adequate foreign
secret intelligence system for the U.S. It is thought that this might be
worked out as a coordinated operation between departmental agencies and
an agency working directly under the Central Intelligence Agency
coordinating the entire project. The operating agency of the Central
Intelligence Agency might also be reasonably charged with the mission of
undertaking special intelligence projects, although not necessarily to
the exclusion of activities by departmental agencies in connection with
the same projects.The functions of the Central Intelligence Agency should include
coordination of the activities of all agencies to determine omissions
and duplications and to arrange for the necessary action to remedy such
omissions and duplications.The National Intelligence Authority will of necessity be rather public
in character. It will be well to hide the activation of the Central
Intelligence Agency. An obscure location and name in the State
Department might be a satisfactory method of achieving this
objective.Radio intercept seems to be a technical activity and from the
operational standpoint, will probably continue to function best with the
departments. As a vital source of information it should be subject to
coordination by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The problems which now face the U.S. and will continue to face this country
in the future dictate that the heads of the State, War and Navy Departments
have knowledge of intentions and capabilities, both political and military, of the other
countries. The Central Intelligence Agency should be charged with preparing
the required estimates which should be made available to the State, War and
Navy Departments and to the JCS to guide
them in their plans and preparations.
On the specific problem of the disposition of the remnants of the Office of
Strategic Services, it is believed that the Central Intelligence Agency
should have a talented analysis and evaluation section. This section should
not attempt to handle those matters which fall within the sphere of single
departments, but should rather devote its talents to studies which assist
the Director and the Authority in determining the current intelligence
objectives and the mechanisms for obtaining them. In addition the Central
Agency’s evaluation section should be the nucleus in preparation of long
range over-all intelligence estimates. Such of the OSS personnel and organization now assigned to the State
Department as are suitable for the foregoing might well be retained for use
in the Central Intelligence Agency.
As to the OSS unit now attached to the War
Department,The Strategic Services
Unit. it is believed that any secret intelligence networks it
possesses plus personnel should be retained for review by the Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency to determine whether he desires to use any
personnel or operating facilities directly under his Agency, the remaining
personnel to be absorbed in existing departmental agencies. In this
connection the appointment of a Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
is a pressing matter.
It is OPD’s opinion that the objective of
U.S. intelligence coordinated under the Central Intelligence Agency is:
“Establishment and maintenance of a world-wide intelligence and
counter-intelligence system capable of furnishing timely information
not only of a purely military but also of a political, economic,
industrial and scientific nature; of preventing the obtaining by
foreign powers of similar information concerning the U.S.; and of
deceiving possible enemies as to the capabilities and intentions of
the U.S. when that is to her interest.” (Quote from para. c, page
10, JCS 1518.)
J. E. HullPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Lieutenant General, GSC
37. Letter From the Assistant Director of the Bureau of the Budget
(Appleby) to Attorney
General ClarkSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 51, Records of the Office of Management and Budget,
Director’s Files, Series 39.27, Intelligence. Secret. Revised by
Appleby on October
30.Washington, October 31, 1945.
Dear Tom:
Harold and I have given a great
deal of thought to the proposal contained in your memorandum “U.S. Secret
World-Wide Intelligence Coverage.”Document 17.
The memorandum emphasizes the similarity of the proposal to the “time-proved
program” as carried on in South America. It seems to us that the use of the
South American experience alone as a basis for a world-wide operation
overlooks the vast difference in the two situations.
Should we engage in any clandestine intelligence operations in peacetime, our
needs will certainly be far broader than was the case in South America. They
will be less related to operational decisions which can be taken instantly.
They will need to get at more fundamental and long-range matters in
commercial, scientific, and other areas. The proposal seems to speak in
terms of security intelligence alone. This limited view of intelligence has,
I think, been in part responsible for many of our failures to estimate
situations properly in the past, to find ourselves sometimes on guard
against the least of our dangers, and to see dangers on occasion that were
out of proportion to the real situation.
Some operation such as that described in the memorandum is already being
carried on abroad. It seems to us that before any additional or new activity
in this field is encouraged, a considerable amount of planning of a
Government-wide kind should be accomplished. As you know, the President
directed Secretary Byrnes on
September 20 to take the lead in providing for such planning and
coordinating on a continuing basis.
What we should be striving for is a way to build a Government-wide
intelligence operation in which all pertinent facilities or resources in
every department are utilized and in which the extreme compartmentation and
interdepartmental jealousies characteristic of our wartime operation are
done away with. The specific needs of the Government including those of any
agency should be determined and operations planned on that basis. Then, too,
plans in which the specific operating contribution of each agency is
developed, need to be prepared and issued for the guidance of the
departments. Neither the Operational
Committee nor the Policy Board in the plan you sent me, if I understand
their duties, supply this need.
I am informed that the State Department will soon be taking the initial steps
to create the interdepartmental committees necessary to begin this
long-range job.
With personal regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Paul H. ApplebyPrinted from a copy that
indicates Appleby signed the
original.
38. Memorandum From the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (Smith) to President TrumanSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG
51, Records of the Office of Management and Budget, Director’s Files,
Series 39.27, Intelligence. No classification marking. Drafted by
George F. Schwarzwalder on October
25.Washington, October 31, 1945.
SUBJECT
Organization of Intelligence Activities in the Government
Within the past few months, with your approval, a number of steps have been
taken to readjust the Government’s intelligence activities to a post-war
basis and to establish within the normal framework of the Government an
effective intelligence operation. These steps have been consistent with a
plan for the post-war organization of intelligence which has resulted from
several years of study by staff of the Bureau of the Budget. The basic
elements of that plan have been discussed with you and were set forth
briefly in the memoranda transmitting the recommendations of Mr. Snyder, Judge Rosenman, and myself on the disposition of the Office of
Strategic ServicesSee Document
2 and footnote 3, Document
4. which you approved through Executive Order No. 9621 of
September 20.
Attached is our complete report of recommendations in this field.Reference is to the Bureau of the Budget report
“Intelligence and Security Activities of the Government,” September 20.
(National Archives and Records Administration, RG 51, Records of the
Office of Management and Budget, Director’s Files, Series 39.27,
Intelligence) See the Supplement. This memorandum summarizes the
recommendations of the report and progress made to date.
A Basis for the Post-war Organization of Intelligence
It is commonly accepted that, despite a continuous improvement during the war
and some individual instances of successful performance, total performance
in intelligence has not been on a par with that of some other nations. My
staff has endeavored to determine the administrative reasons for this in
order that we might learn from the mistakes of the past in building for the
future.
Attached to this memorandum is a report resulting from our studies. It
reviews the Government’s prewar and wartime intelligence activities and
develops conclusions and recommendations. For your convenience, there
follows a summary of the principal findings and conclusions of the
report.
Summary of findings. The principal weakness has been
the inadequacy of the intelligence operations of the departments concerned,
indeed the lack of any intelligence operation in the State Department.
Inadequate operations have resulted in failure to anticipate intelligence
needs, in failure to recognize trends, in lack of perspective, and in
inadequate pooling of intelligence except on the basis of mutual exchange of
individual reports.
Before the war, and to a considerable extent still, there has been an
overemphasis on security intelligence, i.e., intelligence which is concerned
with unfriendly or “dangerous” individuals either at home or abroad. The
overemphasis on this kind of intelligence was largely responsible for our
failure to develop early enough the type of organization necessary to
produce really basic intelligence. Further, the continued placement of the
security intelligence operation within the same units responsible for more
basic intelligence has caused many of our estimates to be overweighted with
security considerations and has caused us too often to be on guard against
the least of our dangers.
Our wartime expansion was not in accord with any prior plan, nor was there
any machinery through which coordination could be achieved. The freedom of
funds enjoyed by the departments during the war has not been conducive to
the development of a Government-wide integrated program nor has much
leadership toward this end been possible during the war because of the fear
of interrupting a vital service. Such attempts as have been made, including
those undertaken by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, have resulted in ad hoc arrangements to further cooperation rather
than to secure real coordination.
Throughout all of our study the newness of intelligence as an operation on
anything approaching its present scale was apparent. There still is a
widespread misunderstanding of what intelligence is, how it is produced, and
in what way it relates to and serves the action and policy-making people.
For example, many persons whose active participation in developing an
effective post-war operation is essential are still thinking narrowly in
terms of spies and intrigue, in terms of current developments and the latest
news, or in terms, solely, of the development of new or special sources of
information.
Summary of conclusions. The report develops, from an
analysis of these weaknesses, four major conclusions and two of secondary
importance which are in effect the elements of a plan for post-war
organization.
Our expanded requirements for intelligence will require more
widespread understanding among Government officials and agencies of what
intelligence is and how it is produced, and a more widespread
participation in the development and implementation of plans for
improved operation.The principal intelligence operations of the Government should be
organized at the point where decision is made or action taken, i.e., at
the departmental, or lower, level and not within any single central
agency. Each department (or subdivision of a department) which has
important responsibilities in international matters or which has
responsibilities for providing the public with information about foreign
countries should provide for a competent foreign intelligence
operation.The basic intelligence operation in each department should be
organized apart from the security or “counter” intelligence operation
serving internal security purposes, except for the mutual exchange of
highly summarized and significant intelligence. To ensure optimum results from the departmental intelligence and
security operations, however, integrated Government-wide programs should
be developed under the leadership of the State Department, through the
creation of two interdepartmental committees, one dealing with basic
intelligence in general (political, economic, military, sociological,
geographic, etc.) and the other with security and security
intelligence.Of a less pressing and longer-range nature are the following two
conclusions: Some high-level intelligence is needed to guide decisions made at a
level above the departments themselves. The State Department should
serve as the principal agency for the development or procurement of such
intelligence. The President, however, may find necessary an independent
research staff to serve his own needs. Should this be found desirable, the research staff should
be small and be concerned primarily with bringing together intelligence
available in all departments to fulfill a particular need.There may be some need to centralize under the direction of the
interdepartmental groups organized under the leadership of the Secretary
of State certain operations which are common to all agencies or which
for policy reasons may best be performed centrally. The determination of
the kind of central operation which will be needed can await study by
the central coordinating body provided for in 4, above. In general,
however, no operation should be undertaken centrally which can be
performed satisfactorily at the departmental level.
Progress in Readjusting to Post-war Organization
The principal steps already taken toward achieving a post-war organization
based on the conclusions outlined above are the following: Of greatest importance in strengthening our intelligence for the
post-war period, and consistent with the conclusions that the
principal intelligence operations of the Government should be
conducted within the departments rather than in a central agency,
was the establishment of an Office of Research and Intelligence in
the State Department. The importance of this step was stressed in
the Bureau of the Budget’s report to Secretary Byrnes of last summer.Dated August 15. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 51, Records of the Office of Management and
Budget, Director’s Files, Series 39.18, State Department
Organization and Functions) See the Supplement. On
September 28 the Department announced the appointment of Colonel
Alfred McCormack as
Special Assistant to the Secretary in charge of Research and
Intelligence.On September 20, through Executive Order No. 9621, the Research
and Analysis Branch and related non-clandestine activities of the
Office of Strategic Services were transferred (effective October 1)
to an Interim Research and Intelligence Service reporting to Colonel
McCormack in the State
Department. The State Department is currently preparing a
supplemental budget for the absorption of the Interim Service, after
considerable readjustment and curtailment, into the permanent
Department. The Office in the State Department was thus provided
with a going and competent research staff.A small part of the Foreign Economic Administration will be
transferred to the State Department in accordance with Executive
Order No. 9630 of September 27.“Redistribution of Foreign Economic Functions and Functions
With Respect to Surplus Property in Foreign Areas”; for text,
see Department of State Bulletin,
September 30, 1945, pp. 491–492. The Bureau of the Budget
is currently working with the State Department in preparing for
absorption of the transferred activities.On September 20, coincident with the public announcement of the
OSS transfer, you directed
Secretary Byrnes to assume
the leadership in developing an integrated Government-wide
intelligence program through the creation of interdepartmental
committees to coordinate the intelligence operations within the
various departments. The immediate problem of building his own
facilities and of assembling a staff have delayed action on this
matter. Staff of the Bureau of the Budget is currently working with
the State Department to assist in organizing these groups and in
developing an orderly procedure.
Steps Currently Being Planned
The desirability of effecting a separation of security and security
intelligence from basic intelligence will necessitate the organization of
two committees in the State Department. It is possible that the State
Department will request your approval of an additional directive to the
departments concerned to clarify the exact responsibilities placed on the
Secretary of State in your previous public letter.
The necessity to secure a more widespread understanding of intelligence and
of the principles on which a strong post-war organization should be based,
not only among Government officials but in the Congress, is still a
paramount problem. During the current period of transition from wartime to
post-war operation, it has been difficult to accomplish as much as is
desirable toward this objective because of the variety of suggestions for
post-war organization currently being considered and advocated. The letters
which you made public to Secretary Byrnes and General Donovan have apparently not yet made it sufficiently clear
that we are not going back to our pre-1939 situation but are moving in
accordance with a plan to develop a more effective program for the future.
Within the limitations of available staff, the Bureau of the Budget has
endeavored to keep in constant touch with planning now under way in the
various departments. The interdepartmental groups which will be brought
together under the State Department will accomplish a great deal. Meanwhile,
however, the Bureau of the Budget will intensify its activities. Among other
things, we intend to give appropriate distribution to the attached
report.Attached to another copy of this
report are two charts entitled “Plan for Organizing and Staffing:
Interdepartmental Coordinating Committees, Intelligence and Security,”
and a “Functional Organization Chart: Interdepartmental Coordinating
Committees Intelligence and Security.” (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Bureau of Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, History of the
National Intelligence Structure) See the attachments to Smith’s memorandum to the President in
the Supplement.
Action Recommended
With your approval, the specific additional proposals which I shall recommend
from time to time relating to the organization of intelligence and security
activities will conform to the general plan outlined in this memorandum and
in the attached report.
Harold D. SmithPrinted from a copy that
indicates Smith signed the
original.
39. Letter From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Research
and Intelligence (McCormack) to the President’s Chief of Staff (Leahy)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG
263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, Box 10, Folder 73. No
classification marking. Leahy
met with McCormack on this date
to discuss “the formation of a Central Intelligence Service.” (Library
of Congress Manuscript Division, Papers of William D. Leahy, Leahy Diaries 1945, p. 182)Washington, October 31, 1945.
My Dear Admiral
Leahy: Enclosed is the President’s Executive Order
relating to the OSS, together with his
letters to General Donovan and the
Secretary of State.See Documents 14 and 15, and the source
note to the latter. On the last page of the attached you will
find the place where I have marked to show what the present directive states
in respect to machinery for formulation of plans for post-war
intelligence.
It has seemed to us in the State Department that this Department should
formulate its own plans before going ahead with the interdepartmental group.
That position has been acceptable to the Army and, I think, also to the
Navy, and the Army has had a Board functioning for the purpose of
determining its position on the post-war intelligence problem.
Sincerely yours,
Alfred McCormack
40. Memorandum From James S. Lay,
Jr., of the Office of the Special Assistant for Research and
Intelligence to the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Research and
Intelligence (McCormack)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–32.
Confidential.Washington, November 2, 1945.
SUBJECT
Comparison of Bureau of the Budget and Joint Chiefs of Staff Plans for
Coordination of Intelligence ActivitiesGeneral. Basically, the “Report on the
Intelligence and Security Activities of the Government” by the Bureau of
the Budget, dated September 20, 1945, differs in the following
particulars from the proposed Memorandum for the President in which the
Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend the establishment of a National
Intelligence Authority and a Central Intelligence Agency. Scope of Intelligence. The Budget Plan
covers intelligence required both for protecting our national interests (i.e., national
security) and for furthering those
interests. This concept is much broader than that envisaged by
the JCS, which is confined to
the “intelligence mission related to the national security.” The
Budget Plan’s distinction between “intelligence” and “security
intelligence” also is lacking in the JCS Plan. These differences make the Budget Plan
broader in scope, more positive in its concept of the
intelligence mission, inclusive of wider interests and more
agencies, and more precise in its consideration of types of
intelligence.Approach to the Problem. The Budget
Plan is concerned first and foremost with improving and
coordinating the intelligence activities of the existing
departmental agencies, leaving the need for centralized
production of intelligence and centralized operations for
decision if and when improved departmental facilities are still
judged inadequate. Conversely, the JCS Plan assumes the need for and authorizes the
immediate establishment of such centralized services, regardless
of the eventual adequacy of improved departmental activities
under effective State Department leadership. Therefore, the
Budget Plan, while anticipating the possible need for additional
facilities outside the existing departmental structure, provides
a more orderly, effective and economical approach by
concentrating urgently on overcoming inadequacies at the levels
where decisions are being made and high-level policies
formulated.Basic Similarity of Objectives. Subject to the
above fundamental differences, the two plans have a common objective and
many similar provisions. Both
lodge the authority for decisions with, rather than separate from the
responsible officials of the departments primarily interested in and
affected by such decisions. Both recognize the immediate need for
coordinating departmental intelligence activities. Both provide that the
interdepartmental authority may and should utilize the skilled personnel
and specialized facilities of all agencies. Both are designed to ensure
that national intelligence requirements are met, while at the same time
departmental requirements are fully and promptly recognized and
fulfilled.Desirable Features. Means and methods of
achieving the common objective, however, differ considerably in the two
plans. The features considered desirable in both plans, additional to
those already identified, are discussed below: Recognition of Responsible Officials.
The JCS Plan contains two
desirable features. First, authority for decisions rests
directly with the Secretaries of the interested departments,
rather than with Assistant Secretaries. Thus, decisions carry
the full weight of the top official in each department and
should therefore receive more effective implementation. This,
however, does not preclude each Secretary from delegating that
authority as he deems fit. Second, the establishment of an
Intelligence Advisory Board provides definite machinery through
which the operating head of the coordinating body may confer
with the heads of the departmental intelligence agencies, thus
encouraging mutual understanding, confidence and
cooperation.Representation of All Interests. The
Budget Plan, through its broader concept, provides for the
participation and contribution of all departments and agencies
and thus represents a more comprehensive mobilization of
intelligence resources.Elimination of Unnecessary Duplication.
The Budget Plan recognizes that no single department can
possibly or should attempt to secure or produce the intelligence
it needs without utilizing other facilities. This plan therefore
guards against unnecessary duplication that would inevitably
occur under the JCS Plan which
states that existing intelligence agencies, subject to
coordination by the national authority, “shall continue to
collect, evaluate, synthesize and disseminate … that
intelligence required by the several departments and independent
agencies for the performance of their proper functions.”Recognition of State Department Leadership
in Foreign Affairs. The Budget Plan recognizes and
provides for the “leading role of the State Department as a
staff agency to the President” by placing representatives of
that department in the leading position at all levels,
especially on the Planning Staff and the Joint Secretariat. This
is considered essential to ensure that intelligence operations
are geared to and consistent with overall foreign policy. The
JCS Plan, by separating the
operating head from any
department, does not provide for such direct sensitivity to
foreign policy.Effective Administration. The Budget
Plan, by providing that the State Department shall be primarily
responsible for all administrative services, offers more
simplified, consistent and effective administration. Procurement
of appropriations will also be facilitated. Dispersal of the
responsibility for such services, as provided in the JCS Plan, will inevitably result in
bickering, compromise, confusion and lack of continuity.
Moreover, such dispersal places the administrative operations of
the coordinating body at the mercy of three separate
masters.James S. Lay, Jr.Printed from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
41. Memorandum for InformationSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 263, Records
of the Central Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers,
Nov. 1945. Secret. The date is handwritten on the source
text.Washington, November 2, 1945.On Wednesday 31 October, I was seated next to Alfred McCormack (in charge of State
Department’s portion of OSS), at a
formal luncheon. He told me that:He does not believe in a Central Intelligence Agency.He believes each department should have its own unfettered
intelligence service.He is not worried about duplication of effort. Competition is
healthy.He thinks the fields covered by the various services should be
examined and any gaps in their coverage filled in.A committee composed of the Secretaries of State, War, and
Navy might well act in a consulting capacity for shaping broad
policies and coordination.The Army and Navy should retain communication intelligence as
at present.I raised the question of what agency should operate secret agents, but
got no specific answer.
Respectfully,
Thos. B. InglisPrinted from a copy that
indicates Inglis signed the
original.Commodore, U.S. Navy
42. Memorandum From the Lovett Committee to Secretary of War PattersonSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, Nov. 1945. Top Secret. Brigadier
General Carter W. Clarke sent this report to the
members of the Committee on November 6. In his covering memorandum he
wrote that Lovett had directed
him to inform the Committee that Secretary Patterson had approved the report. (Ibid.) See the
Supplement.Washington, November 3, 1945.
SUBJECT
Preliminary Report of Committee Appointed to Study War Department
Intelligence Activities
The undersigned special committee was appointed by order of the Secretary of
War, dated 22 October 1945 (Tab A)Not found, but
see Document 32. to advise the Secretary
of War on certain intelligence matters more fully set forth in said order,
including the formulation of a plan for War Department activities in the
field of foreign intelligence, the existing and proposed organization of
G–2, A–2 and the Strategic Services Unit,
now attached to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War, and the future
use or disposition that should be made of all intelligence activities within
the War Department. The Committee was directed to make its report not later
than 3 November 1945.
In the limited time available since its appointment the committee has made as
intensive a study as practicable of the various subjects covered in the
Secretary’s order. It has held nine meetings of the full committee. By means
of a special questionnaire it requested and secured written reports from the
Assistant Chief of Staff, OPD, Assistant
Chief of Staff, G–2, Assistant Chief of Air
Staff–2, Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2,
AGF Director of Intelligence, ASF,
Director, Strategic Services Unit and Director, Special Planning Division,
War Department Special Staff. Copies of these reports are available for
inspection. In addition, the committee took the formal testimony of
Major General Clayton Bissell
(Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2, War
Department General Staff); Mr. William E. Jackson
(formerly Assistant Military Attaché for Air in London and Chief of Secret
Intelligence Branch of G–2, ETO); Mr. David A. Bruce
(formerly Chief, Planning Group, OSS), Mr.
Russell Forgan (formerly Chief, OSS, European Theater) and Lieutenant Commander
Milton Katz (Deputy Chief SI Branch, SSU); Mr.
Lowell Weicker and Mr. Kingman
Douglass (Mr. Weicker served during the
War as Acting A–2 of the Eighth Air Force and Director of Intelligence of
USSTAF, and Mr.
Douglas as AAF
representative at the Air Ministry in London); Colonel William
Quinn (Executive Officer of SSU); Colonel Gordon B. Rogers (formerly
G–2, AGF); Lt General Stanley D. Embick (member of
the Joint Strategic Survey Committee); and Mr. Alfred McCormack (Special Assistant to the Secretary of
State for Intelligence, and formerly Director of Intelligence, MIS). In addition, all members of the Committee
held numerous informal conversations with individuals both within and
without the War Department whose views were believed to be helpful on the
subjects under consideration.
The committee invited the Director of Naval Intelligence and the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation to appear before it as witnesses and
give the committee the benefit of their views and recommendations. Both of
these individuals, however, declined to appear.
The committee has come to the conclusion that it is not desirable to attempt
to cover in this preliminary report all of the subjects enumerated in the
Memorandum of the Secretary of War (Tab A). With the approval of the
Secretary of War it is therefore restricting the conclusions herein to the
two most pressing problems that have been submitted, viz., the question of
the establishment of a Central Intelligence Agency for the United States
Government, and the future of the Strategic Services Unit now attached to
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War. It is intended to supplement
this preliminary report at the earliest practicable date with a further
report of the other subjects referred to by the Secretary.
General Observations
Prior to the outbreak of the war, this nation had no foreign intelligence
collection system worthy of the name. It appears to have been contrary to
national policy to engage in clandestine intelligence or to maintain a
foreign espionage system. Partly as a result of this lack of an adequate
foreign intelligence system in peacetime, the majority of Army Officers who
otherwise possessed the capability of top command did not sufficiently
understand the techniques and methods of utilization of foreign
intelligence.
During the course of the war, various uncoordinated efforts were made to
compensate for this deficiency in our system of national defense. As might
have been expected, most of these expedients were unsatisfactory. Much
effective work in the specialized field of foreign espionage and
counter-espionage was accomplished by G–2 and
the Office of Strategic Services, but because of lack of direction, of
coordination and of cooperation among all agencies, as well as for other
reasons, even these organizations were unable to fill the great need that
existed for complete intelligence coverage. However, it is not the purpose
of this report to review in detail either the accomplishments, or lack of
accomplishments, of the units engaged in the foreign intelligence field. It
is sufficient to point out that there was generally a lack of harmony and
cooperation, a state of overlapping functions and confusion and a failure to
cover certain important fields, that in retrospect appear quite
extraordinary. Throughout the war there existed, and to a large extent there
still exists, a feeling of jealousy and mistrust among the various
intelligence organizations of the Government, and between a surprising
number of officers and civilians engaged in the various intelligence
activities.
The lack of trained and experienced intelligence officers in both military
services has been an important contributing factor to the unsatisfactory
situation. It is important to note that there has never been any serious
effort to make intelligence a career activity. Officers who were undoubtedly
competent in the combat arms or services, but who had had no intelligence
training, were from time to time pressed into service in intelligence roles.
The natural tendency was for them to seek to return to their own basic
branch at the first opportunity. Changes among the top personnel were
frequent. During the war there were in succession four Assistant Chiefs of
Staff, G–2, eight Assistant Chiefs of Air
Staff–2 and five heads of the Office of Naval Intelligence.
The committee wishes to stress with all of the emphasis at its command the
vital importance to this nation of the early correction of this entire
situation. In the difficult years that lie ahead the United States must have
a national intelligence organization, competent and alert to the extreme of
possibility. It must be manned with an adequate number of permanent
personnel of the highest caliber, thoroughly trained in the numerous specialties that are the necessary
components of a modern intelligence system. This will require a totally
different approach to the entire subject of intelligence than has been had
in the United States up to the present. At this particular time the greatest
pains must be taken not only to create an organization and system that will
be adapted to future growth, but also to retain for the Government the
services of the many capable individuals who are now available in various
departments, and who, although not yet properly organized, have received
invaluable training in the hard school of war-time experience. Haphazard
demobilization of existing intelligence units will result in dangerous delay
in reaching the objective.
As indicated above, the following paragraphs of this report will deal only
with the questions of the establishment of a central intelligence
organization and the immediate disposition to be made of the Strategic
Services Unit. The committee believes that extensive additional study should
be given to the organization and consolidation of other intelligence
functions of concern to the Military Services.
The Establishment of a Central Intelligence Organization
The committee has unanimously reached the conclusion that this Government
should establish as promptly as possible a National Intelligence Authority
and a Central Intelligence Agency. The committee has considered a number of
recommendations, received from various sources, as to the composition,
functions and the location of such central organizations, including those
contained in the report of the Director of the Office of Strategic Services
and in the Joint Chiefs of Staff Study of September, 1945 (JCS 1181/5).See
footnote 3, Document 13. The
committee finds itself more nearly in agreement with the recommendations of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff than with any of the other proposals that have
been advanced. In setting forth below its own recommendations, it will
therefore adopt in a substantial part the language of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff memorandum, modified so as to accord with the committee’s views in
certain particulars.
The committee recommends the creation of a National Intelligence Authority
composed of the Secretaries of State, War and Navy, and a Representative of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When and if the National Defense Organization
includes a Secretary or Under Secretary of Air, the Authority should be
expanded by the addition of that individual. Provision should also be made
for the addition of other members of the Authority upon the recommendation
of the existing members, with the approval of the President.
The National Intelligence Authority should have complete authority to
formulate policies which shall be binding upon the Central Intelligence Agency and all intelligence
activities in other Government departments and agencies. The Authority
should be charged with the responsibility for such overall
intelligence-planning and development, and such coordination of all federal
intelligence activities, as to assure the most effective accomplishment of
the intelligence mission related to the national security.
There should also be created a Central Intelligence Agency headed by a
Director who should be appointed or removed by the President on the
recommendation of the National Intelligence Authority. The committee
believes that in order to insure continuity the Director should be appointed
for a long term of years, preferably not less than six. The Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency should be responsible to the National
Intelligence Authority and sit as a non-voting member thereof.
There should be created within the Central Intelligence Agency an
Intelligence Board which should consist of the Assistant Chief of Staff,
G–2, WDGS, the Assistant Chief of Air Staff–2 and the Director of
Naval Intelligence and the Chiefs of the principal civilian intelligence
agencies having functions related to the national security as determined by
the National Intelligence Authority. The functions of this Board should be
to assist the Director, who shall serve as its Chairman, in the carrying out
of all of the activities and purposes of the Central Intelligence Agency and
to facilitate coordination between the Central Intelligence Agency and the
departments and agencies represented on the Board. The Director shall
consult with and secure the opinion of the Board on all important questions
which may arise in the course of the operations of the Central Intelligence
Agency. In the event of a difference of opinion between the Director and
members of the Intelligence Board, the decision of the Director shall be
controlling, subject, however, to the right of any member of the Board to
have the question submitted for final decision to the National Intelligence
Authority. The Director should also consult with the Board before delivering
any estimates and appreciations to the President or any member of the
Cabinet, and if there shall be a difference of opinion among the Director
and the members of the Board, in any such case the differing opinions should
accompany the Director’s report.
Except for its responsibility to the National Intelligence Authority, the
Central Intelligence Agency should be independent. It should be supported by
an independent budget, and its appropriations should be obtainable without
public hearings.
Subject to the direction and control of the National Intelligence Authority,
the Central Intelligence Agency should: Operate as the sole collection agency for all departments of the
Government in the foreign espionage and counter-espionage
fields.Perform for the benefit of departmental intelligence agencies such
other intelligence services of common concern as the National
Intelligence Authority
determines can be more efficiently accomplished by a common agency,
including the direct procurement of intelligence.Coordinate the activities of all intelligence agencies of the
Government whose activities relate to the national security and
recommend to the National Intelligence Authority the establishment
of such overall policies and objectives as will assure the most
effective accomplishment of the national intelligence
mission.Furnish to any Government department or agency, upon the request
of its representative on the Intelligence Board, any intelligence
material or evaluation, which, in the opinion of that member, is
necessary for his department or agency, provided, however, that in
the event that the Director believes it undesirable for any such
material or evaluation to be so furnished, he may submit the matter
to the Intelligence Board for decision or, in the event of
disagreement within the Board, to the National Intelligence
Authority.Accomplish the evaluation and synthesis of intelligence collected
or assembled by it, and the appropriate dissemination within the
Government and among the several departments of the resulting
strategic and national policy intelligence.Perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence as
the National Intelligence Authority may from time to time
direct.
The Central Intelligence Agency should not conduct espionage activities
within the United States. It should have no police or law enforcement
functions either within or without the United States.
Subject to coordination by the Central Intelligence Agency, and to the
limitations expressed above, the existing agencies of the Government should
continue to collect, evaluate, synthesize, and disseminate departmental
intelligence, herein defined as that intelligence required by the several
departments and independent agencies for the performance of their proper
functions. Such departmental intelligence as is required by the Central
Intelligence Agency should be made freely available to it for synthesis.
When approved by the National Intelligence Authority, the operation of the
departmental intelligence agencies should be open to inspection by the
Central Intelligence Agency in connection with its coordinating functions.
In the interpretation of this paragraph the National Intelligence Authority
and the Central Intelligence Agency will be responsible for fully protecting
intelligence sources and methods which, due to their nature, have a direct
and highly important bearing on military operations and national
security.
Operating personnel, including specialists, should be furnished to the
Central Intelligence Agency by the various departments and agencies engaged
in intelligence activities. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
should have the right, with the approval of the Intelligence Board, to call
upon any such departments and agencies to furnish the Agency with personnel
for advisory and functional positions.
INTERIM DISPOSITION OF THE STRATEGIC SERVICES UNIT
At the present time the Strategic Services Unit is attached to the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of War. The committee regards this as an
unsatisfactory arrangement, because it seemingly establishes two separate
intelligence units within the War Department. This objection is increased by
the fact that at the present time G–2 is
engaged in both foreign espionage and foreign counter-espionage matters,
which activities constitute an important part of the present functions of
the Strategic Services Unit.
The committee has considered the advisability of transferring the Strategic
Services Unit to G–2 and amalgamating its
functions with similar activities of G–2.
However, because of its conclusions that all foreign espionage and
counter-espionage activities of the Government should be transferred to the
Central Intelligence Agency as soon as possible after the establishment of
that body, and in order to avoid further administrative complications, the
committee believes that continuing the Strategic Services Unit under the
supervision of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War on a purely
interim basis is justified. Accordingly the committee so recommends.
The committee believes that during this interim period it is important that
two things be done. The first is the proper coordination of the operations
of the Strategic Services Unit with similar operations of G–2. The second is the elimination from the
Strategic Services Unit of all personnel engaged in activities other than
foreign espionage and counter-espionage activities, and also the reduction
of the personnel engaged in these two activities to a small and efficient
group that will be of maximum value to the Central Intelligence Agency when
that body is constituted.
In order to accomplish the foregoing, the committee recommends that there
forthwith be appointed and placed in the War Department under the immediate
supervision of the Assistant Secretary of War, an Interim Activities
Director, who should be an officer of the rank of Major General, or higher.
In consultation with the Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2 and the Director of the Strategic Services Unit, this
Director should, during the interim period referred to above, have direct
charge of the operation and administration of the Strategic Services Unit
and should be responsible for coordinating its activities with similar
activities of G–2. He shall also take
whatever steps are necessary to reduce the personnel of the Strategic
Services Unit in the manner indicated in the preceding paragraph, and effect
the transfer of such personnel to the Central Intelligence Agency as soon as
it is organized.
The committee is of the opinion that as soon as the Central Intelligence
Agency is created, there should also be transferred to it appropriate
personnel of G–2 now engaged in foreign
espionage and counter-espionage
activities. In order that this may be accomplished without delay, and in
order to further coordinate such activities in the interim period with the
similar activities of the Strategic Services Unit, the Interim Activities
Director should make recommendations to the Secretary of War with respect to
(a) the reduction of personnel controlled by G–2 who are engaged in foreign espionage and counter-espionage
activities, and (b) the transfer of personnel in G–2 engaged in such activities to the direct control of the
Interim Activities Director pending creation of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
If such a program is successfully carried out, there will be assembled under
the direct control of the Interim Activities Director all personnel
controlled by the War Department who are engaged in foreign espionage and
counter-espionage activities, whom it is desired to transfer to the Central
Intelligence Agency, and it will be possible to coordinate their various
activities until such time as their transfer to the Central Intelligence
Agency can be effected. In the event that higher authority finally decides
not to create a Central Intelligence Agency, the personnel so controlled by
the Interim Activities Director should be then transferred to the direct
control and administration of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert A.
LovettPrinted from a
copy that bears these typed signatures.Assistant Secretary of War for
AirChairmanH.A. Craig Maj. General, OPDE.R.
QuesadaMaj.
General, AAFW.G.
WynanMaj.
General, AGFC.W.
ClarkeBrig.
General, G–2John
MagruderBrig. General,
SSUJ.M. Roamer Colonel,
ASF
43. Memorandum From the Assistant Director (Ladd) to the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (Hoover)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence
Agency, Troy Papers, FBI Documents. No classification marking.Washington, November 5, 1945, 10:30
a.m.
SUBJECT
World Wide Intelligence Set-up
I telephonically contacted Mr. Fred
Lyon of the State Department and inquired whether he had seen
Colonel McCormack and what Colonel
McCormack might have advised him
with reference to his plans for the intelligence set-up in the State
Department. Mr. Lyon stated he tried
to see McCormack all week and was
unable to get in to see him until Saturday, and that he on that occasion
told him that Mr. Braden had
instructed that he contact McCormack,
inasmuch as Braden was very greatly
concerned over events in Argentina and in other parts of the western
hemisphere. Mr. Lyon informed him
Braden was concerned over the
weakening of the structure of solidarity, and that he was very fearful that
the whole set-up might disintegrate. Mr. Lyon stated he told Colonel McCormack he had talked with Mr. Hoover a week ago and had been trying to see him, McCormack, ever since; that the whole
problem has now reached a point where the FBI is going to call back all of its people from South America
unless something definite is decided, and Lyon told McCormack
he wanted to know what his opinion was and what could be done, inasmuch as
he, Lyon, and Mr. Braden were very much concerned over
developments.
Mr. Lyon stated Colonel McCormack stated he did not know what to do
or what to say; that the FBI’s continuance
in this work outside the United States was something he was afraid would
have to be decided by the Secretary, because (Colonel McCormack stated) only the other day
Secretary Byrnes told him it was the
President’s opinion that the FBI should not
be in the international field, but should confine its efforts to the
domestic field.
Mr. Lyon stated he told Colonel
McCormack he was afraid that was
a point that had not been thought through very carefully; that the State
Department’s experience had been that the FBI had been working in this field for four years; that he,
Lyon, and Braden knew the work it had done and knew
that the FBI saw things the way the State
Department did. Colonel McCormack
then said that, “That is something I am afraid we will have to take up with
the Secretary.”
Fred Lyon then stated that not being
able to obtain any additional information from McCormack he advised McCormack he would again discuss this matter with Mr.
Braden. He has been endeavoring
all this morning to contact Mr. Braden
for the purpose of talking with him about this matter and arranging for
Braden to see Secretary Byrnes. He promised he would call me
immediately upon securing a conference with Mr. Braden, in order that the Bureau may be kept up to date on
this matter.
44. White House MemorandumSource: Truman Library, Official
File, 892, No classification marking. Truman wrote the following note at the bottom of the
page for Matt Connelly: “Matt:
Set this up. H.S.T.” No drafting information appears on the source text;
it is neither signed nor addressed and the exact circumstances in which
it was prepared are unknown. But Truman’s handwritten instructions to
Connelly on this copy clearly make it a
Presidential directive. Troy (Donovan and the
CIA, pp. 320–321) believes that it was inspired by Admiral Leahy who, in turn, was
prompted by “someone from the Navy Department.” Leahy makes no mention of this
document in his diaries; it is therefore not clear precisely how this is
linked to the Presidential instruction Leahy did receive, on or shortly before October 31,
directing him to look into the status of McCormack’s efforts.Washington, November 7, 1945.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
It appears that the development of plans for a coordinated Foreign
Intelligence Program for all Federal Agencies concerned is bogged down
because the War and Navy Departments believe that the problem is being
worked out by the Department of State in obedience to the President’s letter
to the Secretary of State dated 20 September 1945.Document 15.
The only apparently promising prospect of getting useful action on this
problem in the reasonably near future is as follows:
The President to call a conference with the Secretaries of State, War and
Navy, and direct them to work together in the preparation of a plan for the
establishment of a Central Intelligence Service that is acceptable to the
three Departments of State, War and Navy.
This plan to be completed and submitted to the President for his approval at
the earliest practicable date, and not later than 31 December 1945.
45. Minutes of MeetingSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.61/11–1445. Top Secret.
No drafting information appears on the source text. Another copy is
ibid., Diplomatic Branch Reference File, Minutes of the Committee of
Three, 1944–1947.Washington, November 14, 1945, 10
a.m.
MEETING OF THE SECRETARIES OF STATE, WAR AND NAVY
PRESENT
The Secretary of StateThe Secretary of War accompanied by Robert
A. Lovett, Assistant Secretary of War for Air and Colonel
Charles W. McCarthyThe Secretary of the Navy accompanied by Major CorreaMr. Matthews
Central Intelligence Agency
Mr. Forrestal said that there was only
one matter that he wished to discuss, namely, the question of a Central
Intelligence Agency and referred in this connection to the President’s
directive to Admiral Leahy.Document 44. Mr.
Byrnes said that Admiral Leahy had not been aware of the
fact that at present no law exists authorizing the establishment of a
central intelligence organization and that, consequently, no definitive
action can be taken until the Government reorganization law is passed. He
expected that this might take place in two or three weeks. He would be glad,
however, to consider the framework of the organization to be set up and
thought we should take the several plans submitted into consideration and
try to integrate and reconcile them. Mr. Patterson said that Mr. Lovett had been devoting a great deal of time to the study
of the problem and he would like to have him give an account of his
conclusions.
Mr. Lovett then circulated a summary
of a report of his committee dated November 3, 1945 (copy attached as annex
1).The summary of the Lovett Report, which was attached to
the source text as Annex I, is in the Supplement. He said that
there are three aspects which his committee had covered: (1) the general
survey; (2) the external problem; and (3) the internal problem within the
War Department. He said his committee had called many people as witnesses
including those who had worked on the British “ultra” and “Y” systems.A reference to World War II communications
intelligence. They had gone into all phases of espionage and
clandestine work and he was convinced that it must be centralized. His
committee reached the conclusion
that a National Intelligence Authority and a Central Intelligence Agency
should both be established as soon as possible. The former should be
composed of the Secretaries of State, War and Navy and a representative of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It should be empowered to formulate policies
which would be binding upon the Central Intelligence Agency and all
intelligence activities of other Government departments. The Central
Intelligence Agency would be headed by a Director to be appointed or removed
by the President on recommendation of the National Intelligence Authority.
Within the Central Intelligence Agency, he said, there should be constituted
a “reading panel” or Intelligence Board on which, in addition to the War,
Navy and Air Staffs, the principal civilian intelligence agencies would be
represented. This board would be expected to study and evaluate intelligence
facts and its reports would represent the combined views of the members.
Where a difference of opinion existed, however, the report would likewise
contain the dissident views. This Mr. Lovett thought was an important aspect and he believed the
failure of the German Intelligence Service to permit a presentation of
dissenting views was largely responsible for its breakdown. The British
service, he felt, was greatly superior. In the first place it possessed
continuity and the technical composition of the British Intelligence Service
permitted it to divorce the factual aspects of their findings from political
creed. He pointed out that the four top German Intelligence Officers had
been executed for political reasons. The result was that German Intelligence
authorities were afraid to interpret facts which might be contrary to Nazi
policy. A shining example of this was the failure of the German Intelligence
Service to anticipate our North Africa landings and led them to express
their conclusion that there was inadequate Allied shipping to support such
an operation. When we send our people out, such as Ambassadors, with the
outlook of our national policy we are bound to get reports which are colored
to a certain extent. He said the Italian Intelligence Service was better and
more factual than the German. At present he believes that we are in a better
situation than the British, having more than a hundred good contact agents,
and mentioned particularly our close intelligence relationships established
during the war with Czechoslovakia and the Dutch. These contacts are,
however, based on considerations of personal confidence and unless some
decision is promptly reached on our future intelligence set-up, we are in
danger of losing what we have built up.
Mr. Lovett said that an advantage of
the system he proposed lay in the fact that conclusions would be reached not
by one man but by a board thus avoiding the danger of having a single
slanted view guide our policies. As an example of this danger, he pointed to
the error of our intelligence service in predicting that Russia couldn’t
last six weeks. Furthermore, overt and special intelligence under his plan
are fitted in with clandestine
intelligence. Mr. Byrnes said that
the Budget reportSee footnote 2, Document 38. on this question seemed to be
very elaborate and he would not agree with it all through. One difficulty,
he said, is that so much intelligence is accumulated that it cannot be read.
Mr. Lovett said that intelligence is
a very involved subject. It includes: (1) the collection of information, (2)
the accurate interpretation of information, and (3) the proper dissemination
of information. We must first reach the impartial view on the facts and then
get the information where it is needed. Suspicion, distrust and jealousy
seem to be the occupational diseases of anyone dealing with intelligence.
They cancel out a lot that seems to be apparent. It is important that
operations should be centralized. He cited the case where OSS agents in Lisbon stole a Japanese code
which had long been in the possession of our G–2 cryptanalysts and thus “gummed up” the situation by causing
the Japanese to change codes. Mr. Forrestal agreed that it is important that the policy aspect
should not be so strong as to prejudice our intelligence evaluations. He
remarked that Colonel Truman
SmithU.S. Military Attaché in
Berlin, February 1935–March 1939. had “his head cut off” because
people here did not wish to believe that Germany was strong enough to
accomplish what she did.
Referring to the Budget Bureau’s plan Mr. Lovett said that it was too loose and had too many aspects
of a town meeting. Mr. Byrnes said
that he did not like the joint commission it provided for which included,
for example, the Department of Commerce. He, furthermore, did not like the
emphasis on research and analysis to the degree it had been given. The
Budget report, he said, pointed out that we had had to improvise during the
war in many matters of industrial intelligence which should have been
prepared long before. The plan was too elaborate, he felt, and too big.
While it contemplated a Central Intelligence Agency it left operations in
each separate Department. The argument against duplication still holds
against the Budget Bureau proposal.
Mr. Lovett said that in his opinion
the Budget project fails in three respects: (1) it provides for very loose
coordination; (2) it provides for multiple collecting agencies which is bad
in clandestine intelligence. Frequently they might operate against each
other. There should, he feels, be only one operating agency dealing with
espionage; (3) it treats the problem as though the Cabinet members were
going to operate it. This in practice is impossible.
There was some discussion of the role of the FBI and there was general agreement that intelligence should be
divorced from police powers. Mr. Lovett thought that when you put both in the hands of a
single agency the result is a “gestapo.” On the other hand, he felt, that
the FBI should be on the reading panel
because they have the best personality file in the world. Also, the FBI is expert on the production of false documents which we
developed so successfully during the war and at which we became
outstandingly adept.
Mr. Byrnes said that it was apparent
that all were in favor of a central agency. He mentioned that the Budget
report minimized the value of clandestine espionage and inquired as to the
authorship of the report. Mr. Lovett
said that he understood that it had been written by Mr. Donald Stone and Mr.
Schwarzwolder. Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Patterson suggested the appointment of a working committee
to get at the problem as quickly as possible since the existing organization
is rapidly disintegrating and funds for certain units are available only
until January 1. Mr. Byrnes appointed
Mr. Russell and Mr. McCormack to represent the State Department
and suggested that each Department have two representatives. Mr. Patterson appointed Mr. Lovett. (The second name given later was
General George Brownell and Mr.
Forrestal later named Rear Admiral Souers and Major Correa.)
Mr. Patterson inquired whether anyone
knew of a good man for the important position of Director of Intelligence.
Mr. Lovett said the only name he had
heard mentioned was that of Allen
Dulles who was generally regarded as highly competent in that
field. He had organized the best job of the OSS in Switzerland.
46. Paper Prepared for the Secretary of State’s Staff CommitteeSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 353, Records of Interdepartmental and
Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot File No. 122, Records
of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47. Secret. The Secretary’s
Staff Committee, organized in 1944 by Secretary of State
Stettinius to formulate and coordinate
Departmental policy, included as members the Secretary, the Under
Secretary, and the Assistant Secretaries as well as selected other
officers. There is no drafting information on the source text, but it is
the “McCormack Plan” for national
intelligence organization as distinct from the “McCormack Plan” for the Department of
State’s own internal intelligence organization.Washington, November 15, 1945.
SC–172
DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM
The Problem
To recommend action pursuant to the letter from the President dated September
20, 1945 directing the Secretary of State to “take the lead in developing a comprehensive and coordinated
foreign intelligence program for all Federal agencies concerned with that
type of activity”.
Recommendations
It is recommended that:The proposed agreement establishing an Interdepartmental
Intelligence Coordinating Authority and an Interdepartmental
Security Coordinating Authority, contained in Annex “I”,Annex I is in the Supplement. be
approved.Centralized conduct of espionage and counterespionage activities
be approved in principle, subject to the formulation of detailed
organizational and operating plans.In lieu of a central agency responsible for producing national
intelligence estimates, the projected Special Estimates Staff of the
Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence be assigned that
responsibility in collaboration with representatives from other
interested agencies as described in the last paragraph of the
following discussion.
Discussion
The President, in a letter to the Secretary of State dated September 20,
1945, issued the following directive:
“I particularly desire that you take the lead in developing a
comprehensive and coordinated foreign intelligence program for all
Federal agencies concerned with that type of activity. This should
be done through the creation of an interdepartmental group, heading
up under the State Department, which would formulate plans for my
approval. This procedure will permit the planning of complete
coverage of the foreign intelligence field and the assigning and
controlling of operations in such manner that the needs of both the
individual agencies and the Government as a whole will be met with
maximum effectiveness.”
The Secretaries of War and the Navy, in a letter to the Secretary of State
dated September 29, 1945, transmitted the recommendations of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff as to how best to “provide for the development and
coordination of Intelligence activities related to the
national security”. Studies on various aspects of intelligence
activities in the post-war period have also been produced by many other
individuals and agencies, such as the Attorney General,Document 17. the
Director of the Bureau of the Budget,See Document 38 and footnote 2 thereto.
the Secretary of the Navy,Apparent reference to
the chapter on intelligence in the Eberstadt Report. the Director of Censorship, the
Librarian of Congress,The plans by the Director of Censorship and the
Librarian of Congress have not been found. and a committee in the
War Department.Document
42. All of these studies and recommendations have been
considered in the preparation of this report.
The President’s directive clearly specifies that the coordinating authority
must be an interdepartmental group heading up under the State Department,
but it does not specify the organization, membership, or method of operation
of that group. The directive also establishes the scope of activity of the
group as the entire “foreign intelligence field”. It does not confine it to
“intelligence activities related to the national security”, security (or
counter) intelligence, censorship, or other specialized fields, but expands
it to cover the furtherance of our national interests as well as the
safeguarding of our national security. It therefore includes the commercial
and cultural fields in addition to the military and national security
fields. The directive further authorizes the “assigning and controlling” of
all foreign intelligence operations, and the formulation of operating plans
to accomplish this for the President’s approval, presumably when necessary.
The directive does not specifically indicate the source of the funds,
personnel, and facilities required to perform the coordinating function and
any other centralized operations deemed necessary. The interdepartmental
character of the group, under State Department leadership, implies, however,
that such funds, personnel and facilities should be provided by the
participating agencies, with the principal responsibility resting upon the
State Department. The various factors which require decision under the
President’s directive are discussed below.
Organization of the Interdepartmental Group
The job of coordinating the entire intelligence field will require two
separate interdepartmental coordinating bodies; one with authority in the
broad field of foreign intelligence activities, and the other in the
specialized field of internal security and security intelligence. This
division is necessary because the agencies interested, points of view, and
types of operations vary markedly in those two fields. Some coordination
will be necessary between the activities of the intelligence and the
security coordinating authorities. This coordination, however, is
accomplished through the dual membership of three agencies (State, War and
Navy Departments) on the two authorities and through the existence of a
single secretariat serving both authorities.
Membership of the Coordinating Authorities
The Interdepartmental Intelligence Coordinating Authority (I.I.C.A.) will
consist of the Secretary of State as Chairman, and of the Secretaries of War
and the Navy. Many other departments and agencies, such as Commerce,
Agriculture, Treasury, Interior, Labor, etc., have an important but
specialized contribution to make to and an interest in the Government-wide
foreign intelligence program. The departments designated, however, are the
principal users and producers of foreign intelligence. In determining what
membership would be most satisfactory, the relative advantage of including
all departments of interest had to be weighed against the disadvantage of
creating too large and unwieldy a top group. The interests of the
departments other than State, War and Navy are provided for through
representation on every Committee in which they have an interest. Thus,
while the omission of many departments puts a special responsibility on the
State Department to represent their interests adequately, it is suggested
that the membership be limited to the three principal departments.
Membership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not considered necessary or
appropriate since their interests and requirements are not distinct from but
can be represented by the Secretaries of War and the Navy.
The Interdepartmental Security Coordinating Authority (I.S.C.A.) will consist
of the Secretary of State as Chairman, and of the Secretary of the Treasury,
the Secretary of War, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Navy.
These represent the only departments with major responsibilities in that
field, and other agencies having specialized interests may be adequately
represented on the proposed specialized subcommittees.
Method of Operation
The functions envisaged for the coordinating Authorities are the formulation
and execution of plans for coordinating all intelligence and security
activities, and the conduct of certain centralized operations where the need
exists. The procedures by which these functions would be performed are
described in Annex II.Annex II, Program of
Operations for the Interdepartment Intelligence Coordinating Authority
and the Interdepartmental Security Coordinating Authority, and Annex
III, Comparison of Plans for Coordinated or Centralized Intelligence,
November 19, are in the Supplement. Annex V is Document 49; Annex VI is Document
56; regarding Annex IV, See footnote 6,
Document 50.
Proposed Types of Centralized Operations
Centralized operations which have already been proposed include (1) the
conduct of espionage and counterespionage activities and (2) the production
of national intelligence estimates. Other types of operations which might later be given
consideration as suitable to be conducted centrally are the production of
topographic studies of specific areas and the maintenance of a central file
of biographical records of foreign personalities.
The principle of centralized conduct of espionage and counterespionage
activities should be approved, subject to the formulation of detailed
organizational and operating plans by special Committees appointed by the
intelligence and security Authorities respectively immediately upon their
establishment. The difficulties, dangers and expense of such activities and
the imperative need for utmost security regarding such activities require
that they be strictly limited and carefully controlled by a central
Authority. Moreover, their usefulness to all agencies charged with
safeguarding the national security makes it inappropriate and undesirable
for any single agency to undertake such activities. Apportionment of the
responsibility for providing funds, personnel and facilities will also
enhance the possibilities of maintaining security. Such apportionment of
funds not specifically earmarked for this purpose is understood to be
acceptable to the Bureau of the Budget.
It is further recommended that the Department of State oppose the
establishment of an interdepartmental or independent agency for the
production of national intelligence estimates. Intelligence estimates are
useless if produced in a vacuum. They are useful only when they assist
directly in the formulation of foreign policy, or the conduct of foreign
affairs. Any intelligence agency producing estimates must therefore be a
part of some body performing those functions. Only by such an integrated
relationship can an intelligence agency keep abreast of our foreign
objectives and affairs so that it may assist in their accomplishment and
conduct. It has been suggested that a central agency producing national
intelligence estimates could serve the President, the Secretaries of State,
War and Navy and various interdepartmental groups dealing in foreign
affairs. That suggestion overlooks the fact that the Secretary of State is
principally responsible for advising and assisting the President in the
field of foreign affairs and for coordinating the activities of all
governmental agencies in that field. It is therefore appropriate that the
Department of State assume the responsibility for the production of any
national intelligence estimates, with the advice and assistance of other
governmental agencies. Each Secretary should and will inevitably continue to
look to his own intelligence agency despite the existence of a central
agency.
It is recommended that, in lieu of such a central agency, the projected
Special Estimates Staff of the Special Assistant for Research and
Intelligence undertake the production of any national intelligence estimates
required by the President, the Secretary of State and other top-level or
supra-departmental officials and agencies of the Government. For that purpose, the Secretaries of War
and Navy should be invited to detail full-time representatives from air,
ground and naval intelligence to each of the four geographic sections of
that staff. Representation from other agencies, such as Treasury, Commerce,
Labor, et cetera, should be invited as the need arises. In the event of
disagreement within that reinforced staff, the heads of the interested
agencies should attempt to reconcile such differences through consultation.
Should that prove impossible, the nature of the disagreement should be
clearly stated in the final estimate.
It is also proposed that the Special Estimates Staff in the Department of
State, with the assistance of an adequate number of representatives from the
War and Navy Departments, shall assume responsibility for preparing weekly
political reports of the type that are now produced independently, and with
much duplication of effort, by units in the State Department, the Military
Intelligence Service and the Office of Naval Intelligence. In that manner a
central reporting organization can be achieved and such organization can be
given any other reporting functions of an interdepartmental character which
it can perform with advantage.
47. Memorandum of MeetingSource:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–135. Top Secret. The
date on the memorandum is October 19 but this presumably is an error as
the meeting was held November 19. The meeting was held in the Department
of State. The committee was the working group appointed by the
Secretaries of State, War, and Navy at their November 14 meeting; see
Document 45.Washington, November 19, 1945, 3
p.m.
MEMORANDUM COVERING MEETING OF THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL
COMMITTEE
PRESENT
Mr. Russell, Col. McCormack, Mr. Lovett, Brig. Gen. Brownell, Major Correa and the undersignedAfter a general discussion it was obvious that representatives of
Secretary of War and Navy on the one hand and representatives of
Secretary of State were unable
to make any progress in their negotiations until several fundamental
differences could be clarified as follows:Col. McCormack
construes the letter of 20 Sept. 1945 as a directive to the
Secretary of State to take the lead in developing an
interdepartmental intelligence program and
putting the program in operation.Representatives of SecWar and SecNav interpret the letter as a
directive to Sec State to take the lead in creating an
interdepartmental group to formulate plans for
the approval of the President.Col. McCormack favors a
plan providing that the head or Executive Secretary of the
coordinating authority be named by Secretary of State and that
he be an employee of the State Department.Col. McCormack’s plan
provides further that in lieu of a Central agency responsible
for producing national intelligence estimates, the Estimates
Staff of the Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence be
assigned the responsibility in collaboration with other
interested agencies.Representatives of SecWar and Navy feel strongly that the head
or Director of the C.I.A. should be named by the President upon
the nomination of and responsible to the Secretaries of State,
War and Navy and representatives of J.C.S. and that National Intelligence estimates
should be produced by the C.I.A.The meeting adjourned with the understanding that we would ask our
respective Secretaries to instruct their representatives as to which
concept should prevail. After decision is reached on the question of top
control it is believed the committee can reconcile differences in
connection with the formulation of a program for submission to the
President. S.W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Rear Admiral, USNR
48. Minutes of the 168th Meeting of the Secretary of State’s Staff
CommitteeSource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot
File No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47. Top
Secret. Drafted by James H. Lewis. The meeting was
held in the Secretary’s office.Washington, November 20, 1945, 9:30
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
PresentThe Secretary (presiding)The Under SecretaryThe CounselorMr. BradenMr. ClaytonMr. HackworthMr. McCormackMr. PasvolskyMr. Russell, DonaldMr. Hiss, SPAMr. Kindleberger, GA (part of meeting)Mr. GangeMr. LewisMr. RothwellAbsentMr. BentonMr. Dunn
[Here follows discussion of subjects unrelated to intelligence.]
(The Secretary left the meeting at this point.)
Development of a National Intelligence
Program (Document SC–172, Agenda Item 4)
Mr. McCormack discussed document
SC–172,Document
46. making recommendations regarding the development of an
interdepartmental intelligence program. He called attention to Annex
IIISee footnote 7,
Document 46. of the document in which a comparison was
made between a plan which had been proposed by him, and one prepared in the
War Department. He said the principal point of difference between the two
plans was with respect to the position of the Department of State with
relation to the proposed intelligence organization. Mr. McCormack said he understood that at the
first interdepartmental meeting on the subject, it had been understood that
the Department of State would take the lead in developing the intelligence
program.It is not clear to which meeting
McCormack was
referring. He said the Budget Bureau had agreed that whatever
agency was given responsibility
for the program should not have to go to Congress for appropriations and
that the Executive Secretary of the Intelligence Coordinating Authority
should be appointed by the Secretary of State. Mr. McCormack said the armed services were not
too pleased with this latter proposal.
Mr. Braden said that on the basis of
his experience in Latin America, he felt strongly that the Department should
direct and control foreign intelligence operations. He said that in Latin
America the duplication of effort by Army and Navy attachés (and for a time
by FBI representatives) had been very
unfortunate. He said the training of military and naval people does not fit
them for this kind of work and their functions should be limited to those of
advisers in their own fields. The Counselor said he agreed that the
intelligence service should not be under the control of the armed services.
He said, however, that the criticism was sometimes made of other
intelligence services (the British service during the
Chamberlain regime, for example) that intelligence
reporting was often colored to justify previously determined foreign policy.
He asked what the answer was to this argument.
Mr. McCormack said the only solution
was to have a sound research and analysis organization in Washington which
would be able to detect this sort of reporting. The Counselor asked Mr.
McCormack whether he envisaged a
considerable amount of autonomy for the intelligence agency. In other words,
he said, while parts of the agency would be located in the Department, it
would not be part of any operating branch of the Department. Mr. McCormack said this was correct. He also
said the intelligence service would have to have its own means of
communication.
Mr. Braden said there was an immediate
problem in connection with FBI personnel in
Latin America. He said FBI representatives
were shortly to be withdrawn from all Latin American countries, leaving us
without any organization there for security intelligence. He said these
officers had been very effective and had established a very valuable
organization which should be retained if possible. Mr. McCormack said he understood the President
had stated flatly that the FBI was not to
operate outside the United States. Mr. McCormack said the only Department which had the funds to
take over the FBI personnel was the War
Department. He asked Mr. Braden to
give him full information regarding the FBI
personnel (including names of persons, locations, etc.) which he might use
as a basis for opening discussions with the War Department regarding the
matter.
Mr. McCormack also referred to the
compilation of strategic estimates which had been prepared during the war
for the President and other high officers. The principal agency for
producing such estimates was the Joint Intelligence Committee on which were
represented the State and War
Departments, the Foreign Economic Administration, and the Office of
Strategic Services. The Committee was related closely to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. The estimates prepared by the Joint Intelligence Committee varied
greatly in value, depending on the accident of the choice of the person or
agency to prepare them. In the Department of State, for example, no
personnel was available to devote sufficient time to working on such
estimates, and Mr. McCormack said he
was now in the position, as Department of State member of the Joint
Intelligence Committee, of having to inform the Committee, when a request
was made for a report to be prepared in the Department, that personnel was
not available for this work. He said the War Department plan places the
responsibility for the preparation of such estimates in a joint agency and
in his plan, the responsibility is placed in the Department of State. Mr.
McCormack asked whether the
Committee considered this to be the right approach. Mr. Braden said that on the basis of his Latin
American experience, he felt that it was the right approach.
Mr. Pasvolsky said there appeared to be three problems
involved: First, the problem of obtaining the information in the field;
second, the problem of making sure that there is in Washington a place where
all such information is available; and, third, the problem of making it
available to all persons who need it. Mr. McCormack said he would agree with Mr.
Pasvolsky if the second problem were restated to
read “the problem of taking all incoming information and placing it into the
proper form for use”.
The Committee agreed that further consideration of the document should be
deferred until the meeting of Tuesday, November 27th.
Next Meeting
The Committee agreed that the next meeting should be on Saturday, November
24th, for the purpose of disposing of the items remaining on the Agenda and
any other items to be presented.
The meeting adjourned at 10:55.
49. Paper Prepared for the Secretary of State’s Staff CommitteeSource: Truman Library, Papers of J.
Anthony Panuch, State Department Research and
Intelligence #1. Secret.Washington, November 26, 1945.
SC–172
ANNEX V
RECONCILIATION OF PLANS FOR COORDINATIONOF FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE
This is an attempt to define and, if possible, to reduce the area of
disagreement between the State Department and War Department plans for
coordination of foreign intelligence.Documents 42 and 46. There appear to be three problems:What will be the composition of the top authority;Whether the executive head of the central intelligence agency will
be a State Department employee; andWhere the final responsibility for “strategic estimates” will
reside.
Composition of Top Authority
The separation of the top directing organizations into two Authorities, one
for Intelligence and one for Security, permits a clear line of distinction
to be preserved between the two types of functions, and that is considered
by some to be of advantage. However, the double-headed top organization is
primarily a device for centralizing control of positive intelligence in
State, War and Navy. Any other device that accomplished the same purpose,
while bringing in on security matters the other Departments interested in
security, would be equally acceptable.
The other point relates to the inclusion or exclusion of a representative of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The State Department does not understand why such
a representative should be included, since the interests of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff can be represented adequately by War and Navy. Moreover, it is
believed that such inclusion weights the Authority too heavily on the
military side.
It is also believed that inclusion of a representative of the JCS changes the character of the Authority
adversely, in that it ceases to be a Board of top policy officers who can
bind their respective departments. Being only a representative, the JCS man would have to consult his principals on
matters important enough to justify attention at the Cabinet level; and in
practice this would probably mean that papers for the Authority would have to go through not only
the internal machinery of the several departments but also the separate
machinery of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
A suggestion for resolving the differences as to the top Authority is to: Omit the JCS
representative;Constitute the Secretaries of State, War and Navy as a single
authority for both Intelligence and Security;Authorize them to call in the heads of other agencies to sit as
members of the Authority on matters of particular interest to those
agencies; andEstablish as a “by-law” of the Authority that, on all matters of
Security (as defined), the Treasury and FBI (not the Attorney General) would be called
in.
Note: Mr. Benjamin V. Cohen,
Counselor of the State Department, has suggested that it would be
desirable to provide for the inclusion of additional departmental heads
in the top Authority when matters are under consideration which may be
of particular interest to them. Major Correa, Office of the Secretary of the Navy, has
questioned the desirability of including the Attorney General, the chief
law enforcement officer of the Government, in an Authority which would
have to deal with clandestine activities.
Executive Head of the Central Intelligence Agency
The first thing that has to be decided on this issue is whether to organize
an independent agency with a Director appointed by the President and with a
separate budget, or to constitute a central agency from existing departments
with an executive who is a departmental employee. In proposing to set up an
independent agency, the War Department plan is apparently designed to make
the Director a neutral party, with the prestige and authority of the
President behind him. Various people who have studied the problem, including
the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the undersigned, are of the
opinion that a central agency constituted from the various departments is
advantageous for the following reasons: It dispenses with the necessity of a Presidential appointment and
an independent budget, thus giving the Executive a greater chance of
anonymity.The Executive, backed by the prestige and authority of the
Secretary of State in foreign affairs, would have fewer difficulties
in the job of coordinating the intelligence activities of the
numerous government agencies than would a Director who had no
departmental status but had to refer to the President each time his
authority was questioned.
It is suggested that a workable plan could be put into effect promptly, on
the basis that the initial organization would be inter-departmental. This
would permit the coordinating machinery, which is urgently needed and will
be required whatever plan is adopted, to get going without much delay, whereas the organization of
an independent central agency may take a considerable time. If, six months
or a year from now, when the machinery is in motion, it appears desirable to
give independent status to the central agency, that can be done. The top
Authority will always be in a position to make that kind of a change.
Responsibility for Strategic Estimates
The term “strategic estimates” is used to mean the assumptions of fact that
are taken as the basis for action or policy at the top level of the
Government. At present there are various informal means for arriving at such
estimates on top level matters, and there is also the formal machinery of
the Joint Intelligence Committee. That committee, being an agency of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, is not assigned under either plan the responsibility
for strategic estimates.
The War Department plan may be construed (though not necessarily) as
entrusting the formulation of strategic estimates to the proposed central
agency. The State Department plan would vest that responsibility in the
State Department, which would discharge it by means of a Special Estimates
Staff, functioning under the Department but including Army and Navy working
representatives.
The matter of strategic estimates is quite urgent, in view of the many
important problems that are involved in the forthcoming peace treaty
negotiations. Those problems fall within the area of responsibility of the
State Department for the conduct of foreign affairs, and for that reason it
seems logical to vest the responsibility for strategic estimates in the
State Department.
Here again is a situation that might be dealt with by taking the easiest
available course and learning by experience whether a transfer of the
function from the Department of State to the central agency might be
desirable.
Conclusion
If the problem of representation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can be
resolved, the State Department and War Department plans are sufficiently
close together to enable the following to be done:Setting up the National Intelligence Authority;Setting up a State Department representative as Executive
Secretary of the Authority, without prejudice to a decision at some
later date to create an independent agency;Putting the coordinating machinery into immediate operation, in
order to define our national intelligence requirements and lay out a
comprehensive and coordinated program to meet them.Selecting a person to head the secret operations and laying the
plans for them (it is assumed that execution of such plans will
require confidential funds not presently available);Setting up in the State Department a Strategic Estimates Staff,
which can be turned over to the central agency at some later date if
that shall appear desirable.
In the interests of prompt action, a solution along the above lines is
recommended.
Alfred McCormackPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Special Assistant to the Secretary
50. Minutes of the 170th Meeting of the Secretary of State’s Staff
CommitteeSource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot
File No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47. Top
Secret. Drafted by James H. Lewis. The meeting was
held in the Secretary’s office.Washington, November 27, 1945, 9:30
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
PresentThe Secretary (presiding)The Under SecretaryThe CounselorMr. BentonMr. BradenMr. HackworthMr. Labouisse (for Mr. Clayton)Mr. McCormackMr. PasvolskyMr. RussellMr. GangeMr. LewisMr. RothwellAbsentMr. ClaytonMr. Dunn
The Committee met at 9:30 a.m.
Agenda Items
Development of a National Intelligence
Program (Document SC–172,Document 46. Agenda Item 1)
Mr. McCormack presented document
SC–172 making recommendations regarding the development of a national
intelligence program. He called
attention in particular to Annex V,Document 49. in which were outlined the
principal differences between the recommendations in the document and the
plans drawn up by the War DepartmentDocument 42. for the coordination of
foreign intelligence.
The Secretary said this was a matter in which the President was very much
interested. He had assigned responsibility for it to Admiral Leahy, and about three weeks ago
he had informed the Secretary that he thought some action should be taken on
the matter. The Secretary said he had informed the President that not much
could be done at the present time. He pointed out that the reorganization
bill was being considered and Congress might resent action prior to passage
of the bill. About a week ago, the Secretary said, the President had asked
the Secretaries of War and the Navy, and himself to meet on November 28 to
discuss the subject. On November 26, the Secretary asked the President to
postpone this meeting in order that the Department might have more time to
consider all problems involved. The Secretary informed the President that
the reorganization bill would probably not be signed for about two weeks,
and he thought that by that time the Department would have its plan
ready.No other records have been found of
the conversations with Truman
that Byrnes mentioned. The
proposed November 28 meeting presumably is the one referred to in Document 44. Later on November 27, at a meeting
with the Secretaries of War and Navy, Byrnes asked for a postponement. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Diplomatic Branch Reference File, Minutes of Meetings of the Committee
of Three 1944–47) See the Supplement. There is no indication the
postponed meeting with the President was ever held. The “reorganization
bill” referred to became law as the Reorganization Act of 1945 (P.L.
263, December 20, 1945), giving the President certain powers to
restructure government agencies.
The Secretary said that in trying to arrive at some compromise, it was
necessary to bear in mind that whatever we propose will have to be “sold” to
the President. It will be turned over by the President to Admiral Leahy, who has strong views on the
matter and the Secretary said we must, therefore, seek to avoid unnecessary
questions of jurisdictional conflict with the Army and the Navy. The
Secretary said the plan should also be as simple as possible. He said if the
military services present a plan which is not complicated, while our plan is
complicated, the military plan will have a much better chance of being
adopted.
The Secretary said the division at the top, proposed in the paper (between
Interdepartmental Intelligence Coordinating Authority and Interdepartmental
Security Coordinating Authority) had certain advantages, but he wondered
whether considering all factors it would be desirable particularly in view
of the President’s desire to concentrate intelligence service in one agency. Mr. McCormack informed the Secretary that his
latest proposal called for a single top organization.
The Secretary said that in his discussion with the President and Admiral Leahy, a question had been raised
regarding the participation of the Budget Bureau in making plans for the
intelligence organization. Mr. McCormack said that during the war all the intelligence
agencies had had difficulties of various sorts. In the case of the Office of
Naval Intelligence, Admiral King had requested the
Budget Bureau to advise on its reorganization. The Budget Bureau had also
supervised the organization of G2 in the Army
and had done much work for OSS. The Budget
Bureau was, in fact, the only agency familiar with all the intelligence
agencies in the Government, and was, therefore, in a position to offer much
helpful advice.
Mr. McCormack also outlined the origin
of the War Department’s plan for coordinating foreign intelligence. He said
that General Donovan had always been
a strong advocate of a unified intelligence service. Late in 1944 word got
around that President Roosevelt was
favorably impressed with the idea, and the Army decided some action should
be taken. An Army–Navy Committee had then been set up under the direction of
General Nichols to prepare a plan for a central agency
for use in the event such a plan was necessary. The plan was prepared and
submitted to the Joint Intelligence Committee and in essence it is the
present War Department plan.
Mr. McCormack said the War Department
plan does not answer a number of serious questions, for example, how to
bring together the many agencies of the Government working on various
problems. As an example, he referred to the problem of meteorological
intelligence which was now divided among the Weather Bureau, the Navy, the
Army, civil airlines, and other bodies. The Secretary asked how this would
be handled under the plan proposed by Mr. McCormack. Mr. McCormack said an interdepartmental committee would be
established, composed of all agencies concerned, which would be charged with
establishing a program and responsibility for reviewing its adequacy.
Mr. McCormack said the idea of
establishing one central intelligence agency imposed on all other agencies
was very much over-simplified. He said that such an agency would have to be
a very large one. However, he thought there was no question of the need for
a central coordinating authority.
Mr. McCormack said that in connection
with the establishment of the top organization, the question arises as to
where the State Department fits into the picture. On the assumption that the
President wished the Department to take the lead in the matter, the plan
before the Committee proposed that the Secretary should be Chairman of the
authority; that the executive officer should be appointed from the State
Department; and that the
preparation of strategic estimates should be entrusted to the State
Department. Secret intelligence operations would be the responsibility of
the central agency. The main functions of the agency, Mr. McCormack said, would be to harness the
resources of the Government to get the most information out of all agencies
and to get the best job done in each case.
The Secretary said he was sure the President had never gone into the question
in much detail. He said he had probably viewed the problem only as one of
centralizing intelligence operations abroad. This was the aspect of the
question which General Donovan had
discussed with the President. The Secretary said that at the time of General
Donovan’s discussion, he [the
Secretary]Brackets in the source
text. had not liked the proposal too well but General Donovan had been suggesting that the
central agency should be under the President’s direction. The Secretary said
he now saw the wisdom of the plan proposed by the Budget Bureau and Mr.
McCormack, but he said there was
still the problem of convincing the President. He also said that when the
Department is ready to make a recommendation with regard to the appointment
of an executive office, its case must be well prepared and presented. He
said he felt that it would be better if the agency were not made directly
responsible to the President.
The Counselor expressed agreement with the Secretary and pointed out that
even if the President took the most active interest in the agency in
peacetime, it would be unlikely that he could do this in wartime. He also
expressed his opinion that a central operating agency, such as that proposed
by the War Department, could not avoid important duties of coordination, and
that if it were an agency of this type doing its own work, it would be
unable to achieve such coordination effectively.
The Secretary raised the question as to how the desired coordination could
best be obtained. He said the War and Navy Departments had had much more
experience with intelligence problems than the State Department, and he
asked whether they would be disposed to cooperate with the Department as
well as they would with an independent central agency. Mr. McCormack said that in peacetime the State
Department has certain intelligence functions which Army and Navy recognize,
and he thought that the State Department’s primary responsibility in foreign
affairs could be so presented that Army and Navy would recognize it. He
emphasized his opinion that the central agency proposed by the War
Department would be a pretext like the Joint Intelligence Committee, or else
it would become so large that Congress would raise difficulties regarding
appropriations.
The Secretary asked whether the plan was to ask for secret appropriations.
Mr. Russell said it might as well be
recognized at the outset that this would be impossible. The Secretary agreed
and said Congress would want to know the cost of intelligence operations,
and there would probably also be difficulty in convincing Congress of the
necessity for appropriations for intelligence operations carried on by each
of the several departments concerned. Mr. McCormack said he did not minimize the difficulties involved
in this connection. He said he hoped, however, that much of the work would
be paid for by the individual departments out of regular appropriations. He
suggested that the need for large appropriations could be avoided by the
extensive use of working personnel in the several departments.
(The Secretary and Mr. Russell left
the meeting at this point.)
Mr. Braden said he agreed with Mr.
McCormack that the War Department
plan was unsatisfactory but he asked whether the plan proposed by Mr.
McCormack was not getting away
from the real function of the State Department and the Foreign Service. He
said that in the field, intelligence was the function of the Department’s
Foreign Service, and of the associated services represented by military,
naval, and legal attaches. The information obtained by these representatives
should be calibrated by the Chief of Mission and should then flow back to
the Department to the people who know how to judge its reliability and
usefulness. These officers should then be able to give the Secretary all the
information that is necessary. He said he thought that under the President’s
directive a very simple coordinating set-up could be established with very
little extra personnel.
Mr. Braden also referred to the
proposed withdrawal of FBI personnel from
Latin America as outlined in Annex IV to document SC–172.Dated November 22. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 353, Records of Interdepartmental and Intradepartment
Committees—State Department, Lot No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s
Staff Committee, 1944–49, Box 88F) See the Supplement. He
emphasized again the importance of attempting to work out some arrangement
for retaining the FBI representatives in
other American republics.
Mr. McCormack said he was in general
agreement with Mr. Braden’s viewpoint,
but he thought that everyone’s experience with intelligence services in
Washington had not been as happy as Mr. Braden’s. He cited examples of delays in obtaining
information and of the unavailability of full and up-to-date information
needed during the course of the war. He said it was in his opinion very
important to set up an organization which will ascertain in advance the
deficiencies in our information and take the necessary steps to correct
them. Mr. Braden said his idea was
that the State Department should be so organized that it would be able to
do this job rather than to
have it made the responsibility of an interdepartmental committee. He said
what coordination was necessary could be effected by meetings of the
Secretaries of State, War, and the Navy.
The Counselor said the plan proposed by Mr. McCormack seemed to him to go farther in the direction
desired by Mr. Braden than the other
plan proposed by the War Department, and he suggested that if the Secretary
should, in accordance with Mr. Braden’s suggestion, inform the President that the Department
now sees no need for any new organization, the War and Navy Departments’
viewpoint will be considerably strengthened. The Counselor and other members
indicated they agreed with Mr. Braden
that intelligence operations abroad should be under the control of the Chief
of Mission. In this connection, Mr. McCormack pointed out that the State Department was not now
staffed to do the job as suggested by Mr. Braden. He also pointed out that for various reasons the
State Department’s representatives abroad frequently do not wish to become
involved in the type of work which is necessary to obtain certain types of
intelligence. He referred, in this connection to a recent request for
information regarding the Belgian Communist Party, which our Embassy in
Belgium had been reluctant to undertake, and which had been turned over to
OSS. Mr. Braden said work of this kind had been done by FBI personnel at his Latin American posts but
he said he had always known what was going on and had had an opportunity to
see all reports before they were transmitted to Washington. If he then
disagreed with those reports, he submitted his own views regarding them. He
thought any conflicting views of this sort should then be reconciled in
Washington. The Counselor asked how this could be done. Mr. Braden said it should be done by the working
officers of the interested departments as a routine operation. The Counselor
said it seemed to him that in this connection some machinery such as that
proposed by Mr. McCormack would be
advantageous.
(The Under Secretary joined the meeting at this point.)
Mr. McCormack said he wished to
emphasize that setting up the organization outlined in the document would
not do the job in itself but would be merely the start. He said there must
be responsible people appointed to see to it that somebody does each of the
jobs involved and does it adequately. He emphasized that the total amount of
information sent in by the Department’s Foreign Service was only a small
part of the inflow. Other sources included foreign broadcasts and private
information. He pointed out that at the outset of the war we had in this
country practically all of the information needed to bomb Japan, but it
required 2–1/2 years to assemble this in usable form. This information was
not in the State Department, he said. The task of making it available was
much more than one of mere coordination.
Mr. Pasvolsky said he would be wary of the appointment
of a coordinator of departments appointed by the President, and that in
place of an executive director, he would rather see a committee secretary.
He also said he would not, at the present time, raise the question of who
should prepare strategic estimates. He said the departments now having
intelligence agencies were not going to give them up, and suggested that the
question of strategic estimates be allowed to work itself out—as it would in
a matter of a few months.
Mr. McCormack said he had no objection
to leaving open the question of strategic estimates. He said the principal
reason for making a recommendation in this connection was that the matter
was included specifically in the War Department plan.
In discussing a chart of the organization, presented by Mr. McCormack, Mr.
Pasvolsky suggested that the top committee (in the
chart consisting of the Secretaries of State, War, and the Navy) should be
broadened to include other cabinet members in order to avoid jurisdictional
conflicts. Mr. Benton and other
members expressed agreement with Mr. Pasvolsky’s
suggestion, especially if the top committee were to meet only once or twice
a year.
The Committee agreed that the discussion of the
document should be continued at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
51. Memorandum From the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (Smith) to President TrumanSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG
51, Records of the Office of Management and Budget, Director’s Files,
Series 39.27, Intelligence. No classification marking. Drafted by
L.W. Hoelscher on November 28 and cleared by
Schwarzwalder and Miles.
Hoelscher sent an accompanying memorandum to
Smith that concludes that
proposals for an intelligence system are still confused with secret
intelligence operations and that the Department of State should be the
leader in efforts to develop a postwar intelligence program. (Ibid.) See
the Supplement. Smith’s diary for
November 28 gives an account of the meeting with the President at which
he handed over the memorandum. (Roosevelt Library, Papers of Harold Smith, Box No. 4, Conferences with President
Truman, 1945) See the
Supplement.Washington, November 28, 1945.
SUBJECT
Developments in Intelligence Field
The development of the government-wide intelligence system envisioned in your
letter of September 20 to the Secretary of State needs further personal
assistance from you.
As you recall, there have been some half dozen proposals made by General
Donovan, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Mr. Gibson and the Secretary of the Navy (Mr.
Eberstadt), in addition to the
plan which you approved. All of these proposals arrived at findings and
conclusions very similar to those which formed the basis of the plan which
you have ordered. Among these plans there is no essential difference of
opinion as to what our weaknesses were before and during the war, or as to
what our objectives should be in the postwar period.
There is, however, some difference as to the methods for achieving these
objectives. Under the plan which you have approved, first priority is given
to the development of a coordinated government-wide system and such secret
intelligence operations as may be undertaken are operated on as adjunct. In
this way secret operations are placed in their proper relationship to a
general and much more comprehensive system of intelligence. Further, they
would be confined to these activities which the State, War and Navy
Departments mutually agree are needed from time to time. Under the various
other proposals, centralized secret operations are made the backbone, with
other intelligence neglected or subordinated to it.
The State Department’s efforts to proceed along the line of your letter of
September 20 have been hampered by the continued advocacy of the alternative
central agency proposals. In my opinion, it is desirable for you to discuss
with the Secretary of State the progress made in the creation of suitable
permanent interdepartmental machinery, heading up to the State Department.
You might also ask him to propose such additional action by you as may be
necessary at this time to supplement your letter of September 20.
Harold D. SmithPrinted from a copy that
indicates Smith signed the
original.
52. Minutes of the 171st Meeting of the Secretary of State’s Staff
CommitteeSource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot
File No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee, 1944–47, Box
88H. Top Secret. Drafted by Lewis. The meeting was
held in the Secretary’s office.Washington, November 29, 1945, 9:30
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
PresentThe Secretary (presiding)The Under SecretaryThe CounselorMr. BentonMr. BradenMr. HackworthMr. McCormackMr. PasvolskyMr. RussellMr. Thorp (for M.
Clayton)Mr. GangeMr. LewisMr. RothwellAbsentMr. ClaytonMr. Dunn
[Here follows discussion of two agenda items: “North American Regional
Broadcasting Conference” and “Continuance of FBI Program in Other American Republics.]
Development of a National Intelligence
Program (Document SC–172, Agenda Item 1)
Mr. McCormack referred to the
discussion at the previous meetingSee Document 50. regarding document SC–172
recommending the establishment of a national intelligence authority and the
development of a national intelligence program. He called the Committee’s
attention again to Annex V,Document 49. in which he had defined the areas of
disagreement between the State Department and War Department plans. Mr.
McCormack said the main issue was
the type of organization to be established. He said he believed his plan for
setting up a working group at the top, directly under the coordinating
authority, consisting of the Secretaries of State, War, and the Navy, with
power to plan and carry out an intelligence coordination program, would best
meet the requirements of the President’s letter of September 20, 1945
directing the Secretary of State to “take the lead in developing a
comprehensive and coordinated foreign intelligence program for all Federal agencies concerned with that
type of activity”. Mr. McCormack said
both the War and Navy Departments have indicated that his plan was generally
acceptable but they also wish the central authority to be from the outset a
producing and disseminating agency. Mr. McCormack’s plan proposed that the central authority should
be merely a programming and planning agency.
Mr. Russell asked how big a staff
would be contemplated. Mr. McCormack
said probably 45 or 50 persons would be required.
In discussing Annex I, Revised,Not printed.
(National Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot
File No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47, Box
88F) See the Supplement. in which the plan for the establishment
of the national intelligence authority was outlined, Mr. Russell suggested a rewording of numbered
paragraph 5 on page 1. He suggested that the provision that the Secretariat
staff would be appointed by the Secretary “either from personnel of the
Department of State or by detail from other participating agencies” implied
that only personnel of the State Department would be appointed to the staff, and he thought the other agencies might
not be willing to cooperate in furnishing personnel to the staff on this
basis. Mr. McCormack said the only
hidden meaning, if any, of this provision was to give the Executive
Secretary a veto over appointments from other agencies. Mr.
Pasvolsky suggested that the provision should be
revised to provide that the Secretariat staff would be “detailed from
participating agencies at the request of the Executive Secretary.” The Committee approved this suggested change.
Mr. Russell also proposed changes in
paragraphs 11 (a) and (b) on page 4 of Annex I to indicate that the
Authority rather than the Secretariat was responsible for planning the
Authority’s program. The Committee agreed these two
paragraphs should be revised.
The Secretary asked Mr. McCormack
whether he had discussed with the Army the question of the type of
organization. Mr. McCormack said he
had discussed the matter with General
Brownell, but had not obtained a definite expression of the
Army’s viewpoint. However, there were clear indications that the Army wished
the central agency to be an operating agency. He said he had sent copies of
his plan to both Army and Navy. Mr. Pasvolsky said one
of the dangers of making the authority an operating agency was that there
would be a tendency for it to establish a foreign service of its own. He
said that had been the experience with the Office of Inter-American Affairs
and other agencies. The Counselor agreed with Mr.
Pasvolsky, but said he thought the strongest
argument against establishing an operating agency was that the more the
central agency engaged in operations, the less effective it could be in
coordination. The Secretary asked whether the War and Navy Departments would continue to carry on their
own intelligence activities even if the central operating agencies were
established. Mr. McCormack said they
would, as would other agencies which now carry on intelligence activities.
The Secretary said in that event establishment of the central agency would
merely add another intelligence agency to those already in operation. He
said this would not meet the President’s request that duplication be
eliminated.
Mr. McCormack said that under his plan
he thought a considerable amount of combined operations could be effected,
and he thought joint operations in the field of geographic intelligence
should certainly be arranged. Mr. McCormack said the operating personnel in Army and Navy with
whom he had discussed his plan had been favorably impressed with it and
thought that it would work. The Secretary asked whether if the Army and Navy
are unified there would be any need for this coordinating agency. Mr.
McCormack said there would be
since the plan went below department levels. He said such agencies in the
War Department as G2 Service Forces and
G2 Ground Forces would remain independent
from similar units in the Navy, and there would still be a need to
coordinate the activities of all these units.
Mr. Russell said there appeared to be
two questions involved: (1) who should designate the executive secretary;
and (2) whether the central agency should be a coordinating or operating
authority. He said that as far as the second question was concerned, he did
not see that there was much argument. He said most of the necessary
intelligence information was now available in all the agencies in the
Government, and the principal need was to coordinate this information.
With regard to the question of the appointment of the executive secretary,
Mr. Russell suggested that this
officer be appointed by the Secretary of State with the approval of the
Secretaries of War and the Navy. He said he did not think the Army and Navy
would indicate much opposition to this proposal, and he pointed out that the
Department would in any event not wish to appoint an executive secretary who
was not acceptable to the War and Navy Departments. The
Committee approved this suggestion.
In discussing the chart of the proposed organization (see copy attached to
these Minutes),Not printed; see the
Supplement. Mr. Hackworth suggested that
some of the Committees shown on the chart might be combined. The Secretary
said that anything which could be done to simplify the structure of the
organization would be desirable, and would make presentation of the proposal
to the President much easier. He agreed, however, that the present chart
would show how extensive the problem is. Mr. McCormack pointed out that all the structure
on the chart below the level of executive secretary was very tentative. The
Secretary suggested that the chart might indicate the tentative nature of
the structure.
Mr. Benton suggested that consideration
be given to the possibility of showing in the chart the role of the Foreign
Service which would in effect be the field organization of the central
authority.
The Committee approved the proposal as outlined in
Annex I Revised, with the changes suggested in the course of the foregoing
discussion. The Secretary undertook to discuss the proposal with the
Secretaries of War and the Navy at his next meeting with them on December 4,
and Mr. McCormack undertook to have
the revised draft plan and chart ready for the Secretary’s use at that
time.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
53. Memorandum From the Chief of Naval Intelligence (Inglis) to the Chief of Naval
Operations (King)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–135. Top Secret.Washington, November 30, 1945.There is set out below a summary of the developments in connection
with the proposed Central Intelligence Agency.In a letter dated 20 September, the President directed Secretary
Byrnes to take the lead in
developing a comprehensive and coordinated intelligence program through
the creation of an interdepartmental group headed up under the State
Department to formulate plans for his approval. This task was delegated
by Secretary Byrnes to Mr.
McCormack, formerly a Colonel
in G–2, War Department.Up to 18 October the Navy had not been consulted by the State
Department and became apprehensive that our interests might not be
considered if Mr. McCormack
proceeded unilaterally to develop the plan. Secretary Forrestal arranged a meeting on that
date between me and Mr. Russell,
Asst. SecState, the results of which I reported to you and SecNav.No record of the meeting between Inglis and Russell has been found.
Thereafter the Navy continued to press State for action.At a meeting of the Secretaries of State, War and Navy held 14
November,See Document
45. Secretary Forrestal brought up the subject of the proposed Central Intelligence Agency.
Secretary Patterson also
presented a report prepared by a special board he had appointed in which
a Central Intelligence Agency was recommended. Mr. Byrnes stated that he thought all were
in favor of a Central Agency and proposed the appointment of a working
committee.The following committee was appointed: Rear Admiral Souers and Major Correa representing SecNav; Mr.
Lovett and Brigadier General Brownell
representing SecWar; and Mr. Russell and Mr. McCormack representing SecState.The committee immediately became deadlocked.See Document 47. The
representatives of the Navy and Army were in agreement that the plan
recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff was sound and should be adopted
in principle. Mr. McCormack, as
spokesman of the State Department, was strongly opposed and maintained
that while there should be coordinating committees the State Department
should control the Agency. He insisted also that all intelligence
estimates should be prepared by the State Department on the theory that
SecState was responsible for national policy.It is understood the President has been pressing Secretary Byrnes to submit his plan. To bring the
matter to a conclusion, the President asked the three Secretaries to
meet with him Thursday, 29 November, to discuss the subject.At the regular meeting of the three Secretaries, held Tuesday, 27
November,See footnote 4, Document 50. at which they planned to
unite on a program to submit to the President, Mr. Byrnes explained that he had not had
time to resolve the differences of opinion within the State Department
with respect to the several plans under consideration and could not
discuss the matter for the present. He stated also that he would have to
ask the President to give him a little more time. The meeting with the
President was not held on Thursday, 29 November. I have no information
as to when it will be held.Secretary Forrestal is familiar
with the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan which he is strongly
advocating.
Very respectfully,
Thos. B. InglisPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Rear Admiral, USN
54. Memorandum From Secretary of State Byrnes to Secretary of War Patterson and Secretary of the
Navy ForrestalSource: Truman Library, Papers of Clark M. Clifford, National Intelligence Authority.
Confidential. The date is handwritten on another copy of the source
text. (Ibid.)Washington, December 10, 1945.
SUBJECT
National Intelligence Authority
By letter of September 20, 1945, the President gave me the following
instructions:
“I particularly desire that you take the lead in developing a
comprehensive and coordinated foreign intelligence program for all
Federal agencies concerned with that type of activity. This should
be done through the creation of an interdepartmental group, heading
up under the State Department, which would formulate plans for my
approval. This procedure will permit the planning of complete
coverage of the foreign intelligence field and the assigning and
controlling of operations in such manner that the needs of both the
individual agencies and the Government as a whole will be met with
maximum effectiveness.”
Attached is a Plan for carrying out the President’s directive.Entitled Establishment of a National Intelligence
Authority, December 3, 1945. See the Supplement. It has been
recommended to me by my Staff Committee after several weeks of discussion
and study, and I now recommend it for your favorable consideration.
Attention is invited especially to the following points:The Plan sets up a National Intelligence Authority consisting of
the Secretary of State as Chairman and the Secretaries of War and
Navy, but authorizes the Chairman to call in the heads of other
Departments and agencies on matters of special interest to
them.The Plan is designed to make fullest use of the intelligence
resources of all agencies of the Government, by coordinating their
efforts under a comprehensive, Government-wide program. The proposed
machinery is an interdepartmental organization under the Authority,
with personnel drawn from existing agencies, rather than an
independent agency with a separate budget. This is considered
advantageous because it tends (1) to avoid publicity and (2) to
reduce competition and duplication between the central agency and
the intelligence organizations of existing departments and
agencies.Executive direction of the central agency is put in the hands of
an official of the Department of State, but it is provided that the
Secretaries of War and
Navy must approve the person selected. In that manner the
coordinating responsibility of the State Department for matters
involving foreign affairs is recognized, but the executive is made a
representative of the Authority as a whole, and not merely of a
single Department.The central Secretariat is envisaged as a working staff of
personnel contributed primarily by the State, War and Navy
Departments.The Plan does not preclude any centralized intelligence operations
(either under the central agency or outside of it) which may prove
feasible and desirable as the program of the Authority is developed.
It provides planning mechanisms that may well lead to centralization
of intelligence responsibilities in many of the specialized fields,
either (1) by vesting responsibility for a particular field in a
single existing agency or (2) by bringing together the working units
of several agencies on a subject into a joint unit under direction
of the Authority.With respect to clandestine activities (“secret intelligence” and
“counter-espionage”) I understand the prevailing opinion to be that
such operations, if they are to be conducted, might well be under a
central agency; and the Plan sets up machinery for study of that
problem in detail and for development of specific operating plans in
those fields.
The central agency is conceived in the first instance as a coordinating and
planning mechanism, whose mission is to develop the comprehensive program
envisaged by the President; to determine foreign intelligence requirements
on a Government-wide basis, and to recommend means and methods for meeting
those requirements, making use of all the intelligence resources of the
Government. Many agencies, in addition to the State, War and Navy
Departments, are engaged in collection and analysis of foreign information,
including the Treasury, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Labor,
the Tariff and Maritime Commissions, the Federal Reserve Board and numerous
others. Such agencies can make important contributions to foreign
intelligence if they work under a coordinated program, so that, within their
special fields, they may serve the needs of other Government agencies as
well as their own.
Under the Plan as proposed, the primary coordinating mechanism is a group of
interdepartmental Committees for the various fields of intelligence, which,
in addition to their planning functions, will “Serve as a continuing group
responsible for maintaining a coordinated program and for reviewing the
adequacy and efficiency of all operations involved in the carrying out of
such a program.” Tentative suggestions for the principal Committees to be
formed are shown on the chart annexed hereto.Not
printed; see the Supplement.
Foreign intelligence is a vast and complicated subject, touching upon almost
all fields of human knowledge. The problems that it involves do not lend
themselves to quick and easy solutions. They must be attacked in detail, and
from a long-range standpoint, and on a comprehensive basis. It is believed
that the annexed Plan permits that kind of an approach to the subject and
gives promise of good results if the execution of the Plan is put in
competent hands.
James F. ByrnesPrinted from a copy that
indicates Byrnes signed the
original.
55. Minutes of MeetingSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Diplomatic Branch Reference File, Minutes of the
Meetings of the Committee of Three, 1944–47. No classification marking.
A copy ibid., Decimal File 1945–49, 101.61/12–1145, indicates that the
minutes were classified Top Secret.Washington, December 11, 1945.
PARTICIPANTS
State Department: James F.
Byrnes, Secretary of StateWar Department: Robert P.
Patterson, Secretary of War, Brigadier General George A. Brownell,
Colonel Charles W. McCarthyNavy Department: James V.
Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy, Major Mathias F. Correa
RECORDER
John Hickerson
[Here follows a brief discussion unrelated to intelligence.]
Central Intelligence Agency
Mr. Patterson said that he felt it
would be desirable to carry forward the discussions on the Central
Intelligence Agency. He asked General
Brownell to review the present status of the matter.
General Brownell referred to
the discussions which had been taking place in the Committee representing the three Departments.The “Committee representing the three Departments” was
appointed by the Secretaries at their meeting on November 14. See Document 45. The only records of this group’s
meetings that have been found are those for November 19 and December 27.
The latter is printed as Document 63. A record
of the November 19 meeting is in National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic
Branch Reference File, Minutes of the Meetings of the Committee of
Three, 1944–47. At this point, Mr. Byrnes sent word to Colonel McCormack to join the meeting and he did so. General Brownell said that the War
Department favored a draft worked out in that Department based on an earlier
draft prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Navy Department, he went on
to say, is in substantial agreement with the War Department draft. The State
Department is not in agreement with the War Department draft but has
proposed an alternative draft which Secretary Brynes
sent to the War and Navy Departments some days ago. The Committee
representing the three Departments has discussed this matter at considerable
length but is still not in agreement. General
Brownell compared the two drafts briefly. He said that there
is agreement on the part of all three Departments on two highly important points:That there should be a Central Intelligence Agency.That there should be an Intelligence Authority at the top
controlling the work of the Agency, consisting of the Secretaries of
State, War and Navy and perhaps others.
Beyond that, General Brownell went
on to say, there are differences in opinion on organization.
There was a general discussion of the two plans. Colonel McCormack described briefly the proposed
State Department plan and General
Brownell reviewed the points of difference between the War
Department plan and that of the State Department. There was an extended
discussion between the three Secretaries as to whether the Director should
be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the three Secretaries
or whether he should be appointed by the Secretary of State with the
approval of the Secretaries of War and the Navy. After an extensive
discussion, there appeared to be agreement among the three Secretaries that
the Director should not be appointed by the President but his appointment
should be a matter of agreement between the Secretaries of State, War, and
Navy.
The next question which was considered was whether the Director should be an
official of the Department of State as proposed in the State Department plan
or outside all three Departments as proposed in the War Department plan.
This matter was discussed at some length, but no decision on the point was
reached. There was also discussion of the Advisory Board as visualized in
the two plans. Mr. Patterson stated
that the War Department wishes to have the top official from G–2 personally sitting on the Advisory Board, whereas the State
Department plan envisages that a representative of the head of G–2 will devote his full time to sitting on the
Board. Mr. Forrestal expressed
similar views on behalf of the Navy Department. Colonel McCormack set forth his view in favor of
the advantages of the State Department proposal in this regard.
After considerable discussion, the three Secretaries agreed that it would be
desirable for the Committee representing the three Departments to endeavor
to resolve the differences between the three Departments over this whole
question while Mr. Byrnes is out of
town on his trip to Moscow. It was agreed that the three Secretaries would
consider this matter further upon Mr. Byrnes’ return.
[Here follows discussion unrelated to intelligence.]
56. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (McCormack) to Secretary of War Patterson and Secretary of the Navy ForrestalSource: Truman
Library, Papers of J. Anthony
Panuch, State Department Research and Intelligence No. 1.
No classification marking. Copies were distributed to Staff Committee
members under cover of an unsigned, undated note. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 353, Records of Interdepartmental and
Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot File No. 122, Records
of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47) Attached to the memorandum
is an annex, “Chart A,” of the revised organizational plan. See the
Supplement.Washington, December 15, 1945.
Annex VI (SC–172)
DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM
SUBJECT
National Intelligence Authority
After the meeting of the Secretaries of State, War and Navy on Tuesday,
December 11thDocument
55. two questions were left for discussion: Whether the Executive Secretary of the Authority should be, as
proposed, a State Department official;What should be the role and composition of the Advisory Groups or
Boards who are to assist the Executive Secretary in discharging his
functions.
Before leaving for Moscow, the Secretary of State instructed me to make every
effort to resolve these issues with the Secretaries of War and Navy at an
early date. This memorandum suggests modifications of the State Department’s
plan to meet the views of the War and Navy Departments.
It is proposed:To provide specifically that the Executive Secretary will
represent the Authority as a whole, and not any one Department, and
to make the provision enforceable by giving a majority of the
Authority (e.g., the Secretaries of War and Navy) the power to
remove the Executive Secretary; andTo amend the provisions with respect to the Advisory Groups or
Boards so that (1) the War and Navy Departments, if they wish, may
appoint their Intelligence Chiefs as the Board members and (2) the
Executive Secretary will be required to submit to the proper
Advisory Board, for concurrence of comment, all recommendations for
the intelligence program or for any operating plan designed to carry
it out.
The proposed modifications of the Plan are listed in Tab A hereto.See the Supplement. The considerations on which
they are based are discussed below.
Status of the Executive Secretary
If there is to be an interdepartmental organization, rather than a separate
entity outside the Departments, all personnel in the central agency,
including the Executive Secretary, must hold office in one of the interested
Departments. The State Department strongly believes, and it seemed to be the
consensus at the meeting of the three Secretaries, that an independent
budget for the central agency should be avoided for security reasons. Since
passage of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1945 (Public Law 358,
78th Congress), a non-departmental agency without an independent budget
appears to be impossible. A copy of the relevant provision of the statute is
attached as Tab B.See the Supplement. Enacted
June 27, 1944; 58 Stat. 361. The Act provided that the Executive Branch
could not use appropriated funds to support any agency that had been in
existence for more than 1 year and for which Congress had not
specifically appropriated funds.
If the interdepartmental type of organization is approved, and the Executive
Secretary must hold office in one of the Departments, it is suggested that
the State Department is the logical one because of the responsibility of the
Secretary of State in foreign affairs. In existing interdepartmental
coordinating mechanisms for matters involving foreign policy it appears to be customary for the
Director or Executive Secretary, as well as the Chairman, to be a State
Department officer. That is so in each of the following cases: Interdepartmental Committee on Cultural and Scientific
CooperationLiberated Areas CommitteeExecutive Committee on Economic Foreign PolicyPetroleum Facilities Coordinating CommitteeInterdepartmental Committee on Rubber Committee on Trade AgreementsInterdepartmental Committee on Resumption of Communications with
Liberated AreasSpecial Committee on Communications.
Concern has been expressed by the War and Navy Departments that the Executive
Secretary would regard himself as responsible to the State Department rather
than to the Authority. The suggestion for meeting that point is to insert
the following provision in the plan:
“The Executive Secretary, in his capacity as such, will be
responsible to the Authority as a whole and may be removed by a
majority vote of the Authority.”
Advisory Groups or Boards
The State Department has proposed two “Advisory Groups.” “Intelligence,”
composed of full-time representatives of the G–2, the DNI and the AC/AS–2,
and the other for “Security,” composed of full-time representatives of the
Chief Coordinator, Treasury Enforcement Agencies, the AC of S, G–2, the DNI and
the Director of the FBI. The War Department
has expressed the view that these arrangements do not insure that the G–2, DNI and
AC/AS–2 will be brought in as members of the team.
It was not the State Department’s intention to minimize the role of the
Service Intelligence Chiefs. It was thought that, since they would be
represented in the central organization at every level, they would
participate fully in the development of the national intelligence program
and of all operating plans designed to carry it out.
Further, it was the State Department view, and it still is, that through a
board of officers assigned full-time to the job of assisting the Executive
Secretary, the G–2, DNI and A–2 would have a fuller and more effective participation in the central
agency than if they sat merely as a “board of directors” holding occasional
meetings and passing on finished papers. A full-time Advisory Group or Board
would be part of the office of the Executive Secretary, would be familiar
with the thinking of that office, would have time to study all plans and
programs in detail and could do much to bring the Secretariat and the
departmental intelligence agencies to a common point of view.
However, it is recognized that the War and Navy Departments have a right to
specify who their representatives on the Advisory Boards will be, and it is
therefore proposed to amend the plan so as to leave the War and Navy
Departments and the Army Air Forces free to appoint their Intelligence
Chiefs as part-time members or to appoint some other representatives as
either full-time or part-time members, whichever may prove to be best.
It is also proposed, in order to relieve the Executive Secretary of the
necessity of representing the State Department in discussions with the
Advisory Boards, to add a State Department representative to each of the
Boards.
Finally, it is proposed to make the role of the Advisory Boards explicit by
means of the following provision:
“Before submitting to the Authority any recommendation for the
intelligence program or any operating plan designed to carry out
that program, the Executive Secretary shall submit such
recommendations to the appropriate Advisory Board for concurrence or
comment. If any member of the Advisory Board shall not concur in the
recommendations, he shall have the right to submit a statement of
his views to the Authority to be considered in connection with the
recommendations.”
Conclusion
It is hoped that the above-suggested modifications will meet the views of the
War and Navy Departments, so that the modified plan can be submitted to the
President as the agreed recommendations of the three Secretaries.
For the Secretary of StateAlfred McCormackPrinted from a copy that bears this typed
signature.
57. Memorandum From the Chief of Naval Operations (Nimitz) to Secretary of the
Navy ForrestalSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–135. Top Secret. The handwritten words
“Nimitz letter” at the end
of the source text identify the author. Nimitz became Chief of Naval Operations on December 15,
1945.Washington, undated.
SUBJECT
National Intelligence AuthorityAfter careful analysis of the State Department Plan, it is my opinion
that it is unsatisfactory in many respects and that the proposed plan of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff is more likely to assure sound national
intelligence and should prove more satisfactory to the Navy.The strength of the JCS plan is the
proposed Central Intelligence Agency. Such an agency is needed and when
functioning properly should eliminate much unnecessary duplication
through the pooling of personnel from the participating departments. It
should provide the same intelligence estimates directly to the President
and the three Secretaries to enable them to be uniformly informed. It
should also supply the participating departments with intelligence of
common interest which they require. The product of this agency would
reflect the best judgment of the experts from all participating
departments and would not be dominated by any one department. I think it desirable that the N.I.A.
nominate and the President appoint the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. It is recommended, however, that the Director be an
Army, Naval or Marine officer for the following reasons: This will assure a non-political administration of the
intelligence effort with unbiased and objective intelligence
estimates.He will be subject to military discipline, continuing after
retirement. He can be required to avoid publicity which is
undesirable in the conduct of an intelligence activity.The term of office should be for four years to assure continuity. The State Department plan is objectionable for the following reasons: The national intelligence estimates would be made by the State
Department. The Secretaries of War and the Navy might not be
informed with respect to the intelligence furnished the
President by the State Department.It does not provide a real central intelligence agency and
therefore duplication can not be reduced without impairment of
departmental intelligence agencies. No economy of effort will
result.The complex committee structure will actually result in wasted
effort of key personnel.In a spirit of compromise it may be necessary to confine the
membership of the N.I.A. to the three
Secretaries as provided in the State Department Plan. I see no serious
objection to the elimination of the representative of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff on the Authority. It may be necessary to agree on a few
committees. This would be satisfactory if the number of committees is
held to a minimum.I recommend you continue to support the J.C.S. Plan subject only to the concessions indicated
above.Printed from an unsigned
copy.
58. Memorandum From the Executive Officer, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of War for Air (Brownell) to the Members of the Lovett CommitteeSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, December 1945. Secret. Addressed
to Major Generals Craig (OPD), Quesada (AAF), and Wyman
(AGF), Brigadier Generals
Clarke (G–2) and
Magruder (SSU), and Colonel
Roamer (ASF).Washington, December 17, 1945.
SUBJECT
Proposals for Central Intelligence AgencyThe Secretary of War has directed that the special committee appointed
by him by directive dated 22 October 1945Not
found, but see Document 32. to
consider intelligence matters be reconvened under the chairmanship of
the senior officer, with the addition of representatives of the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of War and the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of War for Air, to advise him further on certain matters in
connection with the establishment of a Central Intelligence
Agency.The recommendations of the above Committee on the subject of a Central
Intelligence Agency, after receiving the approval of the Secretary of War, were submitted to the
State Department and Navy Department.Document 42. Those recommendations
were in general concurred in by the Navy Department. The State
Department proposed a counterplan, copies of which are attached as Tab
A.Document
46.Both programs were discussed at a meeting of the Secretaries of State,
War and Navy.Presumably the meeting reported
on in Document 55. No final decision
was reached, and it was decided that the matter should be further
considered with a view to perhaps arriving at a compromise decision. The
State Department has now prepared certain amendments to their original
plan, attached as Tab B.Document 56.The Secretary of War requests that the above Committee meet to
consider the entire subject, including the revised State Department
plan, as soon as possible. The Secretary states that he does not wish to
delay matters for a further written report from the Committee, but that
he would like to meet with them after they have had an opportunity to
consider the revised plan. Notice of a meeting of the Committee to be
held on Tuesday or WednesdayDecember 18 and
19. will be sent out by the Recorder.By direction of the Secretary of War:George A.
BrownellBrigadier
General, U.S.A.
59. Memorandum From the Chief of the Operations Division, War Department
General Staff (Craig)
to the Members of the Lovett CommitteeSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG
263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, December 1945. No classification
marking.Washington, December 18, 1945.
SUBJECT
Reconvening of Special Committee on Central Intelligence Agency to
advise the Secretary of War on the State Department proposals
1. There are basic differences of approach between the Central Intelligence
Organization recommended by the Special Committee in its report to the Secretary of War and the State
Department proposal. The fact that the State Department proposal is worked
out in considerable detail, with many features that are not acceptable to
the War Department, has tended to delay a decision on the basic differences.
If the important points can be solved now, these details can be dealt with
by negotiation or by the Agency itself after its creation.
2. The Special Committee’s recommendations to the Secretary of War should
therefore confine themselves to the basic differences between the two plans.
In considering these, and the extent to which they are eliminated by the
concessions in Mr. McCormack’s
modifications, the Special Committee should bear in mind the advantage of
reaching an early agreement with the State Department to permit some form of
organization to come into being promptly. If there is long delay, there is a
real danger that the personnel and going-concern value of the OSS group will be lost. In this sense, nearly
any form of organization will be better than none.At this point Craig indicated by hand that “Rider A,” which is printed
as an attachment, should be inserted.
5. Although Mr. McCormack’s memorandum
of December 15, 1945,Document
56. indicated that there are only two open questions,
the status of the Executive Secretary and the nature of the Advisory groups,
(the latter of which has lost its importance in view of Mr. McCormack’s concessions), there are in
reality at least three other important issues. Each of these, together with
the first point mentioned by Mr. McCormack, is discussed below:
a. Independent Status of the Agency. The War
Department plan calls for a centralized, independent agency, separate from
the State, War and Navy Departments, and with its own personnel. The State
Department plan calls for a mere committee of representatives of the three
departments, operating through personnel detailed from the three
departments. Although the War Department plan is preferable in this respect,
it will require legislative authorization at the expiration of the First War
Powers Act and, under the Independent Office’s Appropriation Act, 1945, will
in any event require specific appropriations within one year of its creation
by Executive Order.
Recommendation: That the Special Committee advise the
Secretary of War to accept the State Department proposal in this respect, on
the conditions that the State Department agree to the action recommended in
subparagraph c below and that the State Department agree to the action to
insert a provision to the effect that the Authority shall consider the
advisability of legislation establishing an independent central intelligence
agency under the direction of the Authority.
b. Status of the Executive Secretary. The War
Department plan calls for an independent Director. Under the State
Department plan, the Executive Secretary, although appointed with the
approval of the Secretaries of War and Navy, is named by the Secretary of
State and must be a State Department official. Mr. McCormack’s concession that the Executive
Secretary must be responsible to the Authority and may be removed by a
majority of the Authority, goes a long way to meet the War Department’s
objections, but does not do so entirely. The implication that this is
primarily a State Department show still remains. It should be eliminated in
the interest of achieving maximum cooperation as well as to make provision
for a possible future period in which the military interest in intelligence
may be predominant.
Recommendation: That the Special Committee advise the
Secretary of War to accept the State Department proposal as amended in this
respect, subject to amending the first and second sentences of paragraph
5,References to this and to other numbered
and lettered paragraphs and subparagraphs of the Department of State
proposal are to the attachment to Document 54;
see the Supplement. and inserting an additional sentence after
the second sentence of paragraph 5, as follows:
“The Executive Secretary will be appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the Secretaries of War and NavyAuthority. If any person appointed as Executive
Secretary shall not be, at the time of his appointment, an official of the
Department of StateState, War or Navy Department, he will be appointed
as suchan official of one of such departments, as recommended by
the Authority, before assuming his duties as Executive Secretary.
The first Executive Secretary shall be, or shall be
appointed, an official of the Department of State.”
This recommendation requires the deletion of the phrase “and may be officers
of the Army or Navy” from the sentence beginning “Deputy Secretaries will
be” in paragraph 5.
c. Functions of the Agency. The War Department plan
envisages the agency as an operating group, in addition to its coordinating
functions. This appears in the provisions that it shall, “a. Operate as the
sole collection agency … in the foreign espionage and counter-espionage
fields”, and “e. Accomplish the evaluation and synthesis of intelligence…”.
The State Department plan assigns the agency primarily coordinating and
policy-making functions, although it permits the establishment of
centralized operations when the Authority so determines. This point is of
importance to the War Department for the following reasons: It is felt that there is a definite need, in the field of
high-level, long-range politico-military intelligence, for an expert
research and analysis unit relatively independent of any of the
Departments.It is believed that clandestine operations must be centrally
controlled.It is fraud [feared?] that the value of the
OSS organization will be lost if
allowed to continue in its present dispersed condition and equally
if assigned entirely to the State Department.
Recommendation: That the Special Committee advise the
Secretary of War to insist that synthesis and evaluation and foreign
espionage and counter-espionage be recognized as primary functions of the
agency and that the appropriate OSS
personnel, particularly the research and analysis group, be made available
in the first instance to the agency, subject in all cases to the right of
the Authority to determine that any such functions and personnel should be
decentralized to one or more of the existing intelligence agencies.
d. Management by Committees. The State Department plan
calls for the creation of numerous committees to deal with each major phase
of the agency’s functions. The plan states that “such committees will be the
primary means by which the Authority will carry out its mission” (par. 7).
The War Department does not believe that committee management is suited for
all phases of the agency’s functions, perhaps because it sees the agency as
having more operating functions than are called for by the State Department
plan. In any case, this is a matter that can best be left to the agency to
work out for itself in the light of experience.
Recommendation: That the Special Committee advise the
Secretary of War to approve paragraph 7 of the State Department plan,
subject to the following:Amendment of the first sentence as follows: “The Authority, upon
recommendation of the Executive Secretary, willmay establish committees each of which will cover a major subject,
area or kind of operationto deal with any of the subjects, areas or kinds
of operations within the purview of the authority.”Deletion of the second sentence of paragraph 7.Deletion of paragraph 13 and consequent renumbering of subsequent
paragraphs.
6. If the above recommendations are approved by the Secretary of War and
accepted to by the Secretary of State, the major obstacles to agreement will
have been removed. Although a number of details of the State Department
proposal will remain to be worked out, they can be solved either by
negotiation or by leaving them to solution by the agency itself. The
following are examples of such matters: Advisory Groups. Mr. McCormack’s concessions have
narrowed the differences to a point at which they should prove
readily adjustable by negotiation. They have chiefly to do with
nomenclature and minor revisions in the description of
functions.Definition of Intelligence and Security
Intelligence. The State Department proposal should be made
more precise to eliminate any indication that the agency may conduct
espionage or counter-espionage in the United States and to exclude
any police functions. This can be accomplished in
negotiations.Control over Other Agencies. It may be
necessary to limit the Authority’s right to control and direct
agencies other than the State, War and Navy Departments. This can
also be left to negotiations.Independent Budget. This question, as part
of the larger question of the independent status of the agency, can
be left to the determination of the agency itself.
Recommendation: That the Special Committee make no
recommendation to the Secretary of War on these matters and other relatively
minor points of difference.
H.A. CraigPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Major General, U.S.A.
AttachmentNo classification
marking.
Rider “A”
In view of the fact that the Secretary of State is apparently
supporting Mr. McCormack’s
proposals, the War Department must choose between two courses of
action. It must determine either to make the maximum concessions to
meet the State Department views, refusing to concede only on vital
matters, or to adhere to the original War Department plan and rely
on its being forced upon the State Department by the President. This
memorandum is written on the assumption that the first course is to
be adopted, which seems to be implicit in the Secretary’s
instructions to War Department representatives that they should
attempt to reconcile the differences with the State
Department.In this connection, the question of personalities becomes
important. If the War Department is committed to acceptance of Mr.
McCormack as the first
director or executive secretary of the agency, it would appear
advisable to let him have the kind of organization that he wants, at
least at the outset, rather than to force him to operate with a type
of organization of which
he disapproves. On the other hand, if the War Department intends to
oppose Mr. McCormack’s
candidacy, it would seem very advisable that the War Department
immediately attempt to select a candidate of its own. Otherwise
there is a good prospect that Mr. McCormack will soon be entrenched in a position from
which it will be difficult to dislodge him.
60. Memorandum From the Chief of the Operations Division, War Department
General Staff (Craig)
to Secretary of War PattersonSource:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–135.
Confidential.Washington, December 24, 1945.
SUBJECT
Central Intelligence Agency
It is proposed that the War Department accept the State Department proposal
subject to the following amendments: The statements of functions of the National Intelligence Authority
to provide that synthesis and evaluation on a national level and
direct procurement of intelligence are recognized as functions of
the National Intelligence Authority, subject to the right of the
Authority to direct that any of such operations be decentralized
when and if that course appears more appropriate at any time.A provision to be inserted that the Executive Secretary shall
consider and explore the advisability of legislation establishing an
independent Central Intelligence Agency under the direction of the
Authority, with an independent budget, and shall make
recommendations thereon to the Authority prior to June 30,
1946.That paragraph 12 of the McCormack proposal, dealing with Advisory Groups, be
changed to provide only one such group having generally the
composition and functions of the National Intelligence Board
outlined in the War Department plan. This modification is thought
necessary to insure that the Chiefs of the intelligence agencies of
the service departments will actively support the Authority.
H.A. CraigPrinted from a copy that
indicates Craig signed the
original.Major General, USA
61. Minutes of MeetingSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Diplomatic Branch Reference File, Minutes of
Meetings of the Committee of Three 1944–1947. Top Secret.Washington, December 26, 1945.
PARTICIPANTS
State Department: Dean Acheson,
Acting Secretary of StateWar Department: Robert P.
Patterson, Secretary of War, Howard Petersen, Col. Charles W. McCarthy
Navy Department: John Sullivan,
Acting Secretary of the Navy, Lt. Col. Mathias F. Correa
RECORDER
John Hickerson
[Here follows material unrelated to intelligence.]
Central Intelligence Agency
Mr. Patterson brought up the question
of the proposed Central Intelligence Agency. He said that he did not wish to
discuss this matter in any detail because of the absence of Mr. Forrestal who has a keen personal interest
in the whole subject. He did wish to point out, however, that it is urgently
necessary to reach an early decision on the whole subject. The President’s
directive to the three Secretaries was “getting stale.”Document 44. Mr.
Patterson said that some progress
has been made in the subcommitteeThe working
group appointed by the three Secretaries at their November 14 meeting,
see Document 45. For minutes of the November 19
meeting of the working group, see Document
47. but there remained for decision really only one major
question; that is, should there be a separate agency under the direction of
the three Departments or should the intelligence agency be geared into the
State Department. Mr. Patterson went
on to say he favors a separate agency but he added that his own attitude on
the subject would be influenced somewhat by the nature of the State
Department’s intelligence organization. Mr. Patterson said that one of the principal reasons why he
favors a separate central intelligence agency, outside all three
Departments, is that he feels strongly that the collection of intelligence
must be divorced from policy making. He added that a decentralization of
intelligence activities in the State Department would make it more difficult
for him to agree to having the Central Intelligence Agency meshed into the
State Department. There was a general discussion of this point including the
thesis that the State
Department is itself primarily an intelligence agency. There was general
agreement that it would be desirable that the whole question of the Central
Intelligence Agency be settled, if possible, upon Secretary Byrnes’ return from Moscow and prior to his
departure for the United Nations meeting in London.
[Here follows material unrelated to intelligence.]
62. Memorandum for the RecordSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 263, Records
of the Central Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers. No
classification marking.Washington, December 27, 1945.
Judge Patterson called me this
afternoon following the meeting of the Committee of Three,See the first paragraph to Document
65. with reference to the State Department proposal for
a National Intelligence Unit. He said that the State Department was not
united behind the McCormack plan and
there was a strong feeling on the part of many people in the State
Department that this intelligence activity should be integrated or scattered
through the different divisions of that Department. He stated that any such
proposal was totally unacceptable to him and that while he did not object to
a State Department official heading the organization that he would insist on
a straight line separate organization. While he recognized that the State
Department was engaged in widespread intelligence activities, he felt that
it was wrong to parcel out this new organization among the various desks,
divisions and committees of the State Department or to get it involved in
the State Department system in any way. Nor would he favor, he said, the
multiplicity of committees which are proposed in the State Department plan.
He felt that this method of working would not produce the results
desired.
If Colonel McCormack is to be the man
to head up the new organization, he did not believe he should be the head of
the State Department intelligence activity although he had no objection to
him being employed as an official of the State Department. The head of the
new agency should work with the State Department intelligence organization
in the same manner as he works with War and Navy Department organizations.
He also objected to any Board
which would have members from Treasury, FBI,
etc.
He instructed me to get together with Colonel McCormack and Mr. Correa of the Navy Department to see if we could produce an
agreed plan by the time Mr. Byrnes
returns from Moscow.
H.A.C.Printed from a copy that bears
these typed initials.
63. Memorandum From the Secretary of the Navy’s Special Assistant
(Correa) to Secretary
of the Navy ForrestalSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 80, General Records of the Department of the
Navy, Records of Secretary of the Navy James
Forrestal 1940–1947, General Correspondence 1944–1947,
Box 129, 80–1–19. No classification marking.Washington, December 27, 1945.
Today with Admiral Souers I attended
a meeting at the War Department to discuss the subject of a Central
Intelligence Agency. Present were Generals
Craig, Fortier,
Brownell and
Irwin representing the War Department and Messrs.
Alfred McCormack and
L.L. Montagne representing the State
Department.
General Fortier introduced in the
meeting the annexed papers headed respectively, “Proposed Functions” and
“Organization.”Not attached and not
found. There was considerable discussion as to the proposed
functions of the central intelligence body. The discussion was in the main
general. Insofar as it can be summarized in specific terms, it may be said
that Mr. McCormack placed particular
emphasis upon the planning functions of the proposed agency and, while he
conceded that it might ultimately be found desirable as a result of the
agency planning to give it certain operating functions, he did not feel that
the initial charter of the agency should specify any operating functions for
it. The War Department representatives, on the other hand, with the
concurrence of the Navy representatives, felt that the agency should be
given an operating mission as well as a planning and coordinating mission ab
initio.
There was some discussion of the organization of the proposed agency although
the discussion was not had with reference to the annexed War Department
outline. The War Department representatives made the point that while they
preferred a plan under which the Central Intelligence Agency would be
independent of any of the Executive Departments, they would be inclined to
compromise on a plan that would place the agency under the State Department,
provided that the Executive Secretary who would direct the agency would have
no other functions within the State Department, and particularly would not
be the executive head of the State Department’s own intelligence agency. Mr.
McCormack indicated that such a
provision would be unacceptable to him. On behalf of the Navy it was stated
that the Navy favored an independent Central Intelligence Agency whose
director would not be identified with any of the departments concerned. It
was pointed out that the Navy recognizes the undesirability of an
independent appropriation for such an agency, but felt that this would not
overcome the disadvantage of having the coordinating agency identified with
one of the interested departments. It was further pointed out by the Navy
representatives that under the applicable law an independent agency could be
set up for a year without being required to receive its operating funds from
an independent appropriation fund.
Mr. McCormack indicated that he was
not prepared to accept either the Navy’s suggestion that an independent
central agency be set up or the Army’s proposal that the agency be set up
within the State Department but that its director have no other duties. Mr.
McCormack further indicated that
he felt matters were at an impasse, and that he felt the question would have
to be decided by the three Secretaries and by the President.
Respectfully,
M.F. CorreaPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
64. Memorandum From the Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence (Souers) to Clark M. CliffordSource: Truman Library, Papers of Clark M. Clifford, National Military Establishment: CIA.
Top Secret; Personal. Also reproduced in CIA Cold War
Records: The CIA underHarry
Truman, pp. 17–19. On another copy of this
memorandum a marginal notation written by Souers reads: “Comdr. Clifford asked for my recommendation at the request of
the President.” (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–135) Clifford was appointed
Naval Aide to the President in early 1946 and then Special Counsel to
the President on June 27, 1946. Apparently he was not formally a
Presidential appointee at this time.Washington, December 27, 1945.
SUBJECT
Central Intelligence AgencyAs you have requested, I am attaching: Copy of the State Department Plan.Document 56.Copy of draft of directive proposed by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.The undated draft
directive was a slight modification of the appendix to Document 13. It included in
paragraph 1 a representative of the JCS as a member of the proposed National
Intelligence Authority. A handwritten revision, apparently
by Clifford, changed
the language of the JCS to
read “and an additional representative of the President of
the United States.” (Truman Library, Papers of Clark M. Clifford) See the
Supplement.Detailed comparison of Plans (a) and (b).See the Supplement.Differences between the two plans are far greater, and more
fundamental, than they appear to be on the surface.Mr. McCormack, author of the
State Department plan, advocates that the Secretary of State should
control America’s intelligence effort. The Secretary of State or his
representative, Mr. McCormack
feels, should determine the character of the intelligence furnished the
President. He made this point clear not only in his published plan, but
also in his talk to the public over the radio,For McCormack’s remarks in a December 22 radio talk, see
Department of State Bulletin, December 23,
1945, pp. 987–993 and 1006. and in various addresses to Army
and Naval officers intended to sell the State Department plan.There are three serious objections to Mr. McCormack’s proposal:Recent experience has shown all too clearly that as long as
the Army and Navy may be called upon in the last analysis to
support the nation’s foreign policy, the Services should have a
voice reaching the President as unmistakable as that of the
State Department.The evaluation of information is not an exact science and
every safeguard should be imposed to prevent any one department
from having the opportunity to interpret information in such a
way as to make it seem to support previously accepted policies
or preconceived opinions.Should the McCormack
plan be adopted, it is inevitable that it would be looked upon
in time as a State Department intelligence system, not an
inter-governmental system. The Army and Navy meanwhile would be
maintaining their own complete intelligence systems.The plan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seems more likely to provide the
President with unbiased intelligence, derived from all available sources, and approved by all three departments
of the Government primarily concerned with foreign policy—State, War and
Navy. Under the JCS Plan, the interest
of the President would seem to be better protected than under the
McCormack plan for the
following reasons: The Authority would be set up under the President, and
therefore on a level higher than that of any single department.
As a result, no one department could influence unduly the type
of intelligence produced. Furthermore, more balanced control
could be expected, as no single department would be
dominant.The President would appoint the Director, making it possible
to procure a man of outstanding ability and integrity.Through the pooling of expert personnel in the Central
Intelligence Agency, many functions now performed by various
intelligence agencies could be carried out more efficiently,
expeditiously, and economically than could be expected under the
McCormack plan. (Mr.
McCormack has
indicated in interviews that he is not in favor of a central
intelligence agency.)The JCS Plan provides for the
preparation of summaries and estimates approved by the
participating agencies for the use of those who need them most:
the President, those on a Cabinet level responsible for advising
the President, and the Joint Planners.The JCS Plan contemplates a
full partnership between the three departments, created and
operated in the spirit of free consideration, and with a feeling
of a full share of responsibility for its success. The
whole-hearted cooperation of participating agencies would be
assured inasmuch as the Central Intelligence Agency is designed
to operate on a reciprocal basis.The JCS Plan has the further advantage
of having been under consideration for many months. It was prepared
after long consideration by the technical staff of the J.I.C. and unanimously approved by the
members of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which included the heads of
the intelligence agencies of the State, War and Navy Departments. It was
then approved, with minor changes, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
comprising Fleet Admirals Leahy
and King, Generals of the Army Marshall and Arnold. The
recommendations of the JCS were
concurred in at that time by the Secretaries of War and the Navy.I recommend that a directive substantially in line with the draft
attached (JCS Plan) be issued by the
President as I believe it will provide a program which will best serve
him and the national interest.As you know, my interest in this subject is wholly objective as I am
not a candidate for the job of Director and couldn’t accept even if it
were offered me. Sidney W. Souers
65. Memorandum From Arnold Miles to
L.W. Hoelscher of the Bureau of the
BudgetSource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 51, Records of the Office of
Management and Budget, Series 39.19, OSS
Organization and Functions. No classification marking. Apparently
drafted by Schwarzwalder, whose name is typed in
parentheses after Miles’ name on the “from”
line.Washington, January 3, 1946.
SUBJECT
Recent developments in effort to set up interdepartmental intelligence
coordinating machinery
Another meeting in the long series was held on December 27Presumably a reference to the December 26 meeting of the
Secretaries of State, War, and the Navy, see Document
61, or to a follow-up meeting on December 27, which can be
inferred from Document 62, although no formal
record has been found. to secure agreement among War, Navy and
State on the form of central organization to be set up in intelligence. At
the conclusion of the meeting, Patterson indicated his acceptance of the State Department’s
plan provided the State Department was actually going to proceed to set up a
central intelligence organization to carry out the responsibilities it was
assuming under its plan. An officer of the State Department from one of the
geographic offices was present acting as a secretary of the meeting, and he
interpolated at that point that the question of whether State would have any
central intelligence operation was still unsettled. That broke up the
meeting.
Following that meeting, McCormack met
with Smith to report on the apparent
hopelessness of proceeding without further direction from the President.
Subsequently, however, Patterson
turned over the whole matter to Howard
Peterson, the new Assistant Secretary of War, in a memoNot found. in which he said that he was
willing to go along with State provided State, Actually created central-machinery comparable to the
responsibilities it was undertaking.Included in its plans a Deputy to McCormack to head the State Department operation, in
order that McCormack would be
as free as possible to devote his time to interdepartmental
problems.
The effort (in which we have been so concerned) to create an effective
past-war government-wide intelligence program is thus seen even more clearly
than before to depend upon the creation of an adequate and professional
intelligence operation in the State Department.
The past gives the military little assurance that sometime in the future they
will not be caught short again with a Secretary of State “washing his hands
of it” unless they take steps to keep informed independently. Further, the
reception now being given to the creation of central intelligence facilities
in State by some of the old line people there does not give the War and Navy
Departments much encouragement to believe that the State Department can grow
up fast enough to assume its new role. They hesitate to pin their faith on
State Department leadership in this field which they have come to see as one
of the most vital in our peacetime Government. Their advocacy of a central
agency (which would be largely staffed and influenced by the military)
revolves around the belief that adequate Government intelligence must depend
on the military agencies.
The people in State who are talking about dismembering the Research and
Analysis operation inherited from OSS by
“decentralizing” it to the various offices should understand that the
alternative is a central agency under military domination with a full blown
research and analysis operation reporting directly to the President.
66. Letter From Acting Secretary of War Royall and Secretary of the Navy Forrestal to Secretary of State ByrnesSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG
59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49,
101.5/1–646. Confidential. Apparently given to Byrnes by Royall and Forrestal at their January 6 meeting. There is no record
of the meeting by any of the participants. See Truman Library, Papers of Harry S. Truman, Post-Presidential
Memoirs, Sidney W. Souers
interview with William Hillman and David
M. Noyes, December 15, 1954. See also
Darling, The Central
Intelligence Agency: An Instrument of Government, p. 70, and
Troy, Donovan and the CIA, pp. 341–342.Washington, January 6, 1946.
Dear Mr. Secretary: We have carefully considered
your memorandum to us enclosing a Plan dated December 3, 1945,Not found. for the establishment of a National
Intelligence Authority. Representatives of the War and Navy Departments have
discussed the proposed Plan with your Special Assistant, Mr. McCormack, and have examined certain
modifications to the original Plan suggested by him in a memorandum dated
December 15, 1945.Document
56.
We regret that we are unable to accept the Plan proposed by your memorandum,
even with the modifications subsequently suggested. In our opinion, it is
inadequate in two respects, both of which we consider essential. It fails to
provide for a centralized executive organization responsible only to the
National Intelligence Authority and actively assisted by the chief
intelligence officials of the three departments. It also fails to provide
for centralized performance of two important operating functions, evaluation
on a national level and direction of foreign secret intelligence and
counterintelligence, with appropriate dissemination in each case.
As you no doubt know, this subject had previously been thoroughly studied by
the two services. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, in JCS 1181 series, considered the problem at length and in
September 1945 approved a proposal (JCS
1181/5) for a central intelligence organization. In the War Department, a
special committee, appointed to consider the subject, recommended the
establishment of a central intelligence organization which closely resembled
that proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A copy of this committee’s
recommendations, which were approved by the Secretary of War and previously
furnished to the State Department, is enclosed for reference (Tab A).Document 42. The
Navy Department examined the War Department plan and agreed with it in
substance, although expressing some reservations on the question of an
independent budget for the centralized agency.
We understand that you are of the opinion that the War Department plan is
inadvisable in that it proposes the establishment of an independent agency,
separate from the three departments. We recognize the force of the
considerations that have led you to this opinion and are quite prepared to
agree that, at the outset, the organization may be housed for administrative
purposes in the State Department, and may consist of personnel detailed from
the three departments. Under that arrangement, the State Department would
furnish necessary administrative services and the chief executive would be,
or would become, an official of the State Department. It is possible that
the President, in view of his known and acute interest in this subject, may
wish himself to select the chief executive. In that case, if the person
selected should be an Army or Navy officer, he would be made available by
appropriate assignment or detail.
We do not believe, however, that this course requires abandonment of the
concept of a central organization with certain operating, as well as
coordinating, functions. On the contrary, we propose, as the best solution
of this problem, that the enclosed War Department plan be accepted for
submission to the President, with such modifications as are necessary to
provide that the central intelligence agency shall not be an independent
agency, but shall be an organization consisting of personnel contributed by
the three departments. This will involve the following principal
modifications: The Director should be, or should become, an official of the
Department of State, unless the President otherwise determines. He
should be appointed by the President, be responsible to the
Authority and be removable by majority vote of the Authority’s
members.This sentence originally
read: “He should be appointed by the Authority (unless the
President desires to select him), be responsible to the
Authority and be removable by majority vote of the Authority’s
members.” The deletions on the source text were made by an
unknown hand. He should have no other duties or functions
in his own department. He should be assisted by deputies from the
two other departments.Other full-time personnel should be detailed to the central
intelligence agency by the three departments. They should be
responsible to the Director, except for personal administrative
matters, and should have no other duties in their departments.A handwritten “OK” appears in the left
margin of paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, and subparagraphs (a), (b),
and (c) below.Administrative services should be provided by the Department of
State.The provisions relating to the independence of the central
intelligence agency, and its budget, should be deleted.
In addition, to conform to your proposal, we would delete
the provision that a representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff be a member
of the National Intelligence Authority and would include the following
provisions relating to the Intelligence Board:that the members of the Intelligence Board may be represented by
deputies;that each member should have the functions assigned by paragraph
12 of your Plan in addition to the functions of the Intelligence
Board under the enclosed War Department plan; andthat the chiefs of the intelligence agencies of other departments
may sit as members of the Intelligence Board, by invitation, on
matters of particular interest to their agencies.
We believe that this suggestion will meet your views as to the nature of the
proposed organization, while at the same time preserving the centralized
executive control and the centralized operating functions which the War and
Navy Departments, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have considered
essential.
We hope that you will agree with us that the foregoing proposal should be the
one submitted to the President by the three departments in response to his
request for our recommendations.
As a possible alternative we are prepared, in the interest of reaching an
agreement and getting some form of organization started, to advise the
President that we can accept your Plan with the modifications already
proposed by Mr. McCormack and certain
further modifications referred to below. In this event, however, we shall
feel obliged to advise the President that this alternative is in our opinion
much less desirable than the one outlined above. The further modifications
of your Plan which we consider essential are as follows: Inclusion of provisions that the Executive Secretary will be
appointed by the Authority and will be or become an official of the
State Department, unless otherwise determined by the President; that
the Executive Secretary will have no other duties in his own
department, in connection with intelligence activities or otherwise;
and that all personnel detailed for full-time duty with the National
Intelligence Authority, whether as members of the Secretariat or as
operating personnel, will be under the supervision of, and
responsible to, the Executive Secretary.Inclusion of a provision that evaluation and synthesis on a
national level, direction of foreign espionage and counterespionage,
and appropriate dissemination are functions of the National
Intelligence Authority, to be conducted under the supervision of the
Executive Secretary or an executive responsible to him. This will
undoubtedly require elimination of the provision that committees
will be the primary means by which the Authority will carry out its
mission and modification of the provision making the establishment of such
committees mandatory for all subjects.Modification of the provisions dealing with Advisory Groups to
provide that there shall be only one such group which shall have
generally the composition and functions of the Intelligence Board as
outlined in the War Department plan. In connection with such
modification, there would be no objection by us to including
provisions (a) that members may be represented by deputies; (b) that
each member should have the functions assigned by paragraph 12 of
the State Department proposal; and (c) that representatives of other
intelligence agencies sit as ad hoc members, by invitation, on
matters of concern to their agencies.
You will recognize that these modifications are designed to
correct the features of your Plan that we mentioned at the outset as being,
in our opinion, fundamental deficiencies.
We earnestly trust that one or the other of these alternative proposals,
preferably the first, will prove acceptable to you and that we may
accordingly proceed in agreement toward the establishment of the new
organization. In view of the importance of this subject, we hope to be able
to discuss it with you, and reach an agreement, before you leave on your
forthcoming trip.
Sincerely yours,
Kenneth C. RoyalJames Forrestal
67. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (McCormack) to Secretary of State ByrnesSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/1–746. No
classification marking.Washington, January 7, 1946.
The following five further modifications of the War Department plan are suggested:Secret intelligence and
counter-intelligence. The War Department is in a hurry to
unload the 2500 people that it has in these activities. A central
agency would be
greatly handicapped by having to take over these units immediately.
Also there are a number of knotty problems to be solved, such as the
future of the FBI in South America.
It is recommended that the function be not taken over until a
complete operating plan has been worked out and approved by the
Authority. Such a plan would involve basic decisions as to the
extent to which, and the limitations under which, this Government
proposes to engage in clandestine operations in foreign countries,
including matters which may require Presidential approval.“Evaluation of intelligence on a national
level.” This broad function is given to the central agency
without any definition of its meaning.A
question mark has been inserted by hand in the left margin next
to this sentence. Insofar as it pertains to the
submission of information to the President, the function is now
performed by the State Department, by the Joint Intelligence
Committee and by other departments. Before the central intelligence
agency actually begins to act under this sweeping grant of authority
the meaning of “evaluation on a national level” should be carefully
defined and the scope of the agency’s duties approved by the
Authority.Functions of National Intelligence
Authority. The War Department plan contains a wholly
inadequate statement of the missions of the Authority. The statement
of missions as set forth in the State Department plan (to which no
objection has been made) should be adopted.Committees. The Director should be
authorized to form interdepartmental committees (including members
outside State, War and Navy) as provided in the State Department
plan, eliminating, however, the statement that these committees will
be the “primary means by which the Authority will carry out its
missions.”Bringing additional Department and Agency heads
into the Authority. The War Department plan requires
approval of the President to the bringing in of additional
Department and Agency heads as members of the Authority on matters
of interest to them. The provision of the State Department plan in
this respect should be adopted, namely that the Authority itself may
bring such additional members.
Comment
With the above modifications the plan would still be, in my opinion,
unworkable because of the impossible position in which it puts the Director.
He will be circumscribed on all sides by the Intelligence Board, consisting
primarily of the intelligence heads of the armed services. He can take no
“important action” without consulting them; he cannot even entertain a
request for an estimate except through a Board member; he can make no estimate for a departmental head
without passing it formally through the Board members; he can get no
personnel except by their favor; and therefore he would be virtually
impotent in discharging his “coordinating” functions.
The one thing that might save him—control of the intelligence machinery and
resources of the State Department—is also taken from him by insistence of
the War and Navy Departments.
A. McCormack
68. Letter From Secretary of State Byrnes, Acting Secretary of War Royall, and Secretary of the Navy Forrestal to President TrumanSource: Truman
Library, Official File, 892. Confidential. An unsigned copy of this
letter indicates that McCormack
was the drafter. (Ibid., Papers of Clark M.
Clifford, National Intelligence Authority)Washington, January 7, 1946.
My Dear Mr. President: Pursuant to your letter of
September 20, 1945, addressed to the Secretary of State,Document 15. we have
constituted ourselves an interdepartmental group to formulate a plan for
your approval for a comprehensive and coordinated foreign intelligence
program for all federal agencies concerned with that type of activity.
After extensive study, we have unanimously agreed to recommend to you the
plan which is attached hereto.The plan was not
found attached to the source text but was attached to a copy in the
Clifford Papers and is
printed here as an attachment. It is virtually identical to the Joint
Chiefs of Staff proposal of September 19; see Document 13.
This plan takes the form of a directive establishing a National Intelligence
Authority, composed of the Secretaries of State, War and the Navy, which is
charged with the responsibility for such overall intelligence planning and
development and such inspection and coordination of all Federal intelligence
agencies as to assure the most effective accomplishment of the intelligence
mission related to the national security. The directive further provides
that the National Intelligence Authority shall establish a Central Intelligence Agency, headed by a
Director to be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the
National Intelligence Authority. The Director is to be advised by an
Intelligence Advisory Board, consisting of the heads of the principal
military and civilian intelligence agencies having functions related to the
national security.
You will note that the plan set forth in the directive contemplates that the
Authority, assisted by the Director and the Intelligence Advisory Board,
will prepare and submit to you for your approval a basic organizational plan
in accordance with the principles set forth in the directive. It is believed
to be desirable that the details of the organization should be worked out in
the first instance by the officials who will be responsible for its
performance.
Accordingly, we recommend that you sign the attached directive.
Faithfully yours,
James F. ByrnesKenneth C. RoyallJames Forrestal
AttachmentSource: Truman Library, Papers of Clark M. Clifford, National
Intelligence Authority. Confidential. At the top of the first page
is a note (apparently in Souers’ handwriting) which reads “Draft of 1/8/45”
[sic]. Subsequent revisions, all by hand, are apparently also by
Souers.
Directive Regarding the Coordination of Intelligence
Activities
In order to provide for the development and coordination of intelligence
activities related to the national security:The opening sentence is crossed out by hand.A National Intelligence Authority composed of the Secretaries
of State, War and the NavyAt this
point the phrase “and an additional representative of the
President of the United States” is handwritten. is
hereby established and charged with responsibility for such
overall intelligence planning and development, and such
inspection and coordination of all FederalAt this point “foreign” has been
added. intelligence activities, as to assure the most
effective accomplishment of the intelligence mission related to
the national security.To assist it in that task the National Intelligence Authority
shall establish a Central Intelligence Agency headed by a
Director who shall be appointed or removed by the President on
the recommendation of the National Intelligence Authority.The phrase “on the recommendation of
the National Intelligence Authority” has been crossed out at
the end of this sentence. The Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency shall be responsible to the National
Intelligence Authority and shall sit as a non-voting member
thereof.The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall be
advised by an Intelligence Advisory Board consisting of the
heads of the principal military and civilian intelligence
agencies having functions related to the national security, as
determined by the National Intelligence Authority.The first duty of the National Intelligence Authority,
assisted by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and
the Intelligence Advisory Board, shall be to prepare and submit
to the President for his approval a basic organizational plan
for implementing this directiveAt
this point “directive” was replaced with “executive
order.” in accordance with the concept set forth in
the following paragraphs. This plan should include drafts of all
necessary legislation.Subject to the direction and control of the National
Intelligence Authority, the Central Intelligence Agency shall: Accomplish the synthesis and evaluation of
departmental intelligence relating to the national
security and other information collected by it and the
appropriate dissemination within the government of the
resulting strategic and national policy
intelligence.Plan for the coordination of the activities of all
intelligence agencies of the government having functions
related to the national security and recommend to the
National Intelligence Authority the establishment of
such overall policies and objectives as will assure the
most effective accomplishment of the national
intelligence mission.Perform, for the benefit of departmental intelligence
agencies, such services of common concern as the
National Intelligence Authority determines can be more
efficiently accomplished by a common agency, including
the direct procurement of intelligence.Perform such other functions and duties related to
intelligence as the President and the National
Intelligence Authority may from time to time
direct.The Central Intelligence Agency shall have no police or law
enforcement functions.Subject to coordination by the National Intelligence
Authority, the existing intelligence agencies of the government
shall continue to collect, evaluate, synthesize and disseminate
departmental operating intelligence, herein defined as that
intelligence required by the several departments and independent agencies for
the performance of their proper functions. Such departmental
operating intelligence as designated by the National
Intelligence Authority shall be freely available to the Central
Intelligence Agency for synthesis. As approved by the National
Intelligence Authority, the operations of the departmental
intelligence agencies shall be open to inspection by the Central
Intelligence Agency in connection with its planning functions.
In the interpretation of this paragraph the National
Intelligence Authority and the Central Intelligence Agency will
be responsible for fully protecting intelligence sources and
methods which, due to their nature, have a direct and highly
important bearing on military operations.Funds and personnel for the National Intelligence Authority
shall be provided by the departments participating in the
National Intelligence Authority in amount and proportions to be
agreed upon by the members of the Authority. Within the limits
of the funds made available to him, the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency may employAt
this point “additional” was added. necessary
personnel and make provisions for necessary supplies, facilities
and services. With the approval of the National Intelligence
Authority, he may call upon departments and independent agencies
to furnish such specialists as may be required for supervisory
and functional positions in the Central Intelligence Agency,
including the assignment of military and naval personnel.An attached organizational chart of
the proposed National Intelligence Authority and Central
Intelligence Agency is in the Supplement.
69. Memorandum by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (Smith)Source: Roosevelt
Library, Papers of Harold Smith,
Box 4, Conferences with President Truman, 1946. No classification marking. The time on the
source text is 10 p.m., but the “p.m.” has been crossed out and inserted
by hand is “a.m.?” Although written in the third person, this is part of
the series of memoranda often referred to as the “Smith Diary.” The only other known
contemporary account of this meeting by a participant is Admiral Leahy’s short diary entry,
which simply notes the fact of the meeting and comments: “The Director
of the Budget offered many objections that evidently were instigated by
the Department of State.” (Library of Congress, Manuscript Division,
Leahy Diaries, January 9,
1946) President Truman’s brief
account, which may refer either to this meeting or to a follow-up
session on January 12, is in Memoirs by Harry S. Truman, vol. II, Years of Trial and Hope, p. 57.Washington, January 9, 1946, 10
a.m.
White House conference on intelligence activities (10:00
am)
(Summary statement)
On Friday, January 4, 1946, Colonel Alfred
McCormack, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State, in
Charge of Research and Intelligence, telephoned the Director and indicated
that he was making progress with the Navy on intelligence matters, but not
with the Army, and he asked if the Director had gotten in touch with
Secretary of State Byrnes on “our
local problem.” The Director had not had an opportunity to see Byrnes, but said that he would try to do
so.
On Monday, January 7, 1946, the Director had a brief appointment with
Secretary Byrnes just before
Byrnes left for London. The
Secretary apparently told the Director about a proposed Executive Order
disposing of the matter of the organization of intelligence activities in
the Government. Upon returning to the office, the Director talked to
Hoelscher and Schwarzwalder
(Administrative Management), who gave him a copy of the proposed Order.
On Tuesday, January 8, 1946, the Director telephoned Matt
Connelly (Secretary to the President) and asked him to tell
the President not to sign the Executive Order.
On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1946, Connelly
telephoned the Director to say that a meeting on intelligence, called by the
President, was about to be held, so the Director immediately left the office
for the White House. In addition to the President and the Director,
participants in the meeting were Admiral
William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of
the United States Army and Navy; Judge Samuel I.
Rosenman; Brig. General Vaughan,
Military Aide to the President; James K. Vardaman,
Naval Aide to the President; and several persons from the Navy Department. The War Department and the
State Department were not represented. The implication of most of the
statements made at the meeting was that intelligence could not be handled in
the State Department because that department was too weak.
The Director, who took the part of the devil’s advocate, said that when he
had added together the figures on Army and Navy intelligence officers, plus
the F.B.I. in South America during the war,
he found that we had people falling all over themselves in the field of
intelligence. He pointed out that while we might put up with this kind of
situation during a war, we could not do so as a practical matter while
carrying on a continuing basis a 25-billion-dollar budget during peacetime.
When Leahy made some comment about
the Director’s thinking in terms of the budget, Mr. Smith replied that he was not thinking in
terms of dollars but rather in terms of organization. Leahy admitted that intelligence had been
handled in a disgraceful way, and he said that he could not get any
intelligence out of the Army, the Navy or the State Department during the
war.
The Director made two points with the President. First, he stated that it is
easy to ignore a thing as being only a “little matter of administration” and
therefore not too important; but often that “little matter of
administration” is the key to the problem in question, and whether or not it
is properly handled makes the difference between success and failure in
solving the problem. Second, the Director stated that when a subject is left
to three departments to divide up among themselves, the worst possible
compromise results, and that the President himself must decide how he wants
intelligence activities organized.
The Director commented further that he had listened to a good many
discussions on the organization of intelligence activities and that
personally he was much interested in the subject because he feels that it
has a great bearing on our enlarged role in international affairs. He
pointed out, however, that he was concerned about the fact that in all that
he had heard on the subject there did not seem to be even a clear
understanding of what kind of intelligence was being discussed, and he
declared that there was certainly need for some definitions. He remarked, “I
am not so sure that we are not approaching the subject of intelligence in
the most unintelligent fashion.”
70. Memorandum From the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (Smith) to the President’s
Special Counsel (Rosenman)Source:
Truman Library, Papers of
Samuel I. Rosenman, Subject
File—OSS, 1946.
Confidential.Washington, January 10, 1946.
Some time ago I asked Colonel McCormack, who used to be in Army Intelligence and who is
now working on the intelligence problem for the State Department, to give me
a memorandum concerning the subject. My staff regards him very highly.
The memorandum just came in today, and I have not at this moment read it.
However, I am passing it on to you thinking that you might like to read it
before the Saturday morning meeting.January
12. Actually it was not written for this purpose, and because
State is not to be represented I think it would not be wise for you to use
it other than as background information.
I consider this whole subject of intelligence to be one of the most
far-reaching problems of interdepartmental coordination that we currently
face. My own gloomy opinion is that it will not be solved in an orderly
fashion and that we will go through the usual two, three or more
reorganization stages—God bless bureaucracy!
HDS
AttachmentConfidential.Washington, January 10, 1946.
Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special
Assistant for Research and Intelligence (McCormack) to the Director of the Bureau of the
Budget (Smith)
As I am going away for a few days I should like to leave this memorandum
with you as expressing my thoughts on the pending problem of organizing
government intelligence. It has been written in a hurry but I hope that
it covers the main points.
There are several concepts of the “Central Intelligence Agency”:The “Central Evaluating Agency”: This is the conception of General
Clarke of MIS, who thinks of a single place into which every
paper of possible intelligence value comes and is read,
circulated to those interested and “evaluated.” The nearest to
such an organization that has ever existed is the Japanese
intelligence unit of the Military Intelligence Service during
the war. It consisted of almost a thousand people, and it served
largely as an operating intelligence agency for the field
commands. Almost literally it received, read, cataloged and
filed every paper pertaining to the Japanese. Its work was
supplemented by specialized work done by other agencies (e.g.,
the technical air intelligence done by the Navy at Anacostia;
the work of the OSS on the
long-term “JANIS” studies,
etc.). Such an organization, working in peace-time, covering the
whole world and serving the needs of the whole government, would
be so large in size as to be wholly impracticable, even if
desirable.The “Coordinator of Information”: This is the original concept of General
Donovan—an agency
that would receive the “processed” information and intelligence
reports produced by all other agencies of the government and
would put them together, coming out with a finished product
called “strategic intelligence.” General Donovan found that it was
almost impossible to fill such a role, partly because it was
difficult to get the information from other agencies, partly
because it was impossible to judge how good the information was
without having a separate research organization to check it and
a field organization to verify it, and to get additional
information.The “Coordinator of Information
Plus”: This is the role that the
OSS attempted to fill during
the war—a Coordinator of Information with his own intelligence
collecting organization, plus a research staff to do the
evaluating and produce the final studies. While the OSS accomplished a great deal
during the war, it came nowhere near to filling the role that it
desired, chiefly because of its remoteness from the operating
units. Where, as with certain of the political divisions of the
State Department, the OSS
research organization found a good customer and got very close
to the operating problems, the results were excellent. Where
that condition did not prevail, the reports tended to be
academic and unrelated to the real problems of the Government.
Reports were frequently based upon less than all the available
information, not because the information was withheld but
because OSS tried to cover so
large a field of intelligence that it could not maintain
adequate machinery for getting all the available
information.Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning
Mechanism: This is the underlying concept of the State
Department’s proposed plan for coordination of intelligence, and
I believe accords in general with the views of the Bureau of the Budget. It is
based upon the following main premises:This Government, in its numerous departments and
agencies, has vast resources for the collection of
information and the production of intelligence. In a
period when there is strong pressure to reduce
government expenditures, it is most important that all
these resources be harnessed and used.The way to use them is to distribute the intelligence
function widely through the Government, giving to each
specialized unit the job that it is best qualified to
do, providing for cooperative undertakings on subjects
of inter-departmental interest and setting up machinery
that will insure the flow of intelligence to all those
who need to have it.While the importance of collecting more information is
not under-estimated (including the importance of using
unconventional methods where necessary), the critical
process in intelligence is performed at the research
desk. It consists of compiling the information,
appraising it, putting it into usable form, checking its
validity and informing the collecting units of what
further information is needed. Adequate performance of
the research function requires the use of experts, and
they are to be found in those departments and agencies
which have the operating or policy responsibilities in
the particular field.The great need in the Government today is not a
super-intelligence agency but is the development of a
Government-wide intelligence program that can be
translated into specific operating plans, under which
responsibilities will be clearly defined and allocated.
Development of such a program and operating plans is not
something that can be done at one fell swoop. It is a
permanent job, because of changing needs and changing
capabilities of Government agencies; and even without
those factors it is a 2-year job.A permanent programming and planning agency is needed
for still another reason—to follow up the plans and
insure that they are carried out.
Foreign intelligence is needed for two paramount purposes:Conduct of foreign relations; andPreparation for war.
One is the function of the State Department, the other
of the Armed Services. Since 1940, when this Government began to do
intelligence work on a major scale, the emphasis has been largely on the
military side. The emphasis will continue to be on the military side in
any agency that is dominated by the Armed Forces. The State Department
plan imposes no obstacles to the development of military intelligence,
but it is oriented toward expanding the non-military side of
intelligence work.
My objections to the War Department plan may be summarized as follows: The War Department wants a new, separate and “independent”
agency (though their “independent” director would be subject to
so many controls by the military that his independence would be
nonexistent). I feel that a new, separate agency will have
difficulty getting money from Congress, or by means of
departmental contributions of funds; and it will be in
competition with existing intelligence agencies for funds,
personnel and assignments. I favor a scheme that will reduce
competition to a minimum.If we are going to do secret intelligence, we should not
advertise the fact, nor should we set up an agency with
pretentious titles. I think the term “Central Intelligence
Agency” is both misleading and dangerous. That is why I favor a
“Secretariat” functioning under the proposed Authority, instead
of a Central Intelligence Agency, and an unpretentious title for
the executive head of it.The War Department plan conceives of a single solution to the
intelligence problem. It is not that simple, and many different
solutions are necessary in a well conceived Government-wide
program. The point is further discussed below.The War Department conceives that there is some virtue in a
central agency as such. To my mind, a sound program would
attempt to build up the existing intelligence units to maximum
efficiency and would allocate to the central agency only those
functions which clearly can be performed better by a central
organization.
It is my conception that if a planning agency is set up it will find
three possible solutions for each intelligence responsibility: To transfer it to the central agency;To create an interdepartmental unit, outside of the central
agency, to do the job (e.g., a joint Army and Navy unit to do
air intelligence); andAllocation of the responsibility, on behalf of the whole
Government, to a single intelligence agency.
There are certain responsibilities that can be discharged best by one
agency, on behalf of the whole Government, because of the expertness of
that agency in the particular field. The following are random illustrations:Foreign pictures to Navy, which now does the main job;Map coverage; other than topographic, to State Department
(Army Map Service does only topographic maps);Polar meteorology to Air Forces;Foreign population statistics to Bureau of Census;Financial statistics to Federal Reserve Board;World trade statistics to Department of Commerce;Foreign labor developments to Labor;Foreign mineral resources to Bureau of Mines;Supervision of public opinion testing (possibly) to Department
of Agriculture.
There are various joint operations which, in my opinion would gain
nothing from being under a central agency, but which might well be put
into joint units directed by one department. (We had many of these in
the war, with personnel from two or more agencies, physically located
in, and supervised by, one of the agencies). The weekly reporting of
foreign events (largely political events) now done by State, G–2 and ONI,
might well be put into an interdepartmental unit, with personnel drawn
from the three departments, but under the supervision of the department
of primary interest, vis., State.
The various aspects of geographical intelligence call for
interdepartmental units. Topographic intelligence, now supervised by the
Joint Topographical Subcommittee of the JIC, is in effect directed by G–2 and the work is mainly done by G–2. Ports and harbors should be a joint enterprise of the
Navy, the Maritime Commission and the Army Engineers. I cannot see that
anything would be gained by putting it under the operating direction of
a central agency.
In all these cases a central planning and programming organization would
be of great benefit. It could do the job of “selling” intelligence. It
could perform the kind of coordination that is required in a situation
such as the foreign census figures. When the Bureau of Census is queried
as to why it cannot recast its population figures to meet the Army’s
needs for computations of military manpower, it could no longer say that
the Bureau of the Budget had refused to allow it the necessary
positions. The planner in the central agency would go to Mr. Harold Smith and say: “Do you want this
job done well by 6 people in the Census Bureau or done badly by 50
people in the Armed Services?”; and the answer would be obvious.
The Army makes two points very strongly, vis., (a) that a central agency
is necessary to conduct secret intelligence and (b) that there must be
some organization to do the “final strategic and national policy
intelligence.”
I doubt the validity of either of these arguments. I agree that “secret”
intelligence, in the sense in which it is done by the British Secret
Intelligence Service, should be done by a single agency. But in no
Government, including the British Government, is there the kind of
exclusive franchise that the War Department is talking about. In fact,
the most important “secret” intelligence is done so secretly that nobody
knows who does it. In this respect I think that the War Department’s
thinking is stereotyped and unimaginative.
The State Department has not opposed putting secret intelligence under a
central agency, but it would oppose it if the central agency were
directly under the President, because such operations might compromise
the President.
On the matter of the “strategic” intelligence which the Service
Departments think of as something that is dished up to the President,
there are obvious dangers in putting such a responsibility in a
non-Departmental person. It is my view that, apart from the strictly
military aspects for which it is necessary to rely on the Armed Forces,
“strategic intelligence” is by definition a function of the Department
of Government which is responsible for foreign affairs.
It may be that the State Department is not now equipped to discharge the
function. It may also be that the unit which discharges it should be
interdepartmental, with adequate Army and Navy representation. But the
State Department’s weaknesses are not a good reason for refusing to
strengthen it by giving it its appropriate functions in foreign
intelligence and the means with which to discharge them.
One further point as to the collection of intelligence in the field.
There the chief coordinating responsibility is now vested in the
representatives of the State Department abroad, who have administrative
supervision of the Service Attaches and of the various civilian attaches
(Commercial, Agricultural, Labor, Petroleum, etc.). The
counter-espionage organization of OSS
(now under the War Department) operates outside of the theaters under
State Department cover. That is, the X–2
personnel are carried (openly) as members of the Ambassador’s staff. The
same is increasingly true of the SI
personnel in countries not under military occupation.
That coordinating role calls for somewhat the same type of coordination
at the seat of Government.
Alfred McCormackPrinted from a copy that
bears this typed signature.
71. Presidential Directive on Coordination of Foreign Intelligence
ActivitiesSource: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States:
Harry S. Truman,
1946, pp. 88–89. The directive was also published in the Federal Register of February 5, 1946 (11 Fed.
Reg. 1337, 1339). A typewritten copy is reproduced in
CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, pp. 29–31.Washington, January 22, 1946.
To the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the
Secretary of the Navy:It is my desire, and I hereby direct, that all Federal foreign
intelligence activities be planned, developed and coordinated so as
to assure the most effective accomplishment of the intelligence
mission related to the national security. I hereby designate you,
together with another person to be named by me as my personal
representative, as the National Intelligence Authority to accomplish
this purpose.Within the limits of available appropriations, you shall each from
time to time assign persons and facilities from your respective
Departments, which persons shall collectively form a Central
Intelligence Group and shall, under the direction of a Director of
Central Intelligence, assist the National Intelligence Authority.
The Director of Central Intelligence shall be designated by me,
shall be responsible to the National Intelligence Authority, and
shall sit as a non-voting member thereof.Subject to the existing law, and to the direction and control of
the National Intelligence Authority, the Director of Central
Intelligence shall: Accomplish the correlation and evaluation of intelligence
relating to the national security, and the appropriate
dissemination within the Government of the resulting
strategic and national policy intelligence. In so doing,
full use shall be made of the staff and facilities of the
intelligence agencies of your Departments.Plan for the coordination of such of the activities of the
intelligence agencies of your Departments as relate to the
national security and recommend to the National Intelligence
Authority the establishment of such over-all policies and
objectives as will assure the most effective accomplishment
of the national intelligence mission.Perform, for the benefit of said intelligence agencies,
such services of common concern as the National Intelligence
Authority determines can be more efficiently accomplished
centrally.Perform such other functions and duties related to
intelligence affecting the national security as the
President and the National Intelligence Authority may from
time to time direct.No police, law enforcement or internal security functions shall be
exercised under this directive.Such intelligence received by the intelligence agencies of your
Departments as may be designated by the National Intelligence
Authority shall be freely available to the Director of Central
Intelligence for correlation, evaluation or dissemination. To the
extent approved by the National Intelligence Authority, the
operations of said intelligence agencies shall be open to inspection
by the Director of Central Intelligence in connection with planning
functions.The existing intelligence agencies of your Departments shall
continue to collect, evaluate, correlate and disseminate
departmental intelligence.The Director of Central Intelligence shall be advised by an
Intelligence Advisory Board consisting of the heads (or their
representatives) of the principal military and civilian intelligence
agencies of the Government having functions related to national
security, as determined by the National Intelligence
Authority.Within the scope of existing law and Presidential directives,
other departments and agencies of the executive branch of the
Federal Government shall furnish such intelligence information
relating to the national security as is in their possession, and as
the Director of Central Intelligence may from time to time request
pursuant to regulations of the National Intelligence
Authority.Nothing herein shall be construed to authorize the making of
investigations inside the continental limits of the United States
and its possessions, except as provided by law and Presidential
directives.In the conduct of their activities the National Intelligence
Authority and the Director of Central Intelligence shall be
responsible for fully protecting intelligence sources and
methods.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. Truman
Department of State Intelligence
Introduction
Coinciding roughly in time with the controversy over the creation of a
national intelligence structure, a heated and at times bitter struggle in
the Department of State took place over whether the Department should have
its own intelligence organization, and, if so, how it should be organized
and to whom it should answer. Within the Department of State, the two issues
of national and Department intelligence organization were in fact closely
linked.
Under the pressures of wartime, the Department had developed a few
rudimentary intelligence operations. A Division of Foreign Activity
Correlation handled liaison with the FBI and
OSS, provided such Departmental and
Foreign Service support as they required, and disseminated their reports in
the Department. For matters that required scrutiny at a higher level,
beginning with Assistant Secretary Adolf A. Berle, Jr.,
an officer of that rank seems to have had, as part of his portfolio, a
general watching brief over intelligence matters. The Department also had a
representative on the Joint Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, an arrangement that at least gave it some voice in what was then the
only part of the U.S. Government where something resembling national
intelligence assessments were being prepared. But there appears to have been
no real Departmental backup for this process other than whatever
backstopping the Department’s representative might elicit from the policy
offices.
By 1943–1944, there were stirrings about the future of the U.S. intelligence
system in the postwar world. In 1944, an officer of the Division of World
Trade Intelligence proposed the establishment of an office of intelligence
analysis and for a period of a year or so a somewhat desultory discussion of
the proposal went on in the Department. The Bureau of the Budget encouraged
the plan and worked with its proponents, but the initiative seems to have
produced nothing except exchanges of memoranda and draft Departmental
orders.
Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., showed
some interest in intelligence during his brief tenure. At the time of
President Roosevelt’s death in April
1945, Stettinius was meeting with Secretary of the Navy
Forrestal and Attorney General
Francis Biddle on a plan for postwar intelligence
organization, but it is not clear whether he was involved in efforts to
create a Departmental intelligence capability. By June he had been replaced
by Secretary Byrnes.
Thus at the end of World War II, the Department of State still had no
intelligence organization in the modern sense of the term. The Foreign
Service was, of course, the major source of foreign information and
intelligence available to the U.S.
Government, but the analysis and interpretation of the information was the
responsibility of the Department’s policy offices. There was no independent
mechanism within the Department for assessing and correlating
information.
At the time of his appointment, Byrnes
asked the Bureau of the Budget for a study on the State Department’s
organization and management. Chapter VII of the report, entitled
“Intelligence and Research,” described the Department’s operations, both
foreign and domestic, devoted to the collection and analysis of information
and concluded that “the Department has not fixed the responsibility in any
office to determine what information is needed and to ensure that it is
brought together in a form that is reliable, adequate and available for
use.” (Report by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, August 15, 1945;
see the Supplement)
To meet this problem, the report recommended that “The Department should
establish, as an adjunct to the Office of the Secretary, an Office of
Intelligence and Research to plan a coordinated program of foreign
intelligence and research and maintain a central intelligence service.”
Byrnes apparently discussed this
report with Dean Acheson at the time
he persuaded him to return to the Department as Under Secretary. Acheson, who believed that Byrnes was committed to the report, was
convinced of the need for an intelligence system in the Department and was
to become one of its strongest advocates.
By this point, events were beginning to move quickly. On September 5, 1945,
Assistant Secretary for Administration Frank
McCarthy recommended to Acheson that the Department act on the Budget Bureau’s
proposal by appointing a special assistant to the Secretary to handle
intelligence. (Document 72) But other developments
overtook this recommendation and, indeed, the original Budget Bureau
proposal. By late August, the decision had been made to break up OSS and transfer its Research and Analysis
Branch to the Department of State.
When the President signed Executive Order 9621 on September 20, making the
transfer effective on October 1, the Department of State thereby inherited
its first intelligence organization. (Document 14)
A week later, Acheson announced the
appointment of Colonel Alfred
McCormack, a New York lawyer with a distinguished wartime
record in the Military Intelligence Division, as the first Special Assistant
to the Secretary of State for Research and Intelligence.
The Executive order was somewhat more complicated than a simple transfer. It
established within the Department of State an Interim Research and
Intelligence Service (IRIS), which was to
remain in existence until December 31, 1945. The Secretary of State was
required to wind up the affairs of IRIS by
that date, but in the process he was authorized to transfer any of its functions to any agency within
the Department that he might designate. In other words, he was authorized to
dismantle the Research and Analysis Branch but to reassemble it by the end
of the year as a new organization within the Department.
The September 20 Executive order was accompanied by a Presidential letter of
the same date which conferred on the Secretary of State the responsibility
to “take the lead in developing a comprehensive and coordinated foreign
intelligence program for all Federal agencies concerned with that type of
activity.” (Document 15) The Department of State
thus had acquired a second responsibility that was closely linked to the
establishment of its own intelligence organization.
Inevitably, the two aspects of McCormack’s responsibilities became entangled. He was
inclined to hold back on plans for an interagency structure until he
launched the Department’s own organization, but the pressures from the other
agencies involved compelled him to move on both fronts. The chief critic of
McCormack’s plan for a
Departmental intelligence organization, Assistant Secretary of State for
Administration Donald Russell, also
became a player in the interagency maneuvering over the future intelligence
community by proposing his own plan and engaging in certain contacts with
Secretary of the Navy Forrestal
which, although sanctioned by Byrnes,
worked against McCormack’s position.
Finally, the strong resistance within the Department to a centralized
“in-house” intelligence organization became a factor in the interagency
debate, with Secretary of War Patterson in particular opposing any State Department
leadership of the national intelligence structure if the Department’s own
intelligence system were decentralized to the policy offices.
When McCormack took office, he already
had a functioning intelligence research and analysis organization, although
it had to be slimmed down and many of its staff were anxious to return to
private pursuits. He had to find a way to integrate it into the Department’s
structure.
McCormack’s plan was for a centralized
intelligence component, a set of geographic and functional research offices
that would roughly parallel the policy offices, working closely with them
but remaining independent of their control and steering clear of involvement
in policy. By late October 1945, this concept was running into opposition
within the Department and in Congress where funding for the intelligence
program was being drastically reduced.
On October 27, 1945, Under Secretary Acheson called a meeting of senior Department of State
officers to discuss the future of the intelligence question. As Acheson recalled, it was his and McCormack’s intention to head off
opposition to the intelligence plan, which would create a unit of slightly
over 1,000 people from the former Research and Analysis Branch. (Present at the Creation: My Years in the State
Department (New York:
W.W. Norton, 1969), pages 159–160) Acheson regarded the geographic policy offices, conservative
elements in the Department, and Assistant Secretary Russell as the main opponents. They were
promoting a decentralized intelligence system in which responsibility for
intelligence analysis (and some but not all of the 1,000 or so intelligence
personnel) would be assigned to the policy offices. According to Acheson’s account, Spruille Braden and Loy
Henderson, Chiefs of the Latin American and Near Eastern
Divisions, respectively, combined with Russell and his deputy, Anthony
Panuch, at the October 27 meeting to argue that the plan for
creating an intelligence office was a duplication of effort and a waste of
money. (Ibid., page 160)
Spruille Braden charges that Acheson and McCormack were clearly trying to force acceptance of an
Office of Research and Intelligence without adequate consultation with the
policy offices. (Diplomats and Demagogues: The Memoirs of
Spruille Braden (New
Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1971), pages 346–348) Braden also raised the question of the
loyalty and political sympathies of some of the employees the Department had
inherited from OSS (an allegation that was
to reappear in the debate). In Braden’s view, the October 27 meeting was a successful revolt
against Acheson and McCormack. Both Acheson and Braden
agree that the immediate result of the meeting was to delay a final decision
on issue.
Within a week of the October 27 meeting, Russell laid the issue before Secretary Byrnes. In a November 3 memorandum to
Byrnes (Document 81), Russell
quoted the following language from the Bureau of the Budget’s recent report
on Intelligence and Security Activities in the government: “Extreme
centralization of the intelligence operation is no more workable than would
be the centralizing in one agency of the job of producing all statistics for
the Government.” (Report, September 20, 1945; see the Supplement)
Russell went on to argue: “If a
centralized over-all governmental intelligence unit is not workable—the
Budget’s conclusion—then it follows that the proposed plan of extreme
centralization in the Department itself is not workable.”
The President’s directive of November 7 (Document
44) required McCormack and
Byrnes to consider plans for an
interagency intelligence organization, but the internal controversy in the
Department of State broke out again in December. On November 29, Russell appointed a working group to
“conduct a survey within the Department of State to determine where in the
Department there should be intelligence activities.” (Memorandum from
Nelson to McKay and
Simmes, November 29, 1945; see the Supplement) The
working group proceeded to draw up a report and recommendations for an
“Intelligence Advisory Board.” The Board (not to be confused with the
Intelligence Advisory Board established under the Presidential Directive of
January 22, 1946) apparently had
been established before Acheson’s
October 27 meeting on intelligence but had held only one previous meeting
when it convened on December 19, 1945, to consider the working group’s
report. The report contained a majority recommendation for a centralized
intelligence organization and an alternative proposal, submitted on behalf
of the geographic policy offices, under which intelligence analysis would be
decentralized to them while other intelligence functions (e.g., acquisition
and dissemination) would be centralized. No copy of the report has been
found, but it is summarized in the draft minutes of the Advisory Board’s
December 19 meeting. (See the Supplement)
The Advisory Board, on which the policy offices had substantial
representation, split evenly. The chairman, Sherman Kent of IRIS, cast
the deciding vote in favor of an interim, centralized Office of Research and
Intelligence to meet the problem of the imminent disestablishment of IRIS while leaving open for further study “the
method by which research and intelligence should be organized in the
Department.” To this end, the Board also recommended that its own existence
be extended. The only record found of the Board’s December 19 meeting is a
set of draft minutes which was circulated for corrections under cover of a
note dated December 26, 1945. (See the Supplement)
Although the Intelligence Advisory Board had thus answered the immediate
question of what to do when the December 31 deadline arrived, it was
obviously aware that it had not solved the problem. On the contrary, its
proceedings had underscored the depth of the division over the issue and
especially the strong resistance of the policy offices to an independent
analysis function in the Department of State.
On December 29, 1945, Russell reminded
Byrnes and Acheson by memorandum that the order
establishing a successor to IRIS had to be
issued by January 1, at the same time commenting that “an irreconcilable
difference of opinion exists.” Russell went on to argue “that research at the geographic
level must be under the immediate direction of those who are to use it. In
my judgment, the divorce of research from the policy action taken after the
evaluation of information will … breed confusion and disorganize the
operations of the Department.” (Document 82)
Assistant Secretaries Braden and
Dunn followed up with memoranda
of their own on December 31, in which they argued for immediate transfer of
the intelligence analysis function. (See the Supplement)
McCormack, returning the fire on
December 31, asserted that decentralization “would end all possibility of
organized State Department intelligence, and the President’s idea of State
Department leadership in government-wide intelligence could not be
attained.” (Document 83)
At this point, Byrnes was planning to
leave for London and was under pressure to reach a consensus on the national
intelligence structure. On January 5, 1946, he informed Russell that he wanted McCormack’s plan for a centralized organization adopted
temporarily but on the express understanding that a final decision on “the
ultimate location” of the Office of Research and Intelligence would be made
by March 1, 1946. (Document 84)
Russell prodded Byrnes again on February 25 and Byrnes again postponed a decision. (See
Document 85 and the source note thereto.) By
mid-April the issue was still unsettled. The dispute had spilled into the
press. The Secretary had given the principals a deadline of April 16 to
reach agreement; a “mediator” acting at McCormack’s behest was trying to resolve differences (and
was criticized for acting as an advocate of McCormack’s views rather than as a negotiator); and
Russell, or one of his
associates, had polled the heads of the political offices, asking them to
indicate their preference for McCormack’s or Russell’s plan (all of the signatures were in the Russell column). (Document 87) On April 18, Russell reported to Byrnes that “the discussions now in process hold no
substantial promise of reaching a settlement.” (Document
88) Finally, after further fruitless “mediation” efforts and one
more memorandum from Russell to
Byrnes, the Secretary issued an
order on April 22, 1946, adopting Russell’s plan for a decentralized organization. On April
23, McCormack resigned. (Document 90)
The operation of the Department’s intelligence analysis organization under
the Russell plan was short-lived and
it is not clear how wholeheartedly it was applied in practice. For one
thing, the decentralized unit continued to be colocated rather than
physically dispersed to their respective policy offices. Nor is it clear how
enthusiastic McCormack’s successors
were about the system they had inherited. His immediate successor, Professor
William Langer, was an interim
replacement who served only a few months, and Langer’s successor, Colonel William Eddy, was quick to recommend abandonment of the plan
as soon as Russell was no longer on
the scene.
In any case, Russell resigned as
Assistant Secretary for Administration effective January 20, 1947, one day
before Byrnes left office. According
to Acheson’s account, immediately
following General George C.
Marshall’s swearing-in as Secretary of State, Marshall requested that Acheson stay on as Under Secretary for a
time and then asked him if there were any urgent matters requiring decision.
Acheson mentioned two, one of them
the need “to reverse Mr. Byrnes’
deplorable decision to split up the intelligence work among the geographic
divisions.” Marshall, Acheson wrote, “needed no long explanation
of what should be done” and directed that the necessary paperwork be
undertaken immediately. (Acheson, Present at the Creation, pages 213–214) The
Departmental instructions recentralizing the intelligence offices were
issued on February 6, 1947, and, in Acheson’s words, “Thus a year too late my recommendation to
Secretary Byrnes was put into effect
and his own unhappy action of the
preceding April undone.” (Ibid.; and Department of State Bulletin, February 23, 1947, page 366, and March 23, 1947, pages
556–559)
After Marshall’s decision, the
documentary materials on the internal history of the Department’s
intelligence organization are far less focused than the 1945–1946 documents
on the contest over the nature of the organization. In part, this suggests
that with the end (or suppression) of the controversy, the Special Assistant
for Intelligence and his staff were freer from distractions and able to
concentrate on their job of analyzing intelligence.
Secretary Marshall’s decision did not
obliterate either the controversy or the attendant uncertainty over the
future of intelligence, but it did create a different context for these
issues within the Department. The persistence of some of the old attitudes
was reflected in the Dulles Report of
January 1949 (Document 358) which suggested that
the Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence and his organization did
not enjoy the confidence of the Department’s policy offices. To deal with
this problem the report proposed that a separate system be created within
the Department for the handling of intelligence estimates, a proposal that
was never acted on.
With the settlement of the internal controversy, a principal concern for the
Department’s intelligence organization was the delimitation of Department of
State and CIG/CIA responsibilities in the
area of intelligence research and analysis. This issue and the related one
of designing a national mechanism for intelligence estimates are treated in
sections on the history of the Vandenberg and Hillenkoetter directorships of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
72. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration
(McCarthy) to the
Under Secretary of State (Acheson)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Administration—Subject Files, 1944–47: Lot 53 D 28, Box 15, Folder
Nelson, Otto L. No
classification marking.Washington, September 5, 1945.
Mr. Acheson:
I am at present faced with innumerable problems, some of them of very great
magnitude, for which I cannot recommend solutions until I have some
information on the subject of organizational lines. For example:
Mr. Hoover wants our advice as to what
he shall tell the Appropriations Committee about the disposition of his
special intelligence organization covering South America. This costs about
3–1/2 million dollars a year, and Mr. Hoover will probably have to give testimony on the subject
within the next ten days. If we are to have a Special Assistant for
Intelligence, the recommendation on this should be his.
I am also receiving numerous applications, either oral or written, from the
highest type of personnel who are available anywhere, but whom we must pick
up now if we are actually to secure their services. With our present divided
personnel system, however, it is difficult to convince these people that we
really have something good for them.
Our estimates must go to the Budget very shortly, but I have no way of
knowing how to set up the requirements of the Offices of the Secretary, the
Under Secretary and others until we determine upon some organizational
plan.
Most confidentially, I understand that Mr. Kurth, who is
our budget man and who is virtually irreplaceable, will offer his
resignation shortly in order that he may accept a better job with the
Treasury. Under our present organization I have nothing better to offer him;
under a new arrangement, I believe I could move him up and thus save his
services for the Department.
It seems to me that it will be highly desirable to secure the Secretary’s
approval for taking the following steps immediately, in order that we may
know at least in what direction we are proceeding. I, therefore, recommend: That there be appointed a Deputy Under Secretary, who would not be
a policy officer but who would be responsible for the coordination
of business within the Department and general overall relations with
other Departments. His
office should be adjacent to yours, preferably between yours and the
Secretary’s. Under him would be the Central Secretariat. In
addition, the Offices of Near Eastern and African Affairs, Far
Eastern Affairs, European Affairs, and Controls would report through
him to the Under Secretary, but he would not be in a position to
overrule any of these on matters of policy as they proceeded to the
Under Secretary.That the organizational units under the Assistant Secretary for
Administration be regrouped in such a way as to form four offices:
Personnel, Administrative Management, Budget and Finance, and
Central Services, and that each of these offices be charged with
both Departmental and Foreign Service activities within its
field.That there be appointed an Assistant Secretary for Transportation
and Communication, and that the Office of Transportation and
Communications now under the Assistant Secretary for Economic
Affairs be transferred to this new Assistant Secretary.That Mr. Russell be
assigned as Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations and that
his office be combined with that of the Legal Adviser.That there be appointed a Special Assistant for Research and
Intelligence, and that he proceed to build an organization as
conceived by the Bureau of the Budget, and, I believe, all others
concerned.
Unless we are to get a quick determination on some or all of these matters, I
shall have to proceed on the assumption that the old organizational chart
and Departmental Orders will continue to apply, and make budgetary and other
arrangements accordingly.
McCarthyPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
73. Telegram From the Department of State to
the Embassy in the United KingdomSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 111.111/9–1245. Confidential; No Distribution; U.S. Urgent.
Drafted by McCarthy. An incoming
copy of this telegram bears the classification Secret. (Ibid., Records
of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776) Byrnes was in London to attend the
Council of Foreign Ministers meeting.Washington, September 12, 1945, 5
p.m.
7860. For Secretary Byrnes. McCarthy has been investigating the
proposition of setting up in the Department a Special Assistant for Research
and Intelligence. The plan which follows has the concurrence in principle of
Stone, Lyon, Matthews, Thorpe,
Warren, and Kurth. Speedy
action on the matter is urgent for the reasons explained later in this
cable.
The Special Assistant and his organization would be responsible for the
collection, evaluation and dissemination of all information regarding
foreign nations. These functions are now spread throughout the Department.
To unite them in one organization, which would become the Department’s
encyclopedia, would free the operating offices of the intelligence function
and thus relieve them of a very considerable burden. Intelligence would
furnish the date upon which the operating offices would determine our policy
and our actions. Sources of information would be our own field installations
and those of other departments as well as all Washington agencies and other
domestic sources.
Under the Special Assistant there would be two offices, one for
counterintelligence and one for intelligence. The former would be
constituted by shifting to it those divisions now engaged in
counterintelligence work but scattered throughout other offices of the
Department. There is a pressing need for the consolidation of these
divisions along with their personnel, files, and equipment for proper
exercise of the counterintelligence function.
We do not have even the nucleus of an Office of Intelligence in the
Department at present. During the past few years we have depended heavily
upon OSS for intelligence research and
analysis. This agency has two highly effective branches around which we
could build the Office. The personnel of these branches are experienced and
they have done and are doing invaluable work for us. Their complete
abolition would be disastrous and would impose a new and heavy load upon the
Department, one which we could bear only with great difficulty, if at
all.
OSS is dissolving rapidly and its best people
are departing daily. Seven hundred employees will be dropped before October
1. The remaining one thousand will
be dropped before January 1. The Bureau of the Budget is preparing a draft
of an executive order which would transfer to the State Department two
OSS units, the Research and Analysis
Branch and the Presentation Branch, with their functions, personnel,
property, records, and funds. I propose that you authorize me to concur in
this executive order. If it is signed, we should immediately place the two
branches in an interim office, under our Special Assistant for Research and
Intelligence. Before the first of the year we should absorb into our
permanent intelligence structure such functions, personnel, property, and
records of the two branches as we desire to retain. The remainder would pass
out of existence at that time. This transaction would not prove embarrassing
to us, since the same executive order would transfer all secret and
operational intelligence activities of OSS
to the War Department.
McCarthy believes that the man for the
Special Assistant’s job is Colonel Alfred
McCormack, now in G–2 of the
War Department, who was made Special Assistant to the Secretary of War in
1942 but was subsequently commissioned. He is described as a brilliant
organizer and intelligence man who could attract highest caliber personnel
as he has done in the War Department. That Department considers his work
most outstanding. He was graduated from Princeton in 1921 and from Columbia
Law, where he stood sixth, in 1922. He was Phi Beta Kappa and editor of The Law Review. After serving as chief clerk to
Justice Harlan Stone, he joined the firm of
Gravath, de Gersdorf,
Swaine and Wood at $3,300 in
1926, and had progressed to $75,000 per year in 1942. He is forty-four.
Apparently McCormack has been active
in politics only in connection with Dewey’s campaign
for the district attorneyship of New York City. He advised the Republican
National Committee in 1940 on the application of the Hatch Act. He classes
himself as an independent voter. McCarthy does not know whether McCormack would accept. The matter has not been discussed
with him.
I concur in McCarthy’s recommendations
that (1) we set up a Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence, (2) we
concur in the proposed executive order, (3) McCormack be offered the Special Assistantship, and (4) I be
authorized to proceed immediately in all these measures.Secretary Byrnes
replied in telegram 9513 from London, September 15: “I approve your four
recommendations as to research and intelligence.” (Ibid.)
Acheson
74. Memorandum From Acting Secretary of State Acheson to the Secretary of State’s Special
Assistant for Research and Intelligence (McCormack)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research: Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the Intelligence Organization in the
Department of State. No classification marking. On September 27
Acheson announced the
appointment of McCormack as
Special Assistant to the Secretary of State in charge of research and
intelligence. (Department of State Bulletin,
September 30, 1945, p. 499)Washington, October 1, 1945.
At a time when we were communicating with the Secretary of State in London
regarding the establishment of an intelligence agency within the State
Department, I sent him a message from which the following is an
excerpt:For the full text, see Document 73.
“The Special Assistant and his organization would be responsible for the
collection, evaluation and dissemination of all information regarding
foreign nations. These functions are now spread throughout the Department.
To unite them in one organization, which would become the Department’s
encyclopedia, would free the operating offices of the intelligence function
and thus relieve them of a very considerable burden. Intelligence would
furnish the data upon which the operating offices would determine our policy
and our actions. Sources of information would be our own field installations
and those of other departments as well as all Washington agencies and other
domestic sources.
“Under the Special Assistant there would be two offices, one for
counterintelligence and one for intelligence. The former would be
constituted by shifting to it those divisions now engaged in
counterintelligence work but scattered throughout other offices of the
Department. There is a pressing need for the consolidation of these
divisions, along with their personnel, files, and equipment for proper
exercise of the counterintelligence function.…
“…The Bureau of the Budget is preparing a draft of an executive order which
would transfer to the State Department two OSS units, the Research and Analysis Branch and the
Presentation Branch, with their functions, personnel, property, records and
funds. I propose that you authorize me to concur in this executive order. If
it is signed, we should immediately place the two branches in an interim
office, under our Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence. Before
the first of the year we should absorb into our permanent intelligence
structure such functions, personnel, property, and records of the two
branches as we desire to retain. The remainder would pass out of existence
at that time.”
Since the Secretary concurred in these general principles, and since the
President has signed the Executive Order, the excerpts which I have quoted
can well serve as the general basis of a directive for you as Special
Assistant to the Secretary for Research and Intelligence.
It is desired that you take the following steps towards the creation of your
intelligence unit: Participate in such future discussions as may take place regarding
the disposition of those parts of OSS as are not specifically disposed of in the
Executive Order, but which may be disposed of administratively. You
will represent the Department of State in these discussions, at
which I understand representatives of the War Department and OSS will also be present. Establish a board consisting of Mr. Lyon, and such other representatives of the
Department of State and OSS as you
consider appropriate, for the purpose of surveying those parts of
OSS which have been, or will be,
transferred to the Department of State for the purpose of advising
you which parts of OSS we wish to
retain beyond January 1 and which parts we wish to dissolve at that
time.Have the board conduct simultaneously a survey of those
organizations within the present structure of the Department of
State which are presently engaging in intelligence activities, for
the purpose of advising you which of these organizations should be
transferred to your own intelligence agency between now and January
1.Consolidate the units within OSS
which we wish to retain and the units of the Department of State now
participating in intelligence activities so that, by January 1, all
intelligence activities within the Department will be under your own
control.
I attach hereto a copy of a memorandum signed by the President on September
20, 1945.An undated draft of Document 15 is attached. It directs the Secretary of
State to “take the lead in developing a comprehensive and coordinated
foreign intelligence program for all Federal agencies concerned with that
type of activity. This should be done through the creation of an
interdepartmental group, heading up under the State Department, which would
formulate plans for my approval. This procedure will permit the planning of
complete coverage of the foreign intelligence field and the assigning and
controlling of operations in such manner that the needs of both the
individual agencies and the Government as a whole will be met with maximum
effectiveness.”
I understand that this memorandum was signed by the President before he
received a memorandum, also attached, which was drafted by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff.Not attached but presumably the same as
Document 13. The JCS memorandum differs in some respects from the President’s memorandum to
the Secretary of State. In addition, it is a more detailed document.
The steps which I have directed in this memorandum will have the effect of
uniting and consolidating the intelligence activities of this Department. As
regards the next step—that of “developing a comprehensive and coordinated
foreign intelligence program for all Federal agencies concerned with that
type of activity”—please make a careful and immediate study of the
President’s memorandum and the JCS
memorandum and advise the Secretary of State as to what measures he should
take.
I am directing Mr. Lyon to serve
temporarily as your deputy in effecting the matters which I have outlined.
He will also help you get established in the Department and deal with the
appropriate offices under the Assistant Secretary for Administration in
securing space, funds, et cetera.
Dean Acheson
75. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration
(McCarthy) to the
Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence
(McCormack)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 101.5/10–445. No classification marking.Washington, October 4, 1945.
Mr. J. Franklin CarterCarter was a newspaper columnist who had run a
small, informal intelligence organization for President Roosevelt during World War II. See
Troy, Donovan and the CIA, pp. 142,
226–227, 266–267, 275, and 276. and Mr. Henry
Field have been engaged, during the period of the war, in
some special intelligence activities directly under the President. Before
the conclusion of the war, President Truman told them that he wished them to continue the
projects which they initiated under orders from President Roosevelt and to continue their work at
least until June 30, 1946.
In the meantime, with the conclusion of the war, the Bureau of the Budget has
been called upon by the Congress to review the war connected activities in
the various agencies and to discontinue, or at least to cut down to a minimum, such activities. We are
concerned with Mr. Carter’s project because he and his
associates have been administratively attached to the State Department.
Actually this has meant only that the State Department has been the channel
through which funds flowed to Mr. Carter from the
President’s fund.
In connection with a consideration as to whether these special activities
should be continued, the Bureau of the Budget, speaking as the President’s
agent, believes that the Secretary of State should take a look at the
activities and make a recommendation to the President as to whether they
should be continued; if so, what unit within the State Department they could
best be affiliated with.
I talked to Mr. Carter and Mr.
Field today and they told me they were going to
speak with the Secretary about this shortly after his return. It will not be
possible, of course, for the Secretary to give an immediate decision on this
and someone will have to advise the Secretary as to such details as he may
need before he gets in touch with the President.
Since these are essentially intelligence activities, I suggest that you see
Mr. Carter and Mr. Field early
next week and be prepared to advise Mr. Byrnes on the subject. Mr. Carter and Mr. Field will not see Mr.
Byrnes until after they have
talked to you.
I suggested to Mr. Carter that he call you on
MondayOctober 8. in order to arrange
for an appointment very shortly after that.
Frank
I understand that Mr. Lyon has some very interesting information on this and
suggest strongly that you see Lyon first.The postscript is
handwritten.
Frank
76. Circular Telegram From the Department of
State to Certain Diplomatic
MissionsSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 103.918/10–2245. Secret.
Drafted by McCormack and cleared
in OFS, NEA, EUR, and ARA, and by Donald
Russell. Sent to Ankara, Athens, Brussels, Bucharest,
Budapest, Cairo, Chunking, London, New Delhi, Paris, Rome, Sofia, The
Hague, Tirana, and Colombo for Yost. The time of transmission is
handwritten on the source text.Washington, October 22, 1945, 4
p.m.
By Executive Order of the President, full text of which appeared in Radio
Bulletin No. 225, the Office of Strategic Services was terminated as of
October 1, 1945, and the various branches of that organization were divided
between the War Department and the Department of State. The Research and
Analysis Branch, excepting for its staffs now in Germany and Austria, was
transferred to the Department of State where it now functions as part of the
Interim Research and Intelligence Service set up by the same Order and under
Mr. Alfred McCormack, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State.
The Research and Analysis Branch has for some time maintained outpost staffs
in various foreign stations. These staffs have engaged in the procurement of
intelligence materials, including maps of all kinds and printed as well as
documentary sources. In certain places the R and
A staffs have also done political and economic reporting, in
cooperation with the State Department missions.
It is desired that the work hitherto performed by the R and A staffs should be continued for the
present and that State Department missions should aid and guide these staffs
as far as possible.
For administrative purposes the R and A
staffs abroad will continue, until further notice, to be serviced by that
part of the former Office of Strategic Services which is now under the War
Department and which is now known as the Strategic Services Unit. In like
manner the R and A staffs will continue to
use SSU codes and communications and will
receive direction from the R and A office
in Washington. However, where difficulties may arise regarding the status of
R and A staffs abroad, the State
Department representative should, if necessary, attach such staffs to his
mission, pending further instructions from Washington.
Byrnes
77. Memorandum From Secretary of State Byrnes to the Secretary of State’s Special
Assistant for Research and Intelligence (McCormack)Source: Truman Library, Papers
of J. Anthony Panuch. Top
Secret.Washington, October 23, 1945.
As Special Assistant to the Secretary of State, in charge of research and
intelligence, you are designated as the representative of the Secretary in
all matters relating to communications intelligence activities, including
the collection, analysis, decryption and translation of communications and
the derivation of intelligence from those and related activities.
As such representative you are authorized: To maintain liaison with such Army and Navy organizations as may
be engaged in those activities and with any other organizations of
the Federal Government whose operations may be related to those
activities;To acquaint such organizations with the intelligence requirements
of the Department and to establish priorities for interception,
decryption and translation of such communications and related
material as may be of interest to the Department, and to assist such
organizations by furnishing to them information in possession of the
Department which may be of aid in their operations and which can be
furnished with due regard to security;To keep the Secretary of State informed of all agreements and
arrangements made by any organization of the Federal Government with
friendly powers for the exchange of information related to
communications intelligence activities or of intelligence derived
therefrom, and to establish or maintain, in cooperation with Army,
Navy or other Federal Government communications intelligence
organizations, liaison with organizations in the Governments of
friendly powers for the exchange of information related to such
activities and intelligence derived therefrom.Upon organization of an Office of Intelligence within the
Department, to receive on behalf of the Department and to
disseminate within the Department and to appropriate diplomatic
representatives of the United States, under due safeguards as to
security, information and intelligence derived in whole or in part
from communications intelligence activities.
James F. ByrnesPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
78. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (McCormack) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Public
and Cultural Relations (Benton)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/10–2445. No
classification marking.Washington, October 23, 1945.
Since receiving your attached memorandum of September 26 to Frank McCarthy,Not found. I have talked with Lt. Colonel
Little, Chief of the Morale Operations Branch, of
the Strategic Service Unit. Col. Little, if I
understand him correctly, thinks that his unit should continue its
activities in the post-war era along the following lines: Propaganda in foreign countries by means of covert sources, i.e.,
“black” propaganda; Collection of information relating to foreign propaganda, by means
of field agents; andAnalysis of foreign propaganda, the emphasis under (2) and (3)
being on “black” propaganda and on propaganda which is disseminated
through other than the usual public media.
As to (1), it is my view that the United States should not maintain
clandestine operators in a foreign country against which we are not at war,
and through such operators to attempt so-called “black” propaganda
operations; that to do so would be contrary to the fundamental premises of
our own Governmental system and would be honoring the totalitarians by
imitating them.
As to the collection of information concerning foreign propaganda, by use of
agents abroad, that is no doubt desirable, but I think that it is neither
desirable nor feasible to maintain the Morale Operations Branch as a
separate collecting organization, apart from the other intelligence
collecting operations.
As to the third point, I believe that a rounded intelligence research
organization should include among its operations the systematic and careful
analysis of the propaganda of foreign countries, including the types of
propaganda that the MOB has concentrated
on.
Do you agree? If so, do you think that the State Department should take over
that part of the Morale Operations Branch, SSU, which is engaged in the analysis of foreign propaganda?
I should like to get your views as to the need of such a service to your
organization.
79. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Public and
Cultural Relations (Benton) to the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (McCormack)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/10–2445. No
classification marking.Washington, October 24, 1945.
On your memorandum of the 23rd,Document 78. dealing with your talk with Colonel
Little of General Donovan’s staff: I agree with you emphatically that the United States should not
maintain any kind of clandestine or under-cover propaganda
operation.I agree that we should have full information on foreign
propaganda, not only in this country, but in other major countries,
and I hope, with you, that such information can be adequately
collected without the maintenance of any “separate collecting
organization” such as the Morale Operations Branch.I emphatically agree that this foreign propaganda must be
systematically and carefully analyzed, and if the best way to
proceed to collect it and to analyze it is through taking over that
part of the Morale Operations Branch, which has been trained in this
work, then the State Department should certainly proceed and take
over—with the responsibility for operations centered under
you.
If Congress agrees that we are, through the State Department, to operate an
overseas information service, this service seems to me to be essential to
its intelligent direction and operation.
WB
80. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (McCormack) to the Under Secretary of State (Acheson)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG
59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the Intelligence
Organization in the Department of State. No classification marking. The
memorandum bears the handwritten annotation, “I shall be glad to help in
any way. DA.”Washington, October 27, 1945.
After listening to your statement this morning on the intelligence needs of
the Department,Probably a reference to Acheson’s October 27 meeting with senior
officers of the Department to discuss the newly established intelligence
organization. See Acheson, Present at the Creation, pp. 159–160. I
feel strongly that you ought, if you possibly can, to be a witness before
the House Appropriations Committee and also before the Senate Committee, if
a full development of our plans is necessary before that Committee.
I suspect that we will have a hard time convincing either Committee that we
should add a thousand people to the State Department’s rolls. However, I do
not think our estimate is padded or that the intelligence requirements can
be met by a substantially smaller staff, especially in view of the certainty
that G–2, A–2 and ONI will be doing less and less in intelligence analysis and
research as their demobilization proceeds and budget problems catch up with
them.
Your appearance before the Committees might be decisive in persuading them of
the importance of accurate foreign information under present conditions and,
still more important, of the Department’s lack of facilities for that
purpose at the present time. I cannot do a good job on the latter point nor
nearly as good a job as you can do on the former.
81. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration
(Russell) to
Secretary of State ByrnesSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/11–345. No
classification marking.Washington, November 3, 1945.
I have reviewed with considerable interest the Report submitted by the Bureau
of the Budget to the President on the Organization of Intelligence
Activities in the Government.Dated September 20.
(Ibid., RG 51, Records of the Office of Management and Budget,
Director’s Files, Series 39.27, Intelligence) See the Supplement.
I find myself in general agreement with the conclusions reached in the
Report.
It should be noted at the outset that this Report primarily directs itself to
the creation of a general over-all intelligence set-up, combining and
coordinating the intelligence activities of all interested departments. Its
conclusions, though, can be applied with equal logic to the intelligence
operations of a single department. The principles of organization are sound
and should be applied by the Departments themselves in their own
set-ups.
In my judgment, the fundamental point made by the Budget and reiterated time
and again throughout its Report is incorporated in #2, Summary of
Conclusions, appearing at the bottom of page 2 and at the top of page 3, of
the letter of transmittal to the President.Document 38. It is as follows:
“The principal intelligence operations of the Government should be
organized at the point where decision is made or action taken, i.e.,
at the departmental, or lower, level and not within any single
central agency. Each department (or subdivision of a department)
which has important responsibilities in international matters or
which has responsibilities for providing the public with information
about foreign countries should provide for a competent foreign
intelligence operation.”
Again, on page 9, the Report itself puts it:
“The intelligence needed to assist wise decisions and support
informed action must produce a knowledge and understanding of all
the factors involved. Further, it must be at hand. Extreme
centralization of the intelligence operation is no more workable
than would be the centralizing in one agency of the job of producing
all statistics for the Government. The intelligence operation is
handmaiden to the action-taking and policy-determining groups. It
must be sensitive to their needs.… A department which will be held
responsible for its decisions and actions must in turn be able to
hold accountable to it the operation which produces intelligence on
which those decisions and actions will, in part, be based.
“The principal foreign intelligence operations of the Government
therefore should be viewed as being organized at all places where
decisions are made and action taken, namely at the departmental, or
lower, level.”
Speaking particularly to the continuance of a large central organization such
as OSS, the Report on page 12 deprecates the
tendency “to conclude that what is needed is the continuation on a permanent
basis of some such large scale central operation as exists now in the Office
of Strategic Services. Such a conclusion fails to take into account the fact
that the principal intelligence operations of the Government must be
organized at the point where decision is made.”
Translating these principles, the validity of which can hardly be questioned,
into the organizational set-up of the State Department, the decision must be
made as to where the level of operations is in the Department or, to use the
language of the Budget, “the point when decision is made or action taken,
i.e., at the departmental, or lower, level and not within any single central
agency.” This obviously does not mean the Secretary or Under Secretary. So
to conclude would mean that these officials would be completely immersed
under a blanket of operating decisions, many of a comparatively trivial
character. To paraphrase the Budget Report, there might be some
justification for such extreme centralization if “all policy and action
affecting our foreign relations” were centered at the level of the Secretary
and Under Secretary. But that isn’t the fact and can never be the fact. The
point of centralization, it would seem, would be the geographic desks, which
should function, in my opinion, directly under the Secretary and Under
Secretary. These desks represent the level of operations. They must take
certainly the initial responsibility for suggesting decisions and actions to
the Secretary and Under Secretary. If that be true, they must “in turn be
able to hold accountable to it the operation which produces intelligence in
which those decisions and actions will, in part, be based.” It accordingly
follows that, except as hereinafter stated, intelligence should be attached
to and made the “handmaiden” of the geographic desks.
The creation within the Department of a centralized, over-all intelligence
group in the Department is as illogical as the centralization of
governmental intelligence operations in a single agency. The language of the
Budget Report may be as well applied to the Department as a whole as it can
be to the entire Government: “Extreme centralization of the intelligence
operation is no more workable than would be the centralizing in one agency
of the job of producing all statistics for the Government.”
Indeed, the plan submitted by Colonel McCormack is completely at variance with the principles
stated in the Budget Report. It contemplates a centralized intelligence
unit, not accountable to the operating levels. If a
centralized over-all government intelligence unit is not workable—the Budget’s conclusion—then it
follows that the proposed plan of extreme centralization in the Department
itself is not workable.
It does not follow, however, as the Budget Report so cogently emphasizes,
that there is not need for a top level intelligence unit in the Department
as the Budget envisages for the Government as a whole in its conclusion #5,
stated on page 3 of its memorandum of transmittal. There is, of course, need
for some high-grade group “organized to analyze reports from the point of
view of a department as a whole”, to provide coordination with other
agencies, and to furnish general over-all direction to intelligence
operations. This in itself is a heavy and highly important responsibility.
But, to quote again from the Budget Report, this “research staff should be
small and concerned primarily with bringing together intelligence available”
throughout the Department “to fulfill a particular need.”
In conclusion, I feel that the Budget Report amply supports the grave
misgivings that I have about the proposed organization for Colonel McCormack’s unit, which, if adopted, would
mean that the Department would “continue a complete structure superimposed
on top of” the existing structure of the Department and would expose the
Department to the charge that it was incorporating the parts of OSS transferred to it without any “considerable
readjustment and curtailment.”Russell canvassed at least some of the
geographic divisions on their use of OSS
reports during the war. (Memorandum from Braden to Russell, November 3; Truman Library, Papers of J.
Anthony Panuch; and memorandum from
Durbrow to Russell, November 2; National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Bureau of Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the
Intelligence Organization in the Department of State) Both are in the
Supplement.
D.R.
A final thought: Intelligence is only as good as it is translated into
action. Where is that? The geographic desks.The postscript is handwritten.
82. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration
(Russell) to
Secretary of State ByrnesSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research:
Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the Intelligence Organization in the Department
of State. No classification marking. Also sent to Under Secretary
Acheson.Washington, December 29, 1945.
A Departmental Order prescribing the future organization of the Office of the
Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence must be issued by January 1,
1946, at which time the interim organization must terminate.
The Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence proposes the following
organization:
Personnel(authorized by FY 1946
budget)The Office of the Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (immediate office of Special
Assistant, executive office, programming group and special
estimates staff).67The Office of Research and Intelligence
and 7 divisions:The Office of the Director of R
and I35 Division of American Republics Intelligence 35 Division of British Commonwealth Intelligence 17 Division of Europe, Near East and Africa Intelligence 118 Division of Far East Intelligence 117 Division of USSR Intelligence 74 Division of International and Functional Intelligence 47 Division of Map Intelligence and Cartography 105Sub-Total for R and I 548 The Office of Intelligence Collection
Dissemination consisting of 5 divisions:Office of the Director of I C and D0 Intelligence Reference Division}173Division of Intelligence Acquisition & DistributionDivision of Biographic Intelligence Presentation Division 74Outpost Division (4 in U.S./70 overseas)74 Sub-Total for I C and D 321 TOTAL 936
The organization proposed by the Special Assistant for Research and
Intelligence for his immediate office and for the Office
of Intelligence Collection and Dissemination is generally
acceptable to all Offices of the Department.
An irreconcilable difference of opinion exists with respect to the
organization of the Office of Research and
Intelligence with its five geographic divisions.
The position of the geographic Offices as stated by both Mr. Dunn and Mr. Braden and shared by their subordinates is that the
geographic intelligence divisions of the Office of Research and Intelligence
should be integrated into the geographic and functional Offices. Their view
is:
“Research activities in the Department of State, except for a relatively
small general research group, must be tied organizationally with operations
in order to be of real value. The work of nearly one thousand persons now
proposed for research and intelligence work of the Department can be made
useful, and barren efforts avoided, if a good part of the personnel is
integrated closely with the operating offices of the Department.
“Moreover, if the research personnel is retained in a central organization, a
difficulty more serious than wasted talent is likely to result. To retain
able research men, they must be given a voice in recommending policy. Those
now being brought into the Department should be given such a voice. But the
policy recommendations of a research unit which is not organizationally
integrated with operations are very likely to be theoretical judgments with
little basis in reality. Policy, to be sound, must be based on the closest
contact between day-to-day operations and good basic research.
“It will hardly be argued that policy recommendations from two points of
view, operations and research, would be useful to the executive offices of
the Department in making their policy decisions. Not only do the executive offices have no time to devote
to selection, but more important, recommendations based either on operations
or research exclusively are bad, and two bad policy recommendations are not
useful material from which to make a good selection. What is needed is a
linking of operations and research in the closest feasible manner. We are
convinced, through experience and judgment, that this can never be done as
long as the two branches are organizationally separate.”The document from which this quotation is taken has not
been identified.
The economic Offices, although sharing in part the views of the geographic
Offices, suggest that the proposed organization of the Office of Research
and Intelligence with its geographic intelligence divisions be temporarily
approved subject to a future review of the basic difference between the
geographic Offices and the advocates of the highly centralized
organization.
The position of the Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence may be
summarized as follows:
“The intelligence organization should work as one central block. There should
be no thought of breaking it down into geographical and functional units and
distributing these among parallel operating units in the Department. The
chief argument against such a fragmentation of forces is that maintenance of
present research standards would be difficult if not impossible. Today the
major part of the staff in question has had some four and one-half years of
common experience; the work of one unit has been continuously compared to
that of others; recognized standards of performance have emerged with
standard editing and styling practices. Above all, the stimulus and
cross-fertilization of minds working on a variety of problems has been of
general benefit and has broadened and deepened the treatment of subject
matter all around. With a destruction of staff unity these standards and
practices would be hard to reestablish and the loss of them would be
irreparable. The centralization of intelligence research in offices which
have the entire responsibility for the research and intelligence field, and
which have no responsibility for operating decisions, makes it possible to
attain an independence and integrity of judgment which would not be possible
if research were the responsibility of the operating offices. Research
subordinated to offices whose primary responsibility is operating decisions
would inevitably tend to reflect policy views.”McCormack criticized this
quotation as an inadequate statement of his views in Document 83.
In addition, the Special Assistant stated that Judge Patterson will accept this Department’s
proposal for a unified intelligence authority only on the condition that the
State Department establish an integrated and independent departmental
intelligence organization. The Special Assistant believes that if the proposal of Mr.
Dunn and Mr. Braden is adopted, the Department of State
will not have an integrated and independent intelligence service which will
meet Judge Patterson’s demand.
There are four alternative solutions to the controversy: The organization proposed by the Special Assistant may be
adopted.The organization proposed by the Special Assistant may be
established for a period of three months, at the end of which period
the geographic and functional intelligence divisions of the Office
of Research and Intelligence shall be transferred to the geographic
and functional offices of the Department.The organization proposed by the Special Assistant may be adopted
temporarily upon the express understanding that a final decision on
the ultimate location of the Office of Research and Intelligence
will be made on or before March 31, 1946.The proposed Office of Research and Intelligence may be
transferred immediately to the geographic and functional
Offices.
The arguments in favor of alternatives 2 and 3 are that: The changes and moves in the physical location of Offices
necessary for effective integration of the geographic and functional
intelligence divisions of the Office of Research and Intelligence
with the geographic and functional Offices can not be accomplished
in less than three months, andThe suggested delay of three months would enable the Special
Assistant to recruit, train and organize research personnel so that
the geographic and functional Offices would receive trained
intelligence staffs with common standards and techniques.
Personally, I recommend the approval of alternative 2 (i.e., the organization
proposed by the Special Assistant will be established for a period of three
months, at the end of which period the geographic and functional
intelligence divisions of the Office of Research and Intelligence shall be
transferred to the geographic and functional Offices of the Department).
I believe that research at the geographic level must be under the immediate
direction of those who are to use it. In my judgment, the divorce of
research from the policy action taken after the evaluation of information
will lead inevitably to wasteful duplication and to competing evaluations of
information which will breed confusion and disorganize the operations of the
Department. If this reasoning be sound it would be unwise to adopt an
improper departmental organization in order to secure Judge Patterson’s approval of the Department’s
proposal for a united intelligence authority. I believe that the Special
Assistant will continue to have under my proposal (alternative 2) a
sufficient central intelligence organization to meet Judge Patterson’s stipulations.
The immediate integration of the proposed Office of Research and Intelligence
into the geographic and functional Offices as required under alternative 4
would be impractical because of the lack of office space in the State
Department building which would be required immediately. It would also deny
the Special Assistant the reasonable opportunity to recruit and train the
intelligence personnel along the line of uniform standards of
performance.
Whatever alternative may be approved, the divisions of the Office of Research
and Intelligence should be changed to conform to the geographic pattern
established for the other Offices of the Department. No justification can
possibly exist for different geographic breakdowns. It would place the
Department in a ridiculously inconsistent position to approve a geographic
division for a new Office of the Department wholly different from that
established and approved for the traditional Offices of the Department.See also the endorsements of Russell’s position by Assistant
Secretaries Braden and Dunn in memoranda to Secretary
Byrnes, both December 31.
(National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research:
Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the Intelligence Organization in the Department
of State) Both are in the Supplement.
The Department order to implement alternative 2 is attached.Not found.
D.R.
83. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (McCormack) to Secretary of State ByrnesSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research: Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the Intelligence Organization in the
Department of State. No classification marking. Also sent to Under
Secretary Acheson.Washington, December 31, 1945.
Mr. Russell’s proposal for the
intelligence organizationDocument 82. modifies the one recommended by the
Intelligence Advisory Board in four particulars, of which two are not
important enough for the attention of the Secretary. The two important
points are: It provides for dismemberment of the Office of Research and
Intelligence after three months (March 31, 1946); and Of the proposed geographical divisions of that Office, it leaves
only the American Republics unit in the status of a Division and
lumps all the rest in a single Division of European, Near Eastern,
African, and Far Eastern Intelligence.
With respect to the latter point, Mr. Russell’s memorandum says:
“Whatever alternative may be approved, the divisions of the Office of
Research and Intelligence should be changed to conform to the
geographic pattern established for the other Offices of the
Department. No justification can possibly exist for different
geographic breakdowns. It would place the Department in a
ridiculously inconsistent position to approve a geographic division
for a new Office of the Department wholly different from that
established and approved for the traditional Offices of the
Department.”
It is difficult to see anything “ridiculously inconsistent” in an
intelligence agency geographically subdivided into (1) American Republics,
(2) British Commonwealth, (3) Europe, Near East, and Africa, (4) Far East,
and (5) USSR. Those are the main politico-geographic subdivisions of the
world. It is believed, on the other hand, that the alternative proposal is
quite illogical in setting up the Latin American unit as a Division, with 35
people, and then lumping all the rest of the world, with 326 people, into
another Division. The political considerations that require an Assistant
Secretary for Latin American Affairs have no bearing on an intelligence
organization. Therefore that unit should have the same status as all the
others. All should be Divisions of the proposed Office, or all should be
reduced to the next lower status (at the expense of adequate Civil Service
grades and the certain loss of key personnel). To do otherwise will lift the
Latin American unit to a status that it is not entitled to have.
As proposed by me, the geographical Divisions conform generally to the
Political Offices, but not exactly, because the present organization does
not lend itself to precise conformity. Mr. Clayton’s and Mr. Benton’s geographical breakdowns likewise do not conform
precisely to those of the Political Offices. In each case the problem is
different. The Political Offices can hardly claim that their geographical
breakdowns are either immutable or completely logical, when, for example,
they put New Caledonia under Europe and Greece under Middle East and
Africa.
It is strongly recommended that the organization as
proposed by the Intelligence Advisory Board be approved.
As to whether the research operation should be decentralized to the
geographical and functional offices, the argument for decentralization is
made as follows:
“I believe that research at the geographical level must be under the
immediate direction of those who are to use it. In my judgment, the
divorce of research
from the policy action taken after the evaluation of information
will lead inevitably to wasteful duplication and to competing
evaluations of information that will breed confusion and disorganize
the operations of the Department.”
There is also a quotation (at page two) of the views of the Geographic
Offices. My views to the contrary are represented by a quote from a draft
prepared by a member of the Working Committee of the Intelligence Advisory
Board, which was not in the Committee’s report and is not an adequate
statement of either my views or theirs. A full statement of the Committee’s
views appears in its report.
My own view is, briefly, that the chances of keeping the R&A Branch together, strengthening it
with new personnel, depend on its maintenance as a unit. It is an integrated
organization with common management, procedures and files. It is flexible,
in that personnel from one geographic unit can be shifted to meet peak
demands in others. It does a whole job of processing incoming information
and collating it for everybody’s needs. It is independent of policy makers
and adheres to the standard of intelligence offices, that they must keep out
of policy and maintain objectivity, since their mission is fact-finding.
That an intelligence organization must be free of operations or policy
involvements is fundamental. That such freedom could exist in the 20-odd
Divisions of the Geographic Offices is unthinkable.
In my opinion, decentralization would destroy the R&A Branch. It would give the Geographic Offices some
additional personnel, but it would end all possibility of organized State
Department intelligence, and the President’s idea of State Department
leadership in government-wide intelligence could not be attained.
A centralized intelligence operation within the Department can serve the
needs, not only of the geographical desks, but of the economic organization,
the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of Special Political Affairs, the
various Committees which play such an important role in the Department, and
such quasi-Departmental committees as the Far East Advisory Commission and
the Interdepartmental Committees. A Research and Intelligence unit
decentralized to the geographical divisions can serve only those
divisions.
The centralized operation can look at the national intelligence problem as a
whole, coordinating the work of its component parts and gearing itself into
the other intelligence organizations of the government. Within each of its
component units, the problems of any area can be looked at in all aspects,
since the political scientists, the economists, the geographers and other
specialists belong to a single unit, working closely together and having
common files and a common flow of information.
The interests of an intelligence office, in its regional divisions, go far
beyond the interests of the geographical desks, which are concerned with
current problems arising in the conduct of our foreign affairs. The
geographical desks have neither the time nor the training to engage in a
systematic compilation of basic information for future intelligence purposes. Even if they had, they still could
not do it, because different habits of thought and a different frame of mind
are required for research work than for the daily operating job.
Decentralization of the research and intelligence operation is not going to
eliminate the need for centralized activity. It is only going to make more
difficult the attainment of the President’s objective of a coordinated
government-wide intelligence program.
The proposal would destroy the effectiveness of the R&A Branch, assuming that all the personnel would continue
to perform the functions that they now perform. That, however, would not
happen. To state the problem in terms of numbers, in the regional divisions
of IRIS there are 272 professional
employees, half of whom are strictly economists or geographers, leaving
about 136 who could be decentralized to the 19 geographic divisions of the
Department, as follows:
Far East41Europe-Africa59Latin America16British Empire3USSR17136
This is an average of less than 7 persons per Geographic division. Included
in the 136 there are perhaps 15 key people who have kept the organization
together. These 15 people are scholars who perform or supervise research and
who well know that the decentralization of the
R&A Branch would destroy its usefulness. I doubt if any one
of those people would stay in the operation if it were decentralized.
Practically all those who have discussed the problem with me have stated
that they would resign at the first opportunity if such a step were
taken.
If the operation is decentralized, the personnel who go to the geographical
desks will have find their futures in those divisions. The problems of
promotion and advancement in the geographical units will be quite different
from those in a unified research organization. The good opportunities will
come, not in research but in operating and policy jobs; and there will be an
absorption into such jobs of such good personnel as will remain. That is
what happened when the Territorial Studies unit was decentralized. No
vestige of it, I am informed, now remains in the Department.
It is strongly recommended that the Office of Research and
Intelligence be set up, as proposed, as a definitive organization. If,
during the fiscal year 1947, changes in the direction of
decentralization appear desirable in the light of experience, they can
then be made. To set up the organization in a particular way does
not mean that it can never be changed. It does, however, give assurance that
those responsible for creating a State Department intelligence organization
will have control of their personnel and the opportunity to work out their
relations with other departmental units within a definite framework of
responsibility.
84. Memorandum From Secretary of State Byrnes to the Assistant Secretary of State for
Administration (Russell)Source:
Truman Library, Papers of
J. Anthony Panuch, State
Department, Research and Intelligence, #1. No classification marking. A
handwritten notation on the source text reads: “To General
Nelson—For implementation and action.
D.R.”Washington, January 5, 1946.
Referring to your memorandum of December 29,Document 82. the proposal of the Special
Assistant for Research and Intelligence involves fundamental changes in the
organization of the Department.
Your memorandum states that the interim organization must terminate
immediately. Because it is necessary for me to leave on MondayJanuary 7. to attend the UNO meeting in London it is impossible for me to give to the
subject the consideration it should receive before reaching a decision
making permanent the proposed change in organization.
Therefore I am adopting the third solution suggested by you, with one slight
change.
I wish the organization proposed by the Special Assistant to be adopted
temporarily upon the express understanding that a final decision on the
ultimate location of the Office of Research and Intelligence will be made on
or before March 1st.
James F. Byrnes
85. Report From the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration
(Russell) to
Secretary of State Byrnes
Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research: Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the Intelligence Organization in
the Department of State. No classification marking. Attached to a
February 25 covering memorandum in which Russell noted that it was in response to SC–185 and
reminded Byrnes that
according to his directive of January 5 (Document
84) the issue was to be determined by Byrnes before March 1. The covering
memorandum and the full text of the report are in the Supplement.
SC–185, February 12, is not printed. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 353, Records of Interdepartmental and
Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot File No. 122,
Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47) See the
Supplement. This report, also known as the “Russell Plan,” is printed in Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee To Investigate the
Administration of the Internal Security Laws, 83d Congress, 1st
Session, Hearings on Interlocking Subversion in Government
Departments, part 13, pp. 865–867.
On February 25 Byrnes sent McCormack a note acknowledging one
from McCormack and
transmitting SC–185. Byrnes
said: “I cannot make a decision in this matter by the 1st, and I
will not do anything about it while you are away.” (National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research: Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the Intelligence Organization in
the Department of State)
Washington, undated.
[Here follows a table of contents.]
I
Introductory
On 12 February 1946 the Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence
submitted to the Secretary’s Staff Committee Document SC–185 entitled
“Permanent Location and Organization of the Office of Research and
Intelligence” (ORI). By direction of the Secretary, this document was
referred to the Assistant Secretary for Administration for consideration and
clearance, in accordance with Departmental Order No. 1356 (Tab A).Not printed.
This paper involves an issue on which there is an irreconcilable difference
of opinion in the Department. The issue is whether, as the Special Assistant
contends, the intelligence activities of the Department shall be
centralized—that is, organized outside of, and not accountable to, the
policy offices of the Department, or whether, as held by Assistant
Secretaries Dunn and Braden, such activities, to the extent
necessary, shall be integrated with, and made responsible to, the Offices of
the Department charged with policy development and formulation.
[Here follow sections II–V, Prior History of Controversy, Basic Elements of
the Problem, Analysis of Argument in Support of Centralized Intelligence
Organization, and Conclusion.]
VI
Recommendations
It is recommended that: The functions of the geographic intelligence divisions of the
Office of Research and Intelligence (ORI) be transferred to the
geographic offices of the Department and that ORI be renamed as the
Office of Intelligence Coordination and Liaison.Subject to appropriate policy control by, and the instructions of,
the Standing Committee on Intelligence hereafter proposed, the
Office of Intelligence Coordination and Liaison, in collaboration
with the Office of Intelligence Collection and Dissemination, should
perform the following functions: Represent all interested elements of the Department on the
staff of the National Intelligence Authority.In cooperation with the geographic and economic offices,
prepare special intelligence estimates for the Secretary and
the Under Secretary, the Assistant Secretaries, and for the
National Intelligence Authority.To establish and maintain standards of research and
analysis throughout the Department.To formulate, in consultation with geographic and economic
offices, a Departmental program for basic research, and to
coordinate and stimulate its execution.To organize and supervise cooperative projects in research
cutting across the lines of the geographic and economic
offices.To maintain a central clearing house of information
regarding research studies prepared or planned anywhere in
the Department.To maintain liaison with other agencies of the Government,
and with private institutions, for the purpose of utilizing
all possible research resources to meet the Department’s
needs.To conduct specialized research on economic or other
technical subjects.The Secretary should appoint a Standing Committee on Intelligence
consisting of the two Assistant Secretaries for Political Affairs,
the Assistant Secretary for Administration and the Special Assistant
for Research and Intelligence to: Supervise the establishment and coordination of
Departmental intelligence objectives and policies.Subject to the direction and control of the Secretary, to
formulate and supervise the implementation of Departmental
policy with respect to the National Intelligence
Authority.To approve participation by the Department in any
centralized operations or projects which the Director of the
Authority may propose.The transfer of functions, personnel and facilities envisaged in
recommendation (1) above should be executed in such manner as to
leave the Special Assistant with adequate resources to carry out his
mission as redefined in recommendation (2).The phasing of the transfer and the disposition of the personnel,
functions and resources of ORI should be left to the determination
of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, with due regard to
the recommendations submitted by the Special Assistant for Research
and Intelligence.Each geographic office shall organize and maintain a Division of
Research, set up with geographic sections corresponding to the other
divisions of the office. The establishment of such offices and the
timing thereof shall be under the supervision and direction of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration.
86. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for American Republic
Affairs (Braden) to
Secretary of State ByrnesSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research:
Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the Intelligence Organization in the Department
of State. No classification marking.Washington, February 25, 1946.
After my February 6, 1946, conversation with youNo record of this conversation has been found. when I expressed
my opposition to the idea of making permanent the Office of Research and
Intelligence, Staff Committee memorandum SC–185 treating this same subject
was received by me. Because of the vital issues raised in this document, I
respectfully submit to you my views in the premises.
I believe in doing first things first. In order that the Department of State
and Foreign Service may competently perform the functions assigned to them
by law, it has long been apparent to those of us who have been operating in
our foreign diplomatic missions that the first things are:(a) to rebuild the
morale which has suffered serious damage during recent years; (b) to support the Department and
Foreign Service with adequate personnel, funds, and facilities; and (c) to
make such changes in organization and administration as may be clearly
indicated as the result of careful analysis and study.
“Intelligence” as used in SC–185, is just another name for “Information”
which the Department and the Foreign Service have been gathering, reporting
and analyzing, and on the basis of which foreign policy has been formulated
for 150 years. These activities are at the core of the Department’s
functions. If its performance is to be improved, we must build on,
strengthen and support our existing organization.
SC–185 advocates adoption of a new, preconceived plan developed outside of
the Department by people obviously unfamiliar with the Department and
Foreign Service and their needs and work. Its net result would be not to
strengthen the existing organization of the Department, but to implant upon
the Department another already established organization, cutting across and
dividing the basic responsibilities of the Department’s geographical
offices. In effect it attaches a “booster” without first diagnosing what is
wrong and then repairing the motor.
The plan in SC–185 is based upon the false premise that in the formulation of
foreign policy there are two separate and distinct processes—(1) the
analysis, evaluation and interpretation of facts bearing on problem; and (2)
the decision as to what should be done. The fact is that in diplomacy the
decisions which make policy must at every step be intimately related to the
most thorough knowledge and analysis of conditions, problems, personalities
and national characteristics. The geographical offices cannot be relieved,
as this plan proposes, of the “burden” of gathering the fullest possible
information on the problems with which they deal, and be expected to operate
efficiently.
To make permanent the plan now proposed, far from clarifying the Department’s
operations, as is claimed in SC–185, would produce duplication, divided
responsibility and unwarranted expense, with resulting inefficiency and
confusion.
The staff which, under SC–185, would take on this vital responsibility is
unproven and without diplomatic training. It has been qualified by no stiff
examinations as has our Foreign Service. It has scant experience in the
rough and tumble of the field.
I will not encroach upon your valuable time by answering in detail the many
arguments presented in SC–185, but do respectfully call your attention to
the following points: The statement that only the ORI can provide the right kind of
professionally trained personnel disregards completely the far
higher professional training, qualifications and experience of the
Foreign Service and Department, whose loyalty and integrity have
been proven not merely over a few years but for decades. Moreover,
the geographical divisions
are staffed with men thoroughly familiar with the problems to be
studied, and therefore far more able to make analytical studies fit
the practical needs of our foreign relations.The argument that fact finding must be separated from policy
decision may hold true in ascertaining facts
about a military situation, but is completely invalid for the
purpose of evaluating and interpreting political situations.The analogies to juridical practices are not pertinent.The paper complains that the morale of the ORI has deteriorated in
the last few months because of the uncertainties surrounding its
continuance. The Foreign Service morale has gone down also, but only
after years of neglect and worse. The morale of the Department and
Foreign Service organizations would suffer disastrously if a totally
new organization were given responsibility for this essential aspect
of their work. The reporting of our Foreign Service would certainly
suffer if the officers in the field knew their reports were no
longer to go directly to those responsible for policy decisions, but
merely into a mechanical research operation. If their reports are to
go to both, there would result the costly duplication to which I
have already referred.The criticism of ARA’s analysis section is unjustified and
uninformed. Admittedly lacking in personnel and space, this section
has been of great service precisely because it operates as an
integral part of the geographical office and is in constant contact
with the problems which that office faces.It is not surprising that SC–185 evidences such a complete lack of
knowledge of the operations of the geographical divisions and of the
Foreign Service, since ORI has no one experienced in this work. Nor
have my principal assistants and I ever been consulted by the ORI as
to our operations and organization. That no difference of opinion on
this subject was evidenced until October 27, 1945, is due to the
fact that neither my assistants nor I ever heard of the proposed
plan until October 31, 1945.
There is a relatively small job of correlation for a central intelligence
office to do. Among the first things to be done would be to establish an
efficient filing unit in the Department. A small staff could be set up to
bring together in one place the information received from the various
geographical areas, to maintain liaison with the interdepartmental
intelligence organization and other agencies. To direct and supervise work
of this kind I recommend the establishment of a small committee, consisting
of the two political assistant secretaries and the Assistant Secretary for
Administration who would be the chairman.
I am, however, emphatically opposed to superimposing on the geographical
offices and the Foreign Service another organization which would duplicate
their basic responsibility for analyzing and interpreting the situations on which they must everyday—and
frequently with the utmost speed—recommend decisions of policy. Rather than
create this duplication, we must first strengthen the geographical offices
and Foreign Service with the personnel, space, and administrative services
that are so badly needed and for which we have been pleading for years.
SB
87. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Administration (Panuch)
to the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration (Russell)Source: Truman
Library, Papers of J. Anthony
Panuch, State Department, Research and Intelligence #2.
Secret.Washington, April 16, 1946.
SUBJECT
Progress of attempt to settle L’affaire McCormack
Things are not going so good in the “settlement” of the above matter. Indeed,
I am afraid we, i.e., the Secretary and in a lesser degree you and I are
going to end up “in the middle” again despite our noble intentions. Here is
why.
1. McCormack’s
Gethsemane Hour
On Thursday, Al McCormack came to see
me to seek my advice as to how he should quit. He said that on the preceding
day he had had an unpleasant session with the Secretary (who was quite
unfriendly) at the conclusion of which he (McCormack) advised the Secretary of his intention to resign
immediately. The Secretary (according to McCormack) told Al that in his own interest he should quit
after the Congress restored the Intelligence
cutback. I advised McCormack strongly
to accept the Secretary’s suggestion in this regard, and he said he would
think it over and let me know.
2. Reprieve
On Friday, I reported the above to you to be passed on to the Secretary. You
asked me whether there was any chance of securing McCormack’s concurrence to our compromise plan of Intelligence
organization filed with the Secretary on 25 February 1946, and it was
decided to summon McCormack to
discuss this possibility with him. You told the Secretary
of your intention to do this. He said “OK” but that he had to have a
decision on the matter by Tuesday, 16 April. Accordingly, we met
with McCormack on Friday forenoon and
urged him to relax his intransigence. He said he would consult
Tyler Wood, a fellow Princetonian, and let us know.
That afternoon Tyler Wood phoned you, stating that he
was authorized to negotiate a settlement on behalf of McCormack. You authorized me to represent
A–R in these negotiations. On Saturday, I sent Wood a
copy of McCormack’s brief of 12
February and our report of 25 February (i.e., the Russell plan) for study before undertaking
his efforts at conciliation.
3. The Old School Tie
On Monday, 15 April, Wood conferred with me, and I
outlined to him the basic issues involved in the controversy. It became
clearly evident very quickly that poor old Ty did not “know the score.”
Furthermore, it was apparent that he had no intention of attempting to
negotiate an acceptance of the Russell plan or even some formula based thereon. Indeed, he
expressed confidence that he could “sell” the political divisions the
McCormack plan. I pointed out
that what he hoped to sell in 48 hours had been the subject of an
irreconcilable difference of opinion since 1 October. Nevertheless, he
stated he was certain that this could be done in that “Doc” Matthews, a classmate of McCormack’s at Princeton, was “for”
McCormack’s plan, and, with the
Doc’s backing, he (Wood) felt the other political
divisions would be a pushover—except maybe Braden, who could be dealt with after everyone else was
“lined up.”
4. Briefing The Conciliator
I told Wood that in my opinion this was a naive estimate
of the situation—but that I did not wish to discourage any method that would
bring about a settlement of the present wrangle and that he was free to
proceed in any way he saw fit. I pointed out to him, however, that A–R
occupied a judicial position in the dispute and could not become a part of
any plan to “gang up” on Braden; that
we expected him to negotiate with all of the
Geographic Divisions with his cards on the table “face up.” He
allowed that this was his intention and that he would “talk turkey” with
Braden despite McCormack’s hatred of him. I left him with
this thought as a guide to his negotiations: That, in my opinion, the Russell plan was the ticket; but that we did not
object to some other formula provided;It was workable and acceptable to all of the Geographic Divisions;
that harmony was the sine qua non of any formula; That under any plan (whether (a) or (b)) McCormack had to confine himself to
overt intelligence and that secret intelligence must remain as at
present.
5. Violation of Truce
While I was under the impression that everyone was interested in pouring oil
over the controversial waters, McCormack’s side launched a psychological press blitz over
the week-end, to wit:
Sunday—N.Y. Herald Tribune
Article by William Attwood, laudatory of McCormack and derogatory of Congress,
career diplomats and Braden.
Monday—Washington Post
Savage editorial written apparently by
Schwarzwalder of the Bureau of the Budget (via
Wayne Coy) condemning political and foreign service
officers for opposing McCormack.
The two editorials above-referred to offset Drew
Pearson’s patriotic effort in his Sunday broadcast to break the
impasse by appealing to McCormack to
accept the Russell compromise
plan.
6. Who’s Who on Intelligence (As of 6:00 P.M., 15
April)
In terms of key personalities, a round-up of key personalities and their
current positions on intelligence is as follows:
The Secretary—A settlement must be reached by Tuesday,
April 16th.
Acheson—Originally for the McCormack plan. However, is now sick of the whole business
and will have nothing more to do with the controversy.
Dunn—Standing
pat on the Russell plan.
Braden—Standing
pat on the Russell plan.
Matthews—While
embarrassed by the fact that he is a Princeton classmate of McCormack’s, is for the Russell plan. He needs research people but
does not want any of McCormack’s
intelligence characters in his organization.
Loy Henderson—Standing pat with
Jimmy Dunn and unalterably opposed to McCormack’s plan.
John Carter Vincent—Views unknown
at the present poll. However, in Dunn’s absence he will probably be influenced by Ben
Cohen’s views. These, on past performance, would be against
the Political Divisions.
Bob Reams—100% for the Russell plan and unalterably opposed to
McCormack plan.
Fred Lyon—100%
for the Russell plan and unalterably
opposed to the McCormack plan.
Fred Searls—For the Russell plan.
Franz Schneider—For the Russell plan.
Private Views of Officials of War, Navy, NIA, FBI
and Congress:
Outside of the Department, in the other agencies concerned with intelligence,
i.e., War, NIA and FBI, there is increasing impatience with the endless intelligence row which has been
raging in State. The view has been repeatedly expressed by Admiral Souers and Colonel
Douglas of NIA and
by J. Edgar Hoover of FBI that the Secretary should take prompt
action to determine the dispute so that these agencies can begin to
cooperate with State in the intelligence field on an effective basis.
The views of Congressman Rabaut and Congressman May are
well-known to you.
Supporters of the McCormack Plan
Support for the McCormack plan is
concentrated chiefly in the Bureau of the Budget
(Schwarzwalder), the Washington
Post (Wayne Coy) and the New
York Herald Tribune (Joe Barnes).
Conclusion and Recommendation
Conclusion
There is only one recommendation that can be made. The row must be
immediately settled, i.e., by the close of business 16 April on a mutually
livable formula or it must be determined immediately and finally on the
merits.
The best interests of the Department, indeed the best personal interests of
the Secretary, make such action imperative.
Recommendation
If A–R does not report to S by the close of business 16 April that a
satisfactory settlement has been negotiated, the Secretary should
immediately sign the orders (now before him), putting into effect the
recommendations of the Russell plan
of 25 February 1946.
J. Anthony Panuch
88. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration
(Russell) to
Secretary of State ByrnesSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research:
Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the Intelligence Organization in the Department
of State. No classification marking. Also sent to Under Secretary
Acheson. For a copy of
Panuch’s handwritten note to
McCormack enclosing a copy of
Russell’s memorandum (ibid.),
see the Supplement.Washington, April 18, 1946.
I am satisfied that no compromise of existing Departmental differences with
respect to the organization of the Office of Research and Intelligence is
possible at the working levels. The discussions now in process hold no
substantial promise of reaching a settlement of the basic issues involved
and will in all probability result in the reopening of the controversy with
renewed bitterness.
I believe that in the best interests of the Department this issue must be
promptly and finally determined. On February 25, 1946, I submitted to you my
report on this matter, together with my recommendations as to its final
disposition.Document
85. I reaffirm the conclusion and recommendations of
that report.
Donald Russell
89. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration
(Russell) to
Secretary of State ByrnesSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research:
Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the Intelligence Organization in the Department
of State. No classification marking. Also sent to Under Secretary
Acheson.Washington, April 20, 1946.
I attach Colonel McCormack’s proposed
order on Intelligence.The proposed order 133.20
was sent by Tyler Wood to Matthews,
Henderson, and Vincent
under cover of a note of April 19. (Ibid.) See the Supplement. It
represents no real change in his position with one exception: upon “mutual
agreement” the area intelligence groups may be detailed to the geographic offices. This
provision, which has been previously understood orally, was added because
Colonel Ty Wood states that inevitably the result of
this policy of “mutual agreement” will be an organization such as that I
recommend, which incidentally Colonel Wood personally
recognizes as “theoretically sound”. If the result is to be the
administrative set-up I have recommended, why not issue my proposed order
and end the Departmental bickering and indecision? Let’s get to the right
result now and end the backbiting.
To follow Colonel McCormack’s plan,
knowing that ultimately we will reach the result I propose, will bring
continued Departmental strife. I believe the adoption of my proposal is the
only way to tie the organization together. This is not a question of
Intelligence—it is a question of sound Departmental organization.
I am also attaching the proposal submitted by me.Document 85.
DR
90. Letter From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Research
and Intelligence (McCormack) to Secretary of State ByrnesSource: Department of State Bulletin, May 5,
1946, pp. 778–779.Washington, April 23, 1946.
Dear Mr. Secretary: The series of Departmental
Orders issued yesterday,For texts, see ibid.,
May 12, 1946, pp. 826–828. Other than the orders themselves, no record
of Byrnes’ decisionmaking on the
matter has been found. relating to the intelligence organization
within the Department, provide for dismembering the Office of Research and
Intelligence and transferring its functions to a group of separate research
divisions under the Political Offices, and they contain other organizational
provisions that I regard as unworkable and unsound. I had hoped that the
compromise proposal worked out by Colonel Tyler Wood,
which appeared to meet all points of substance raised by the Political
Offices, would be found
acceptable, and I was therefore disappointed to find that the orders as
issued conformed almost exactly to the so-called “Russell Plan,” proposed by the Assistant
Secretary for Administration last December.
I realize how difficult it has been for the Secretary to decide an issue on
which the Department has been so divided in opinion, in view of the enormous
burden that the Secretary has been carrying. I am convinced, however, that
while the plan adopted will give needed reinforcements to the Political
Offices, and in that respect will be beneficial, it will make impossible the
establishment of a real intelligence unit within the Department; that it
will weaken the Department vis-à-vis the military components of the National
Intelligence Authority, who already have the advantage of a three to one
representation in the Central Intelligence Group, as compared with that of
the State Department; and that it will prevent the carrying out of the
long-range plans for post-war intelligence which you and I had in mind when
you asked me to come into the Department.
The Department must go before the Senate Appropriations Committee within two
or three weeks to present its case for restoration of the appropriations cut
made by the House of Representatives, affecting the intelligence
organization. Feeling as I do that the organization as now to be set up is
unsound and not in the best interests of the Government, I cannot
conscientiously present the case to the Senate, and I believe that the best
interests of the Department and the Government will be served by my
immediate resignation.
I therefore submit my resignation, with the request that you release me at
once.Acting Secretary Acheson accepted McCormack’s resignation on behalf of
Byrnes, who was away from
Washington. The text of Acheson’s
letter to McCormack is ibid., May
5, 1946, p. 779. See the Supplement. For Acheson’s views on the controversy, see his memoirs, Present at the Creation, chapter 18. It is
my hope that, by replacing me with a man who has not been a party to the
internal differences of the past six months, the Department may contrive in
some way to salvage the intelligence organization which it took over from
the Office of Strategic Services. In spite of serious losses of personnel
and many other difficulties that it has encountered since October 1, 1945,
it is still an effective intelligence unit. In my opinion, because of
demobilization of other intelligence units that were functioning in war
time, it is the best remaining asset of the Government in the foreign
intelligence field.
I am grateful to you for the efforts that you have made to work out an
organizational arrangement that would meet the views of all parties
concerned and for the personal
support and good advice that you have given me since I have been in the
Department.
With all good wishes,
Sincerely yours,
Alfred McCormackPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
91. Minutes of the Eighth Meeting, Advisory Committee on IntelligenceSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 353, Records of Interdepartmental and
Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot File No. 122, Records
of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47, Box 94.
Secret.Washington, December 3, 1946, 4:30–5:30
p.m.
PRESENT
Mr. Eddy, SA-E
(Chairman)Mr. Braden, A-BrMr. Russell, A-RMr. Hickerson, (for A-D)Mr. Evans, OCL (Executive Secretary)
[Here follow agenda items 1–3 on unrelated matters.]
4. Allocation of Space in the New War Department
Building
Mr. Hickerson raised the question of the proper
disposition of the geographic research divisions should the geographic
offices move to the New War Department Building. He felt that many
advantages would result if the research divisions could be located with
their geographic offices so as to facilitate close integration of work and
plans. Mr. Braden felt that such an
arrangement would greatly assist in tieing DRA into the operation of ARA. The Chairman indicated that the
intelligence organization appreciated the force of these arguments and had
already reported to the Administration that its first priority choice for a
new location would be the placing of a major part of the whole organization
in the same building with the geographical offices. He pointed out, however,
that there were other considerations which must be kept in mind: first, a
balance must be preserved
between the advantages of closely associating the geographical research
divisions with their offices and the necessity for the geographical research
divisions to be closely associated with one another and with the
coordinating and servicing elements of the intelligence organization. It
would seriously diminish the effectiveness of the research divisions if they
were to be widely separated from one another, from their reference and
collection services, and from the coordinating functions; secondly, current
developments were proving beyond dispute that a major effort was in view
outside the Department to force the transfer of the intelligence research
organization back to CIG. This effort would
be greatly helped by any arrangement of the organization which weakened its
effectiveness. For these reasons, the organization had proposed that the
proper balance be maintained by moving the organization pretty much as a
whole into the same building with the geographical offices.
It was AGREED that this matter was of serious
importance; that the plans for moving required careful consideration; and
that A-R should be requested to call together representatives of the
geographic offices and the intelligence organization to explore the best
available solution to the problem.
92. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Eddy) to the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for
Administration (Peurifoy)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot
File No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944-47, Box
94. Confidential.Washington, January 27, 1947.
SUBJECT
Functions of the Advisory Committee on Intelligence (ACI)
As is set forth in Departmental Regulation 183.5,Department of State Bulletin, September 8, 1946, p. 471.
effective July 1, 1946, the Special Assistant, with the advice of the ACI, is charged with the responsibility of
implementing the Department’s intelligence objectives and policies. Under
the “Russell Plan” the ACI is the bridge between the Special Assistant
and the four Geographic Research Divisions, but since the resignation of Mr. Russell,Russell resigned as
Assistant Secretary of State for Administration effective January
20. as well as during preceding weeks, a series of incidents has
made me question whether the ACI can
continue to perform that function. The next regular monthly meeting of the
Committee will fall on Tuesday, February 4, and I should like at your early
convenience to talk with you about the issues involved since you will be
taking Mr. Russell’s place on that
Committee.
In brief, the authority and representative character of ACI has been questioned by ARA and NEA, and
instructions regarding security, approved by the ACI, have been rejected by their two Research Division Chiefs.
Furthermore, in the case of one Office Director, negotiations have been
initiated directly by him with the Director of Military Intelligence of the
War Department with regard to an NIA
Directive, which would seem to me to certainly be covered by DR
183.5-I(c).
It would not seem to me useful to reconvene ACI nor to go through the motions of securing its concurrence
unless it is understood throughout the Department that the ACI has competent jurisdiction on at least
three points: Supervision of the research and intelligence projects on the
technical side.Common security measures applicable to all operations and
personnel in Research and Intelligence, including the Research
Divisions, to insure confidence of the intelligence services of
other departments who will otherwise decline to distribute to us
their secret materials. (In certain intelligence centers there is
already a segregation of material which is kept from the State
Department members on the grounds that we cannot maintain security
precautions necessary to an intelligence organization.) Special
security measures have been approved by ACI, but they have been rejected or ignored by certain
units of our research organization. I have had no reply to the
enclosed memorandum to Mr. Braden.Not attached and
not found. At the end of the source text the attachment is
identified as a memorandum from the Office of the Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and
Intelligence, October 18.Liaison with the National Intelligence Authority and with its
member intelligence agencies on matters of positive
intelligence.
Since I was appointed with the approval of Mr. Acheson to serve during the pleasure of the preceding
Secretary of State, it would seem to me essential that I should make this
situation known to Mr. Acheson at an
early date if this office is to function at all, no matter who may replace
me. In view of the intimate association of the present Department
Intelligence plan with Mr. Russell’s
office, I would prefer to consult with you before reporting to Mr. Acheson or calling another meeting of the
ACI.
William A. EddyPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
93. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Eddy) to the Under Secretary of State (Acheson)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG
59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, Birth of the Intelligence
Organization in the Department of State. Secret.Washington, January 30, 1947.
SUBJECT
Organization for Research and Intelligence in the Department of State
I. The Problem
To realign the organization under the Special Assistant to the Secretary for
Research and Intelligence so that he may more effectively discharge his
responsibilities.
II. Conclusions (See Appendix I for discussion)Not printed. See the Supplement.
The Research and Intelligence organization has operated since July 1,
1946,For the regulations giving effect
to the Russell Plan, see
Department of State Bulletin, September 8, 1946, pp. 465–471. These
regulations revised and amplified an earlier set of orders that had
entered into force on May 1, 1946; see ibid., May 12, 1946, pp.
826–828. under the “Russell Plan.” The principal feature of that plan is the
division between the Special Assistant and the Geographic Offices of
authority over the basic research activities of the organization. The
effective operation of an intelligence organization under such
conditions has proved unworkable and impracticable. The Special Assistant is charged with the responsibility to the
Secretary for planning and implementing a positive foreign intelligence
program and for maintaining all interdepartmental liaison in that field
with other intelligence services. In order to accomplish that mission,
he should have specific responsibility for: The control and direction of intelligence research and the
collection and dissemination of intelligence materials. The
Office of the Special Assistant should receive all intelligence
materials coming into the Department which, in his opinion, are
necessary for the preparation of the most complete, accurate and
timely intelligence.The preparation and dissemination of daily or periodic
intelligence summaries, as required.The Special Assistant should also have the authority to adopt such
security measures within the intelligence organization, in addition to
departmental security regulations, as may be required by the nature of
the work and to assure
effective cooperation from other intelligence services.The Advisory Committee on Intelligence, established to assist the
Special Assistant, should be reconstituted so as to be more
representative. It should be composed of the Special Assistant, as
Chairman; the Directors of the two Offices subordinate to him; the
Office Directors or their representatives from the Geographic Offices;
the Director of SPA or his representative; and a representative
designated by each of the following: A–B, A–T, and A–P.The Subcommittee on Programs and Priorities of the Advisory Committee
on Intelligence should be dissolved, since its concept derived from the
theory of the “Russell Plan” and
its important functions should more properly be performed within the
intelligence organization.
III. Recommendations
It is recommended that: The geographic research divisions (DRA, DRE, DRF, and DRN) be transferred from the
Geographic Offices to the organization under the Special
Assistant.Departmental regulations be amended and appropriate orders issued
to implement the conclusions stated above and to provide the
organization indicated on the following chart.Not printed. See the Supplement.
William A. Eddy
94. Memorandum From the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for
Administration (Peurifoy)
to the Under Secretary of State (Acheson) and Secretary of State MarshallSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
State for Administration, Subject Files 1944–1947: Lot 53 D 28, Box 11.
Secret. A handwritten note on the source text by Acheson reads: “I strongly recommend
approval of the attached proposal. D.A.” At the bottom of the source
text Marshall wrote: “O.K.
G.C.M.”Washington, January 31, 1947.
At my request, Colonel Eddy prepared
the attached planNot found, but presumably the
same as or similar to Document 93 or the
implementing memorandum cited in footnote 2
below. for the reorganization of the intelligence activities in
the Department. I assigned a man from my staff to work with Colonel
Eddy.
I recommend the approval of this plan by you and the Secretary. If this is
approved, it might be desirable to call the members of the Staff Committee
to meet in your office and inform them of the Secretary’s decision as you
did on the budget situation.See the February 5
memorandum from Marshall to
Peurifoy on Organization for
Research and Intelligence in the Supplement. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, Birth
of the Intelligence Organization in the Department of State)
JEP
From the Strategic Services Unit to the Office of Special Operations
Introduction
As might be expected, records on foreign secret intelligence and clandestine
intelligence collection are sparse. The small collection of documents
printed in this section is concerned almost exclusively with two subjects:
the transition from the Strategic Services Unit (SSU), the designation for the secret intelligence components of
OSS after they were transferred to the
War Department in the fall of 1945, to the Central Intelligence Group’s
Office of Special Operations, and the controversy between the Central
Intelligence Group and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over the latter’s
handover of its intelligence functions in Latin America.
The period covered is roughly one year, from the fall of 1945 to the fall of
1946. There are only a few documents of later dates. By its very nature,
secret intelligence collection probably generated relatively little paper
(other than the resulting intelligence reports themselves), and much of this
limited body of records was probably destroyed.
Because of the short deadline set in Executive Order 9621 (Document 14), both the State and War Departments had to move
without much time for preparations to take over the OSS functions and resources allocated to them. In the case of
the War Department, which inherited OSS’s
operational (as distinct from research and analytical) functions, there were
certain special problems. Before going out of existence, the OSS had begun liquidating the special
operations and paramilitary functions that had been an integral part of its
wartime mission, but some residual parts of the job remained to be completed
by the SSU. Secret intelligence was a
complex and more difficult problem. In this instance, the War Department had
taken on a function that had an uncertain future, despite the importance
many attached to it. At the time the Executive order was issued, the shape
of the postwar national intelligence system was undecided, as the
President’s September 20 letter to Secretary of State Byrnes (Document
15) made clear. It was to remain so well beyond that.
Among the many unresolved issues was whether and, if so, under what kind of
organizational arrangements, the United States would undertake clandestine
intelligence gathering in peacetime. Although General Donovan’s plan envisaged a continuation of
clandestine intelligence collection by an OSS successor agency, there was no unanimity on the point. The
Bureau of the Budget report of September 20, 1945, on intelligence (see the
Supplement) regarded the continuation of secret intelligence collection in peacetime as a policy
decision yet to be made. The Bureau was not necessarily opposed to secret
intelligence but tended to regard it as far less important than research and
analysis. Colonel McCormack’s
position appears to have been much the same. The armed services seem to have
been strongly in favor, although they were not necessarily in favor of the
centralization of clandestine intelligence in a single agency. The FBI envisaged a worldwide intelligence
gathering system modeled on its operations in Latin America during World War
II.
The Strategic Services Unit (SSU) therefore
was a holding operation intended to preserve, as far as possible, the
clandestine intelligence capabilities developed in wartime until a decision
could be reached on national intelligence policy in peacetime. Assistant
Secretary of War John J. McCloy’s
initial instructions to the SSU director,
Brigadier General John Magruder
(who had been Donovan’s deputy
director of intelligence), directed him “to insure that the facilities and
assets of OSS are preserved for any possible
future use.” (Document 95)
Magruder said essentially the same to
Assistant Secretary of War Lovett in
a report on the future of U.S. intelligence activities. (Document 34) The Lovett
Board in turn pressed the case for SSU as a
trimmed-down nucleus for a future U.S. clandestine intelligence
organization.
By January 1946, with the impasse over national intelligence organization
broken, Magruder renewed and
intensified his efforts. On January 15, he gave his immediate superior,
Major General S. LeRoy Irwin, a summary of SSU’s assets, commenting that “at present the
primary objective of SSU is to convert its
unique assets into the foundation for clandestine peace-time intelligence
procurement.” (See the Supplement) On February 4, he gave the same message,
at greater length and in stronger terms, to Secretary of War Patterson and urged him to seek the
appointment of a committee of the newly established National Intelligence
Authority to study how best to use SSU’s
resources in the new intelligence structure. (Document
102)
Again, in a memorandum of February 14, 1946, Magruder warned that in the absence “of specific directive
permitting long-range plans and commitments” the SSU faced heavy attrition among key personnel and an impending
budgetary crisis. Magruder also
offered the SSU to the newly formed Central
Intelligence Group in the hope that its operational, specialized, and
administrative functions “could profitably be employed by the CIG until replaced by, or incorporated into, a
permanent organization.” (Document 103)
There is no firm documentary evidence on the question, but it seems highly
likely that Magruder’s urgings
strongly influenced Admiral Souers’
decisions on dealing with the clandestine intelligence problem. On February
19, 1946, Souers signed CIG Directive No. 1, which appointed a
committee to make a detailed study of the resources, facilities, and
operating functions of the SSU that should be continued after its
liquidation and their disposition. (Document 104)
The committee, known as the Fortier
Committee after its chairman, Colonel Louis J.
Fortier, recommended essentially what Magruder had proposed: that the CIG take over the SSU, incorporate whatever parts would be useful in the new
intelligence structure, and discard the rest. (Document
105)
By late March, a draft NIA directive
embodying this basic approach had been discussed by the Intelligence
Advisory Board, and on April 2, the National Intelligence Authority approved
what became known as NIA Directive No. 4,
“Policy on Liquidation of the Strategic Services Unit.” (Document 106) NIA Directive No. 4
was a major step toward the allocation of responsibility for foreign secret
intelligence to the Central Intelligence Group. The formal charter and the
grant of exclusive jurisdiction were still in the future; they would not
come until the NIA approved National
Intelligence Directive No. 5 on July 8, 1946 (Document
160). While leaving open the question of whether the functions and
activities of the SSU should “be transferred
to the Central Intelligence Group or other agencies in order that its useful
assets may not be lost,” it authorized the Director of Central Intelligence
to supervise the SSU’s liquidation, to make
recommendations to the NIA on “the
intelligence activities permanently required in the peace-time effort,” and
to oversee the SSU’s interim operations
until it was liquidated. Finally, the directive instructed the Director of
SSU to “make available to the Director
of Central Intelligence, upon his request, any facilities and services of
SSU which may be useful” to the CIG.
For the comments of the Central Intelligence Agency’s first historian, who
interviewed many of the participants in the formation of the national
intelligence system, on the process of SSU
liquidation, see Arthur P. Darling, The Central Intelligence Agency, page 99.
Under the arrangements thus established, the CIG and SSU organizations were
partly merged, with some SSU personnel
simultaneously holding assignments in the CIG while the process of selecting who and what were to be
transferred to the CIG went on. By early
June 1946, General Vandenberg had
taken over as Director of Central Intelligence and the process seems to have
been accelerated. Vandenberg
quickly established an Office of Special Operations to run the new
clandestine service and named a director brought over from the Army. By
mid-September, the process had advanced far enough that Vandenberg formally notified the
Secretary of State that the SSU would cease
operations the following month and that “the Special Operations Office of
the Central Intelligence Group will assume responsibility for the conduct of
espionage and counter-espionage operations in the field.” (Document 128)
In the meantime, NIA Directive No. 5 of July
8, 1946, gave the Director of Central Intelligence a mandate to conduct “all
organized Federal espionage and
counter-espionage operations outside the United States and its possessions
for the collection of foreign intelligence information required for the
national security.” NIA Directive No. 5 was
a milestone for the CIG and was particularly
important to Vandenberg, because it
marked out an area of common concern that at least on paper was exclusively
within the province of the Director of Central Intelligence. In practice, it
was not an uncontested monopoly. The quarrel with the Army over its
insistence that it be allowed to conduct clandestine intelligence operations
(an issue on which very few documents were found) was to drag on for at
least another year and even figured in the debate over the National Security
Act of 1947.
The CIG’s only other rival in the clandestine
intelligence area was the Federal Bureau of Investigation, although the
FBI appears never to have challenged the
CIG for authority in the foreign
intelligence field. In 1945, the FBI had
been an active participant in the debate on the postwar national
intelligence structure, and had actively pressed its plan for a “world-wide
intelligence system.” The FBI appears to
have been sidelined early in the competition, however, in part because the
Bureau of the Budget was not sympathetic to Hoover’s overseas intelligence plan but more importantly,
because President Truman was strongly
opposed to any overseas intelligence responsibility for the FBI.
The FBI had some strong defenders in the
Department of State, however. Spruille
Braden, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American
Affairs, was one of them. He interjected the issue into the Department of
State’s debate over Colonel McCormack’s plan for a national intelligence organization,
urging that the Department support the FBI’s
continued presence in Latin America.
In mid-1946, when Vandenberg was in
the midst of setting up the Office of Special Operations, dissolving the
SSU, and getting the IAB and NIA to
approve NIA Directive No. 5, the FBI was still responsible for clandestine
intelligence collection in Latin America (since the SSU had inherited no capability in this area from the OSS). The subsequent difficulties between the
CIG and the FBI, however, were concerned not so much with the latter’s
presence in Latin America as with how and when it would depart from the
region.
In May 1946, Hoover wrote in the
margins of a report by one of his subordinates, describing a planning
meeting at CIG to discuss clandestine
intelligence: “The most I will agree to now is to stay in the Western Hem.
for one year. I am more & more certain that this is a project we must
get out of.” (Document 111)
By the following month, Hoover was
planning to close down his Western Hemisphere operations even more quickly
than that. On June 25, 1946, Hoover
wrote to Vandenberg, commenting on
the draft of what was to become National Intelligence Authority Directive
No. 5 and concluding that “If this
Directive is approved, it would appear to me that there would be no reason
why the Federal Bureau of Investigation should not withdraw as rapidly as
possible from Central and South America. I would appreciate it very much if
you would advise me as to whether or not you concur in this interpretation
by me.” (Text quoted in a memorandum from Ladd to Hoover, July
22, 1946; see the Supplement. The letter itself has not been found but the
text as given in the memorandum appears to be complete.) Hoover repeated the statement in a second
letter to Vandenberg a week later.
(Letter from Hoover to Vandenberg, July 2, 1946; see the
Supplement)
In the ensuing exchange of correspondence, Hoover and Vandenberg quickly found themselves at odds over the
withdrawal issue, with Vandenberg
arguing that an orderly changeover required the FBI to remain in Latin America for most of the fiscal year
(then just begun) and Hoover
continuing to insist on a quick departure, and making preparations to carry
it out. (Document 113 and letters in the
Supplement)
In response to growing Department of State concerns about the FBI’s plans for a rapid withdrawal from Latin
America, Acting Secretary Acheson
requested a special meeting of the National Intelligence Authority to try to
slow down the process. At an August 7 meeting, the NIA agreed to send a letter to the Attorney General, asking him
to direct the FBI to keep its intelligence
personnel in Latin America until the CIG
could arrange for an orderly replacement. (Documents
118 and 120) As a precaution, the NIA principals also instructed their executive
secretary to prepare a standby letter for the President’s signature,
addressed to the Attorney General and in effect directing him to order
Hoover to negotiate a timetable
acceptable to the CIG. The second letter was
to be used, presumably, if the NIA’s own
request failed. (Documents 119 and 122) Apparently it was never sent.
Within a few days, the Attorney General had spent almost 2 hours discussing
the issue with the President, and Admiral
Leahy had become the middle man in the negotiation between
the FBI and the CIG. (Documents 123 and 124) The upshot was that Leahy informed Vandenberg on August 12 that the Attorney
General and the President wished the changeover expedited and expressed his
own belief that this “can be accomplished at a much earlier date than as at
present scheduled and that it should be done.” (Document
125) This appears to have closed the book on the controversy and
within a few months the FBI’s intelligence
gathering role in the Western Hemisphere had come to an end.
95. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of War (McCloy) to the Director of the
Strategic Services Unit of the Department of War (Magruder)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–117. No classification marking.Washington, September 26, 1945.
SUBJECT
Transfer of OSS Personnel and
Activities to the War Department and Creation of Strategic Services Unit
By letter from the Deputy Chief of Staff dated today,Not found. A September 27 memorandum from Secretary of
War Patterson to Magruder designated the latter the
administrator of the Strategic Services Unit. (Ibid., HS/CSG–601) See
the Supplement. Magruder assumed
command of the SSU on October 1. (SSU General Orders No. 1, October 1;
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–601) See the
Supplement. Additional details are in a September 29 memorandum from
Cheston to Branch and Office Chiefs, and a
September 29 memorandum from Cutter to
Lincoln. (Both, Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–1400, Job 83–00036, Box 10, Folder 4) A
complete set of SSU General Orders
(October 1, 1945-October 19, 1946) is ibid., HS/CSG–601, Job 83–00036,
Box 4, Folder 9. you have been designated to represent the War
Department in the transfer of those OSS
activities which will come to the War Department and in their continued
operation. I shall recommend that the Secretary of War confirm this
designation as requested by you.
These activities will become for the time being, as a matter of War
Department organization, subject to the authority of my office and for
convenience will be referred to as the Strategic Services Unit. This
assignment of the OSS activities, so to be
transferred to the War Department, is a method of carrying out the desire of
the President, as indicated by representatives of the Bureau of the Budget,
that these facilities of the OSS be examined
over the next three months with a view to determining their appropriate
disposition. Obviously this will demand close liaison with the Bureau of the
Budget, the State Department and other agencies of the War Department, to
insure that the facilities and assets of OSS
are preserved for any possible future use, so far as not presently to be
liquidated in any event by reason of the termination of hostilities. The
situation is one in which the facilities of an organization, normally
shrinking in size as a result of the end of fighting, must be preserved so
far as potentially of future usefulness to the country. However, any
integration of its activities with those of other agencies of the War
Department should proceed only after consultation with the Bureau of the
Budget and the State Department, in view of the desire of the President
(expressed in his letter of 20 September to the Secretary of State) that the
Secretary of State take the lead
in surveying the whole field of intelligence operations during the next few
months. Obviously the whole subject is one for careful and cooperative study
and analysis of the various functions now being performed by OSS.
In the meantime, the continuing operations of OSS must be performed in order to preserve them as a going
operation. As you know the staff of my office is too small to exercise
detailed supervision over an enterprise the size of the OSS activities to be subject to your control.
It is not desirable to increase that staff. Accordingly on matters of
administration, I expect that you will conform, as fully as it is
practicable, with applicable War Department policies and regulations and
will consult and coordinate your actions with the appropriate War Department
agencies.
I am particularly anxious that you keep the Budget, Fiscal and Accounting
officers of the War Department fully advised of the activities of the Unit
and arrange to obtain their assistance and guidance to the fullest
practicable extent. In general, I expect you to keep not only my office, but
also the deputy Chief of Staff, advised of your plans and activities so that
he may be in a position to furnish to the Secretary of War and to me advice
and recommendations.
Major questions of policy should be discussed with my office. I am
particularly anxious that my office be kept informed as to proposals for the
disposition of particular substantial operations, facilities or assets of
the present OSS organization. I think you
should inaugurate a system of periodic written reports of progress and
outlines of future plans, of which copies should be furnished to the Deputy
Chief of Staff.
I desire that the status of the assets to be taken over by the War Department
as of 1 October 1945 be carefully checked by the proper Budget and Fiscal
officers of the War Department, to the extent that they deem necessary, and
as you know, instructions for such check, by inventory and otherwise, have
been given.
If you require additional assignment of staff from the War Department, I
expect that you will ask for the assignment of the necessary personnel and
make direct arrangements with the Deputy Chief of Staff for such
assignment.
This memorandum is furnished for your information and guidance as an
expression of my general views as to policy and procedure.
John J. McCloyPrinted from a copy that
indicates McCloy signed the
original.
96. Memorandum From the Director of the Strategic Services Unit,
Department of War (Magruder) to the Assistant Secretary of War (McCloy)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–265. No classification marking.Washington, October 9, 1945.
SUBJECT
Strategic Services Unit as of 1 October 1945
1. Introduction. At the time of issuance of the
Executive Order of 20 September providing for the “Termination of the Office
of Strategic Services and Disposition of its Functions” (attached as Exhibit
1),Document
14.OSS was proceeding with a program of orderly
liquidation. This program was in operation to carry out the terms of a
letter from the Director of Strategic Services to the Bureau of the Budget
dated 25 August 1945 (attached as Exhibit 2).Enclosure 1 to Document 3. In this
letter the Director, Major General William J.
Donovan, stated that he was proceeding with the liquidation
of the agency (which he estimated would be completed by 1 January or 1
February 1946). He recited that he had reiterated on many occasions since
November 1944 the necessity of setting up a permanent agency to take over
the functions of OSS, and he attached a
statement of principles governing the establishment of a centralized United
States foreign intelligence service.
2. Organization of OSS. Attached as Exhibit 3Exhibits
3–7 were not found. is a chart of the organization of the Office
of Strategic Services as it existed in general on 30 September 1945 and a
copy of General Order No. 9, outlining the functions of the offices shown on
the organization chart. A copy of OSS
155/11/D which designates OSS as an agency
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is attached as Exhibit 4.
3. Personnel. As of 30 September 1945, total personnel
on duty with the Office of Strategic Services was 10, 390. Of these, 5,713
were overseas and 4,677 in this country. Personnel were distributed as
follows:
Army 6,964 Navy 734 Civilian 2,692Total10,390
Exhibit 5 lists total personnel as of 30 September by Branch or office and by
country. With the transfer to the Department of State of the Research and Analysis Branch (with which the
Foreign Nationalities Branch had previously been merged), consisting of 1250
persons, the Presentation Branch, consisting of 82 persons, personnel
remaining with the Strategic Services Unit of the War Department was 9,058
on 1 October 1945.
4. Finance. A 1945–46 budget of $20,000,000 had been
approved by Congress. With the surrender of Japan the President recommended
that this be reduced to a liquidation budget of $10,500,000 to last until 1
January 1946. In view of the Executive Order of 20 September, meetings have
been held with officials of the Departments of State and War, and the Bureau
of the Budget, and agreement reached by all to the following allotment of
funds:
LIQUIDATING BUDGET
Unvouchered.003Vouchered.002Vouchered.001TotalLiquidation Budget, 19462,750,000250,0007,500,00010,500,000Less, Estimated Obligation 9/30/451,350,000215,0004,435,0006,000,000Bal. Remaining for Obligation1,400,00035,0003,065,0004,500,000Recommended Reserve460,000—1,000,0001,460,000Balance940,00035,0002,065,0003,040,000Recommended Transfer to State Department15,000To be
transferred to State Dept. as .022 Funds.28,00035,000311,000389,000Recommended Transfer to War Department897,000—1,754,0002,651,000940,00035,0002,065,0003,040,000
5. Equipment and Supplies. Instructions have been
issued to every Branch, Office and Mission of the Strategic Services Unit to
prepare a physical inventory of all non-expendable property as of 1 October
1945, including property belonging to those Branches of OSS transferred to the Department of State. A
copy of the cables sent to each mission of OSS is attached as
Exhibit 6. These inventories are now in preparation, and will be completed
by 30 October 1945.
6. Schools and Training Establishments. Liquidation of
the OSS schools and training activities was
well advanced prior to their transfer to the War Department. All schools
overseas have been closed and the personnel have either been returned to
this country or are en route home. Except for those below listed, all
schools and training areas in the United States have either been closed or
the properties are being processed for return to their owners by 1 November
1945. “Area N” (Congressional Country Club), which is being used as the
reallocation and rehabilitation center for personnel returning from
overseas.“Area W” (1917 Eye Street, Washington), which now houses the staff
used for psychological assessment of personnel and the staff of the
Advanced Intelligence School. Both staffs are engaged in completing
studies based on their work.
In addition, a few students are completing Oriental language courses at the
University of Pennsylvania under contract arrangements between the
University and OSS.
7. Missions Outside Continental USA. As of 30
September 1945 OSS had the following
missions abroad: Great Britain: Headquarters are in London.
Attached for purposes of administration to USFET. Included within the mission are sub-missions for
Norway and Denmark.In addition to its direct intelligence functions, an important
function of SI is to maintain close
relations with British SIS. A
principal concern of X–2 is the
interrogation of SS, Abwehr and PSNA
personnel. R&A is supplying
dossiers containing integrated files of evidence collected in London
to the Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis
Criminality (OSS).France: Headquarters are in Paris. Attached
for purposes of administration to USFET. Included within the mission are sub-missions for
Holland and Belgium.Intelligence is collected by the Nice Mission, by personal
contacts, by liaison with the Basque refugee groups, and through
other sources. In addition, SI
maintains a productive exchange of information with DGER for all
types of intelligence, including Safe Haven intelligence. X-2 activities have been materially
curtailed by reductions in personnel, but field units continue
operating in Bordeaux, Metz, Marseille, Nice, and Brussels; close
contact is maintained with the Embassy in Paris and the US
Consulates in Brussels and Marseille. R&A was engaged in servicing USFET, US Group CC, the CCC, and maintained liaison with the
Army Engineers at Versailles. Weekly meetings are held with
representatives of the Embassy, the Military and Naval Attachés, and
USIS.MedTO: Headquarters are in Rome. The
mission is responsible to the Commanding General AFHQ. One X–2 and two R&A men are attached to the American Group of
ACC in Bucharest. Also, two
members of R&A are attached to
the US Embassy in Belgrade, and one to the US Legation in
Sofia.Preparatory to establishing new clandestine networks, OSS terminated the activities of its
SI Branch in Italy prior to 30
September. On that date there remained a counter-espionage program,
a medical intelligence program, an intelligence Photographic
Documentation Project, and an active R&S research program with offices at Milan and
Rome.Germany: Headquarters are in Biebrich in
the American Zone. This is an autonomous mission responsible to Lt.
General Clay through the Intelligence Officer
of the US Group CC. Included within the mission is a sub-mission for
Czechoslovakia, with headquarters in Prague.Major activities are carried out by SI, X–2, R&A. SI is occupied principally with production units
located in Berlin, Bremen, Heidelberg, Kassel, Munich, and
Nuremberg. Units also operated in the British Zone and in Eastern
Germany. X–2 has as its primary
objective the penetration of German society and economy. R&A furnished information and
material to US Group CC, CCC, and
the Finance Branch, G–5, USFET.Austria: Headquarters are in Vienna.
Responsible through C–2 to the Commanding General, USFA. Detachments are maintained at
Salzburg and Zell-am-See, and a small intelligence team in the
Trieste area.This mission provides secret, economic and political intelligence
and counter-intelligence to the US Command. Intelligence coverage
includes the French and Russian Zones. A number of special studies
and analyses of industrial and economic conditions to aid USFA in determining occupational
policies in Four Power Council have been prepared. The Commanding
Officer of the mission has devoted a part of his time to acting as
interpreter to the CG, USFA, in the Four Power
Conference.METO:
Headquarters are in Cairo. Responsible to the Commanding General,
AMET. Included within the
mission are sub-missions in Istanbul and Athens. In addition, there
is maintained an open office in Casablanca, and operatives in Addis
Ababa, Tunis, Tangier, and Algiers, who report directly to
Washington. Although the unit in Greece is technically under the
jurisdiction of AFHQ, by informal arrangement it is serviced from
Cairo.This mission serves the AMET
military commander by aiding and cooperating with OIC in supplying
intelligence for the protection of ATC. It also supplies secret political and economic and
counter-espionage intelligence to the State Department
representatives, R&A, and the
Army and Navy Liquidation Commission. It provides C–2, AMET, and the Military and Naval
Attachés with military intelligence as well as economic and
political material.China: Headquarters are in Chungking and
Kinming, with field house at Hsian and Chihkiang. It is expected
that headquarters will be moved to Shanghai in the near
future.China Theater Headquarters directed on 22 August that the OSS intelligence organization and
network continue at full strength for an estimated 90 to 120 days to
gather intelligence of value to that Headquarters during the
reoccupation period. A [illegible text—secondary?] objective of the
program in China is to lay the groundwork for a long-term post-war
intelligence net. A special unit has been set up, under the
strictest possible security, to draw up a plan for the
reorganization of this net.Intelligence reported as of 30 September covered the China Theater
from Manchuria to French Indo-China. Intelligence missions were
located at Mukden, Chenhsien, Peiping, Suchang, Tientsin, Changsha,
Hongyang, Kuezui, Tsingtao, Hsian, Taiyuan, Shanghai, Taihoku in
Formosa, Hankow, Canton, Nanking, Kien, Nanchang, Hongkong,
Hangchow, Fort Bayard, Hanoi, and Vientiane.Intelligence was disseminated to G–2 of the Army Commands in China Theater, the Navy
Group and the State Department representative.India-Burma: Major installations are
maintained at Kandy, Calcutta, Rangoon, and New Delhi, with supply
and training sub-bases at Comanbo, Trincomalee and Galle on Ceylon.
Small missions are located in Singapore, Bangkok, Saigon and
Batavia. These teams were established for the purpose of gathering
current and long range strategic intelligence. Administrative and
supply functions are centered at Kandy and Calcutta.Information gathered in the Theater is furnished directly to the
Ceylon and New Delhi headquarters of the US Theater Commander and to
the State Department representative who serves as the US Theater
Commander’s political advisor. Counter-intelligence is coordinated
with the British CICB, and R&A
at New Delhi maintains contact with FEA and the American Mission.Hawaii: This office was established as an
outpost of R&A and for liaison
purposes. It has now ceased operation and is in the process of
liquidation.
8. Activities in Connection with War Crimes. In his
capacity as “Chief of US Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality”,
Mr. Justice Jackson enlisted the aid of several
branches of OSS; namely, Office of the
General Counsel, and the R&A, SI, X–2,
Presentation, Field Photographic, and Reproduction Branches (Exhibit 7). The
Office of the General Counsel was designated as a central office to
coordinate and correlate these activities, to analyze and screen evidentiary
material, including that received
from other agencies such as MIS and OID and
to recruit prosecution lawyers.
Since the initiation of this project, a great volume of evidentiary documents
and studies, including films, movies, graphic and pictorial exhibits,
briefs, interrogations and affidavits have been collected from many sources
and sent overseas to London, Paris and Nuremburg, where they are further
processed for the trials. The personnel now actively engaged in War Crimes
work in Washington and in ETO are
numerically as follows:
Office of General Counsel, WashingtonETO1037 Research & Analysis, ETOETO8 Presentation ETO8 Field Photographic, WashingtonETO2126 Reproduction ETO4 SI ETO12X–2WashingtonETO17Total138
The above does not include the large number of SSU personnel devoting part time to War Crime work or related
activities, nor does it include the group of British nationals employed full
time on this project by SSU.
9. A report showing the reorganization of the Strategic Services Unit and
objectives with respect to partial liquidation and future activities will
follow.
John MagruderPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Brig. Gen.
97. Memorandum From the Director of the Strategic Services Unit,
Department of War (Magruder) to the Assistant Secretary of War (McCloy)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job
83–00036, Box 3, Folder 16. Secret; American Eyes.Washington, October 25, 1945.
SUBJECT
Strategic Services Unit as of mid-October, 1945This report is submitted pursuant to your letter of 26 September
1945.Document
95. It covers significant changes during the first
half of October in the situation described in letter to you dated 9
October 1945,Document
96. subject: Strategic Services Unit as of 1
October. Reference should be made to that letter for a more complete
description of SSU’s organization in the
field and its continuing activities.The total personnel strength of SSU
has been reduced from 9,058 as of 1 October to 7,640 as of 19 October.
Of the latter figure, nearly 3,000 persons—either in this country or en
route home or awaiting transportation from abroad—are in process of
separation. By 1 December it is estimated that overall SSU personnel strength will be reduced to
1,913. Details of present and contemplated future deployment are set
forth in the table attached hereto as Exhibit 1.Exhibits 1–3 are in the Supplement.A provisional organization of SSU has
been prescribed by General Order No. 2 dated 12 October 1945, attached
hereto as Exhibit 2.In addition to secret intelligence, counter-espionage and
administrative services units, the portions of OSS transferred to SSU
included related para-military activities. To reduce these related
activities and at the same time create an efficient peacetime
clandestine intelligence agency has required great care so that
necessary elements and assets of the para-military branches will not be
lost. In order to assure maximum effectiveness of the peacetime unit,
steps have been taken to incorporate personnel with experience in the
specialized training given by OSS
(Schools and Training Branch) techniques of photographic intelligence
(Field Photographic Branch) and the production of personal documents and
identity papers (CD and Reproduction Branches) required for clandestine
operations. In addition, so that the United States may in the event of
future wars be prepared to use effectively and to develop doctrines and
techniques used by OSS in this war for
sabotage, support of underground forces (SO Branch) and clandestine
subversion of enemy morale (MO Branch),
personnel have been incorporated in the reduced organization equipped to
collect and process intelligence on future foreign developments in these
techniques. While in all cases the number of people to be retained is
very small, outgoing personnel must be screened with care to select the
best fitted persons.The SSU budget for the current fiscal
year has been reduced by the House to $8,500,000. (H.R. 4407) Of this
sum $2,846,176 remains unobligated. (See Exhibit 3) This balance will
not cover SSU operations beyond 1
January. Thereafter an additional appropriation of $625,000 per month
will be required if the assets of SSU
are to be preserved until the effectuation of plans for peacetime
intelligence. The above unobligated sum, which must be available if
SSU is to continue in operation
until 1 January, makes no allowances for contingencies and depends upon
adherence by the State Department to a previously projected plan of
reduction in force. In addition if this sum is to be sufficient it is
necessary to have Congress alter the form of the appropriation in the
House Bill to shift approximately $600,000 from the vouchered to the
unvouchered funds category. (See Exhibit 3) Steps are being taken to do
this.Overseas MissionsGreat Britain. Activities continued
along the lines described in the above-mentioned letter of 9
October. Intelligence was made available on a regular basis to
the American Delegation, Council of Foreign Ministers.France. An interesting aspect of
continuing operations was X–2’s
control of certain enemy agents—with the knowledge of the
French—so as to uncover any revival of enemy
intelligence.Germany. Clandestine activity was stepped
up in areas [8 lines of source text not
declassified].[1 paragraph (7–1/2 lines of source text)
not declassified] MedTO. X–2
conducted penetrations designed to uncover subversive activities
against Allied interests and continued its work relevant to the
complete liquidation of the former German Intelligence Service
in Italy and the Balkans. In addition, it performed general
security services for all American agencies. Work on the
Intelligence Photographic Documentation Project (IPDP) was being brought to a close
by SSU, but an effort was being
made to have this project continued by other branches of the
service.[4 paragraphs (1 page of source text) not
declassified] Hawaii. This mission closed on 15
October.Action has been initiated to transfer from the SSU rolls personnel engaged in the following activities:
War Crimes. Request has been made of
Mr. Justice Jackson that he review SSU personnel engaged in this work
(see letter of 9 October) to determine whether they might not be
transferred to the Office of Counsel under the Assistant
Secretary of War.Strategic Bombing Survey. Negotiations
are under way with the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) to secure agreement for
the transfer to USSBS of 51
persons now furnished by SSU on
120 days’ temporary duty for employment in the strategic bombing
survey of Japan. All but one of these are at present under
orders to proceed to Japan.Intelligence Photographic Documentation
Project. Recommendation has been made that this project
be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Joint Topographic
Subcommittee of the JIC of
JCS. If adopted, this
recommendation would permit a reduction of 132 members of the
Field Photographic Branch now engaged in this work.John MagruderPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Brig. Gen., USA
98. Memorandum From the Acting Director of the Office of Controls,
Department of State (Lyon) to the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Research
and Intelligence (McCormack)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Intelligence Files, Bureau of Administration,
1942–51: Lot 79 D 137, Office of Strategic Services, Box 1. No
classification marking.Washington, November 13, 1945.
Reference is made to the Executive Order which President Truman signed on September 20, 1945,
terminating the Office of Strategic Services and disposing of its
functions.
The Department continues to receive from the Strategic Services Unit requests
for State Department designations at the various diplomatic missions. Many
of the requests are for replacements; others are for new assignments. Too,
there is some indication that personnel in one branch of the former OSS organization, not transferred to the State
Department, are transferring
or attempting to transfer to branches of the organization now connected with
the Department of State.
In view of the forementioned Executive Order and President Truman’s letter of September 20, 1945 to
Secretary Byrnes on the subject of
OSS, FC
has been hesitant to approve requested designations by SSU until such time as the future activities of
the Unit have been determined.
I believe you will agree that during the interim period of the organization
increases in personnel as well as replacements and transfers which are not
absolutely necessary, should be kept at a minimum. To send SSU employees to our European missions at this
time—when the work may be terminated within a matter of weeks—appears to be
an unnecessary expenditure of government funds as well as an imposition on
the time and effort of our already over-occupied offices.
In order that I may discuss the matter with the proper SSU officials, I would appreciate your advising
me whether the requests for State Department designations should be held
pending a decision regarding the future activities of the SSU—particularly the organization’s
relationship with this Department.
Frederick B. LyonPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
99. Memorandum From the Director of the Strategic Services Unit,
Department of War (Magruder) to the Assistant Secretary of War (McCloy)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/CSG–579, Job 83–00036, Box 4, Folder 7. Secret; American
Eyes.Washington, November 15, 1945.
SUBJECT
The Strategic Services Unit at the Beginning of NovemberThis letter covers developments during the last half of October in the
situation of SSU as described in
previous reports dated 9 and 25 October 1945.Documents 96 and 97.The total personnel strength of SSU
has been reduced from 7,640 to 6,447 in the fortnight from 19 October to
2 November. Of the latter figure more than 2,350 persons are in process of separation, either in this
country, en route here or awaiting transportation from overseas. Details
of SSU deployment are set forth in the
table attached as Exhibit 1.Exhibits 1 and 2
are in the Supplement.For details of liquidation of seven OSS operational branches see Exhibit 2. Of these branches,
nuclei of no more than nine persons from the Morale Operations Branch
and three persons from the Special Operations Branch will be transferred
to the Secret Intelligence Branch to process and study information on
foreign developments in clandestine propaganda and sabotage and to
preserve the techniques evolved by OSS
in the past war. The other five branches, viz. Operational Groups
Command, Field Photographic Special Projects, Field Experimental Unit,
and Research & Development, are being liquidated completely. Their
records and reports will be maintained by SSU.The following progress has been made in arranging transfer from SSU rolls of personnel engaged in War
Crimes, Strategic Bombing Survey and Intelligence Photographic
Documentation work. (Initial steps were reported on 25 October.)Not further identified.The Strategic Bombing Survey personnel has all been
transferred to USSBS.Mr. Justice Jackson has agreed that
SSU War Crimes personnel be
transferred to another agency of the War Department for
attachment to his office on temporary duty. When necessary data
has been received from Mr. Justice Jackson
discussion will be had with representatives of the Office of the
Judge Advocate General to effect this transfer.G–2, A–2 and ONI have indicated approval of a
plan to place the Intelligence Photographic Documentation
Project under the direction of the Joint Topographic
Subcommittee of the JIC of
JCS. Under this plan 132
members of the Field Photographic Branch would be transferred
out of SSU and detailed to
IPDP. This proposal has
already been submitted to you for approval.The following are the major developments in the missions overseas: Europe-Africa-Near East. In France,
MTO, and the Near East,
reorientation of activities continues along the lines indicated
in the previous reports. The missions in Germany and Austria are
now concentrating on strategic intelligence, with an
acceleration of clandestine activities in Germany. SI and X–2 operations will be closely coordinated and
under cover. [20 lines of source text not
declassified]
[2 paragraphs (19 lines of source text) not
declassified]
John MagruderPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Brig. Gen., USA
100. Minutes of the 171st Meeting of the Secretary of State’s Staff
CommitteeSource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot
File No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47. Top
Secret. No drafting information appears on the source text. The meeting
was held in the Secretary’s office.Washington, November 29, 1945, 9:30
a.m.
PRESENT
The Secretary (presiding)The Under SecretaryThe CounselorMr. BentonMr. BradenMr. HackworthMr. McCormackMr. PasvolskyMr. RussellMr. Thorp (for M.
Clayton)Mr. GangeMr. LewisMr. RothwellAbsent:Mr. ClaytonMr. Dunn
[Here follows discussion of matters unrelated to intelligence.]
Continuance of FBI Program
in Other American Republics (Annex IV to Document SC-172)
Mr. Braden called the Committee’s
attention to Annex IV to document SC–172See
footnote 6, Document 50. urging
that steps be taken to request the continuance of the work of FBI personnel assigned to our missions in the
other American republics (for previous discussion, see the Minutes of
November 27).Document
50. Mr. Braden
pointed out that some of the FBI personnel
had been recalled and all would be on their way home by December 15. This
would leave the Government without any counter espionage or security
intelligence in Latin America by the end of the year, and he said this was
gravely impairing our interests. Mr. Braden said he had discussed the matter with the Deputy
Director of the Budget Bureau on November 28,No
other record of this conversation has been found. and the latter
had informed him that the only solution would be for the Department to
request an allotment from the President’s emergency fund.
The Secretary asked whether there were any deficiency bills bending in
Congress to which an appropriation for this purpose might be attached. Mr. Russell said that there were no such
bills. The question was raised whether the Department of Justice had any
funds to continue the work temporarily. Mr. Russell said the Department of Justice had agreed to a
rescission of its appropriation for this work in view of the President’s
statement that he did not wish the FBI to
operate outside the U.S. In this connection, Mr. Braden said he felt sure the President had not had full
information about the importance of this work when he had made this
decision.
Mr. McCormack agreed that the
importance of the work necessitated some arrangement to permit its
continuance. He said Army operations in the other American republics
probably could not be converted to this type of work. The FBI organization had the advantage of being a
“going concern”. He pointed out that it was very important at the present
time to keep a close watch on German and other foreign activity in the other
American republics.
The Secretary said there seemed to be no solution but to request an allotment
from the President’s emergency fund. He suggested that sufficient funds be
requested to permit the continuance of the work until a new central
intelligence organization had been set up. Mr. Russell agreed that this should be done but he said it
should be recognized that such action would place the Federal Bureau of
Investigation in a good position for obtaining a permanent place in the new
intelligence organization.
Mr. Russell asked how many employees
were involved and how much would be required to continue the work. Mr.
Braden said he thought there were
about 189 employees. He said no estimate had been made of the funds
required, but the opinion was expressed that at least $2,000,000 would be
required to continue the work for the next 6 months.
The Committee agreed that it would be desirable to
request an allocation from the President’s emergency fund to permit the
continuance for at least the next 6 months of the work of the FBI representatives. It was also suggested
that, in the meantime, consideration should be given to means of continuing
the work for such further time as is necessary, probably by requesting
Congress to appropriate funds. The Secretary said he would discuss the
matter with the President if Messrs. Braden and Russell
would prepare an estimate and draft a letter to the President recommending
the allocation.No record has been found of
Byrnes’ proposed conversation
with the President or of the letter that Braden and Russell were to prepare.
101. Memorandum From the Interim Activities Director of the Strategic
Services Unit, Department of War (Irwin) to
the Assistant Secretary of War (McCloy)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–1807, Job 83–00036,
Box 12, Folder 11. No classification marking. The source text is a copy
transcribed for the CIA Historian, presumably in the early
1950s.Washington, January 28, 1946.
SUBJECT
Tentative Plan for Disposition of Strategic Services UnitWith the establishment of the Central Intelligence Group (CIG), the question of the disposition of
Strategic Services Unit (SSU) arises.
The following are the three most obvious courses to follow:Transfer the activity to G–2,Liquidate the activity,Place appropriate parts of SSU’s resources and activities under control of CIG. a. Retention of SSU under G–2 would probably result in its liquidation
and the loss of personnel and operations suitable and valuable to CIG. Many individuals, either civilians or
military personnel eligible for discharge, are anxious to join a central
agency but are unwilling to serve G–2.
These would probably be lost if transfer to G–2 is made.b. Actual liquidation of the activity is undesirable since certain
valuable assets will be dispersed, and trained personnel lost to the
service. However, the continuation of SSU as such is undesirable due to its known character and
its identification with OSS.c. Transfer of SSU to the CIG would furnish that agency with an
organization in being for intelligence operation. The organization has
certain defects, its operations have exposed much of its personnel to
foreign intelligence agencies and its identification with OSS and its known clandestine activity
would deprive it of cover essential for future activity. While transfer
appears desirable, it must be done in such a manner as to retain assets
without unduly compromising future operations of the intelligence
section of the CIG. The following is recommended: An administrative group, selected from present SSU, be retained with the
designation “Strategic Services Unit” to continue the
liquidation of SSU and whatever
remains of OSS under War
Department control.The remainder of SSU be
transferred to operational control of the Director, under
whatever designation he may prescribe, including the buildings,
equipment, etc., now under control of SSU.SSU, and that portion
transferred to the War Department representation in CIG, be kept in the Secretary of
War’s group in the War Department, for convenience in
administration and for budget purposes. S. LeRoy IrwinPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Major General, USA
102. Memorandum From the Director of the Strategic Services Unit,
Department of War (Magruder) to Secretary of War PattersonSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 263, Records
of the Central Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers,
SSU 1945. Secret. Sent through
Assistant Secretary of War McCloy and Major General S. LeRoy
Irwin, the Interim Director. Handwritten at the top of
the source text is: “Magruder
asks for survey.”Washington, February 4, 1946.
SUBJECT
Request for Determination of the Future Status of SSU
On 17 October 1946 I submitted a memorandum to the Assistant Secretary of
War, Subject: Status of Morale in Strategic Services Unit, stressing the
urgent need for clarification of the status of the SSU if its assets were to be preserved.Not printed. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical
Files, HS/CSG–1400, Item 13, Job 83–00036, Box 10, Folder 4)
Since then the liquidation of its wartime activities has been practically
completed. Profitable intelligence operations have been maintained, but the
assets of the organization continue to be sapped by attrition of high grade
personnel, and its morale lowered at a rate accelerated by continuing
obscurity in the Unit’s future. Assets vanish alarmingly despite the
generous and constructive support of the Unit by all officials of the War
Department responsible for its maintenance. Long-range planning and
commitments are not possible under the circumstances.
Since the establishment of the Central Intelligence Authority on 22 January
1946, the disposition of the SSU with
respect to that Authority has remained undecided.
Moreover, other disturbing circumstances have arisen which tend further to
postpone decision. I refer to criticisms from various sources of certain
aspects of SSU tending to raise doubt as to
its value as an entity for use in the Central Intelligence Group. Some of
the criticisms take the cheap and familiar form of innuendo reflecting on
the competence of the personnel and security of the Unit. Distorted facts
and sheer opinions are expressed by individuals who could not be familiar
with the current methods of operation, assets, or, if given favorable
conditions, the potentialities of the organization. On the other hand, some
rational questionings have been raised as to the propriety of the
continuance of certain activities, such as liaison with foreign intelligence
services, and semi-overt group activities in support of occupational
forces.
Both the irresponsible criticism of the organization and the justifiable
queries as to the appropriate nature and scope of its functions are causing
indecision and delay respecting the future employment of SSU. The delay is serious. In the national
interest, immediate and authoritative study should be given to the
problem.
On 15 January 1946, I submitted to Major General S. LeRoy
Irwin a statement of the assets of the SSU as of that date (Tab A).Not printed. See the Supplement. Also reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, pp.
21–27. These assets are believed to be verifiable by an objective
survey.
A sound appraisal of these assets by representatives of the members of the
National Intelligence Authority should clarify the situation and expedite
central employment of existing assets of the SSU, their placement elsewhere, or their orderly liquidation by
the War Department.
Recommendations:
That, for the purpose of obtaining an early decision as to the appropriate
disposition of the assets of the SSU, the
Secretary of War request the immediate convening of a committee consisting
of representatives of the members of the National Intelligence Authority to: Obtain at the earliest practicable date an objective analysis of
the functions and assets of the SSU
and an appraisal of their value for employment operationally in the
Central Intelligence Group.To recommend to the National Intelligence Authority specific and
prompt action based upon the committee’s findings.
John MagruderPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Brigadier General
103. Memorandum by the Director of the Strategic Services Unit, Department
of War (Magruder)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, Box 11, Folder 78. Secret. On the
source text the address line is blank. At the top of the source text is
handwritten “CIG should take over SSU.”Washington, February 14, 1946.
SUBJECT
Establishment of Clandestine Collection Service for Foreign
IntelligenceAt the time of the Inter-Departmental agreement on the reorganization
of intelligence it was generally understood that the Central
Intelligence Group would, as one of its major functions, operate a
clandestine service for procurement of intelligence abroad. For reasons
of security this function was not specified in the President’s
directive. With this in view, the War Department undertook to prepare
that part of OSS assigned to it
(designated SSU) for future use as the
nucleus of this clandestine service.The War Department considered itself responsible for liquidating the
wartime activities and liabilities of the parent organization, while
maintaining the SSU as a going concern
held available for central intelligence when established. The activities
of the Unit not related to strict intelligence purposes have now been
liquidated. The remaining assets are now fully operational and available
for employment in the central organization.It will not be possible for SSU much
longer to continue effective operations in its present interim status.
Lack of specific directive permitting long-range plans and commitments
has seriously affected its logical development. Personnel has already
begun to melt away. Apart from its scheduled reduction in operational
strength from 9138 to 1967, the attrition has been particularly heavy
among key personnel. Furthermore, from the budget viewpoint, the War
Department cannot continue to justify for any substantial period the
maintenance of a provisional intelligence organization separate from its
established Military Intelligence Division. Unless early disposition is
made of the assets represented by SSU it
will undoubtedly become necessary to effect curtailment if not
liquidation of its remaining personnel and facilities.The National Intelligence Authority has now approved a tentative table
of organization for the Central Intelligence Group. It would appear
inefficient for the three contributing Departments to detail personnel
from their own resources
against the commitments imposed by this table of organization without
first analyzing the extent to which these commitments can be met on
behalf of all three departments by making use of the available assets of
SSU.SSU is at present in a position to
provide complete administrative services for CIG both immediately and for a considerable time in the
future. These services include not only an administrative and executive
staff but such essential facilities as communications, reproduction,
transportation, security-checked personnel, space and other auxiliary
services.In addition SSU at present provides
significant intelligence coverage in many strategic parts of the world.
The present assets of SSU in no way
constitute a complete or adequate world-wide clandestine intelligence
agency, but to the extent that SSU is
the sole operating agency not only in many geographical areas but in
specialized functions it could profitably be employed by the CIG until replaced by, or incorporated
into, a permanent organization.An immediate decision on the status of SSU is important not only to preserve its assets against
disintegration but to permit the War Department and the other
departmental intelligence services to undertake urgent planning. It may
prove desirable to discontinue certain functions of SSU. However, it would be far preferable
that such decisions be made by the authorities who are themselves
responsible for continuing operations in the field of clandestine
intelligence on the basis of experience, and on the basis of the
national rather than departmental requirements.
Recommendations:
That the NIA instruct the Director of
Central Intelligence to operate a clandestine intelligence service in
the foreign field and to organize such service as expeditiously as
practicable.That the NIA agree that the assets,
personnel and facilities of the SSU,
less those non-essentials being liquidated by the War Department, be
placed under the operational control of the Director of Central
Intelligence.That the NIA set a target date by
which the Director of Central Intelligence will assume operational
control of the assets provided in paragraph 2 above and present a plan
for administrative action which will enable the assets to be transferred
consistently with the intentions of the Presidential Directive.John MagruderPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Brigadier General
104. Central Intelligence Group Directive No. 1Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 130. Top
Secret.Washington, February 19, 1946.
SURVEY OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE STRATEGIC SERVICES UNIT
Memorandum by the Director of Central Intelligence, with
the unanimous concurrence of the Intelligence Advisory Board
a. The President’s letter of 20 September 1945, referring to
functions of the Office of Strategic Services which were transferred to
the War Department, stated: “The Secretary of War shall, whenever he
deems it compatible with the national interest, discontinue and wind up
all affairs relating thereto.” At a meeting of intelligence
representatives held in the War Department on 8 February,No record of this meeting has been found. it
was generally agreed that an authoritative group should promptly make a
study to determine which functions and facilities of the Strategic
Services Unit should be preserved for permanent peacetime purposes after
the liquidation of SSU. It was further
agreed that prompt decisions should be reached as to which preserved
functions should be operated by CIG, and
which by departments or existing agencies.b. The Central Intelligence Group is preparing a separate action for
the purpose of initiating a comprehensive survey of existing facilities
for the collection of foreign intelligence information by clandestine
methods. However, that survey will be a long-range matter requiring the
services of permanent personnel not yet assigned to CIG, whereas the disposition of SSU raises urgent questions which should be
studied immediately. Therefore, an interdepartmental committee should be
organized at once to undertake the study. By unanimous approval of the Director of Central Intelligence and the
Intelligence Advisory Board an ad hoc committee is hereby established,
to consist of five members, one representing the Director of Central
Intelligence and one representing each permanent member of the
Intelligence Advisory Board.The study group
established by this directive was informally known as the Fortier Committee after its
chairman, Brigadier General Louis J.
Fortier of the CIG.
(Darling, The Central
Intelligence Agency, pp. 96–98) The committee began its
work on February 19. (Minutes; Central Intelligence Agency Files,
Job 83–00036R, Box 1, Folder 6) The committee issued its report on
March 14; Document 105. The February 19
minutes are in the Supplement. This committee will promptly
make a detailed study of SSU facilities,
resources and operations, and will recommend: Which resources, facilities and operating functions should be
continued in the national interest after the SSU is liquidated.What disposition should be made of the preserved resources and
facilities, and what assignments should be made of
responsibility for conducting the preserved operating
functions.What budgetary arrangements should be made.The committee will submit a report of findings, conclusions and
recommendations to the Director of Central Intelligence, who will then
prepare suitable recommendations to be submitted to the National
Intelligence Authority after concurrence or comment by the Intelligence
Advisory Board. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation will
be invited to sit as a member of the Advisory Board for consideration of
these recommendations. The CIG representative on the
committee will be steering member. The members of the Advisory Board
will have their respective committee members report to the Director of
Central Intelligence for instructions. Stenographic assistance and
office space will be furnished by the War Department, as arranged by
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2.
105. Memorandum From the Fortier Committee to the Director of Central Intelligence
(Souers)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–1808, Job 83–00036, Box 12, Folder 11. Top
Secret. The source text is undated; the date used is from
Darling, The Central
Intelligence Agency, p. 448, note 50. The report contains
references to Tabs A–F, none of which was found with the source
text.Washington, March 14, 1946.
SUBJECT
Report of Survey of Strategic Services Unit under CIG Directive No. 1
I. Introductory:
The Committee Directive: Under CIG Directive No. 1,Document 104. the
present Committee was required: To make a detailed study of SSU facilities, resources and operations;To recommend: Which of the resources, facilities and operating
functions should be continued in the national interest
after the liquidation of SSU;What disposition should be made of the preserved
resources and facilities;What assignments should be made of responsibility for
conducting the preserved operating functions;What budgetary arrangements should be made.The Committee has considered that this assignment should be
read in the light of: The President’s letter of September 20, 1945,
directing the Secretary of War to liquidate SSU “whenever he deems it
compatible with the national interest;” andThe absence of any final, long term, decision
respecting this Government’s institutions for the
collection of foreign intelligence by clandestine
methods, referred to in the CIG Directive No. 1.The decision that the SSU as
such was to be liquidated and abolished under War Department
aegis the Committee considered to be irrevocable.The Survey Coverage:On February 21, 1946, the undersigned Committee, comprising
specially designated representatives of the Director of Central
Intelligence and the Intelligence divisions of the State
Department, G–2, ONI and A–2 commenced a survey of
the resources, facilities and operational functions of the
Strategic Services Unit in accordance with CIG Directive No. 1 (Tab A).With Brigadier General
Louis J. Fortier as steering member, the
Committee interviewed Brigadier General John Magruder,
Director of SSU and
SSU staff employees
(Tab D).On February 25, 26 and 27 individual Committee members
conducted more intensive investigations of branches of
SSU, as follows:SI—Captain
Thomas CullenX–2—Mr.
Samuel KlausOperational Auxiliaries—Brigadier General Louis J.
FortierServices Branch—Colonel Roy
BobergPersonnel and Staff Divisions—Colonel
S. P. WalkerFollowing Committee consideration of the reports by
the individual members upon the investigations conducted
by them, the Committee determined to conduct joint
investigation of a number of selected operations and
facilities. Accordingly on March 4, 5 and 6 the
Committee conducted a joint investigation of the SI Office and its branches
and of the Reproduction Division and certain aspects of
the Budget and Fiscal Division of the Services Branch
(see Tab E).The Committee invited Brigadier General Magruder to make such
further statements and produce such additional witnesses
as he thought should be brought before the Committee.
Accordingly, in response to the Committee’s invitation,
Brig. Gen.
Magruder produced thereafter additional
witnesses and submitted certain documents for the
committee’s consideration (see Tabs D & E).Individual members of the Committee consulted with
persons in their respective agencies who have been
served by SSU.
Expressions of opinion were obtained with respect to the
value of the material disseminated by SSU and the effect of a
termination of SSU
activities on the operations of the respective agencies
(see Tab E).The Committee desires to note that the survey was limited in
its coverage in the following particulars: No investigation was made by the Committee of the
field stations and missions of SSU in Europe, Asia and Africa. In this
respect the Committee had to rely on representations
made by Washington staff personnel, on the cursory
perusal of some field reports, and on conversations with
a few former field operatives of OSS.No detailed examination was conducted of the
particular capabilities or productivity of individual
Washington or field personnel;No exhaustive attempt was made to evaluate on an
individual basis the current production of the staff or
the field.
II. Findings.
A. History of SSU: The
Strategic Services Unit is the lineal descendant of the Office of the
Coordinator of Information, established by President Roosevelt in 1941 under the direction of
Colonel William J. Donovan. The
primary relevant function of this Office was the coordination and
preparation by experts drawn from various fields of scholarship of
intelligence material significant for the National defense and their
analysis for the use of the President and top Government officials. Soon
thereafter, in close coordination with the British, a clandestine
intelligence operation was begun with headquarters in London. Early during
the war propaganda functions of COI were transferred to the Office of War
Information and the remaining functions and personnel of COI, under General
Donovan, were placed under the
supervision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in an organization called the
Office of Strategic Services. Thereafter OSS
operations were performed strictly under the directives of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. OSS included a research
organization called Research & Analysis; intelligence services, SI and X–2
(X–2 having been established in 1943 for
the performance of counter intelligence functions); and various special
operations—including sabotage, intelligence activities behind enemy lines,
etc. The only field activity performed by OSS in the United States was, it seems, by the Foreign
Nationalities Branch which
maintained contacts with various foreign groups in this country with a view
to obtaining intelligence of use to the total OSS function.
With the progress of the war much of the OSS
activity was shifted to the field and OSS
missions were set up close to the theaters of military operation, leaving
general direction to the headquarters in Washington.
The personnel, like the operations, were characterized by strong military
elements; the Army and Navy supplied a majority of the personnel and a
considerable portion of the equipment and facilities.
Beginning with V-J Day, General Donovan ordered a liquidation of OSS.
OSS was abolished by Executive Order, dated
September 20, 1945, effective October 1, 1945. The Research and Analysis and
Presentation Branches (the latter concerned with preparation of charts,
visual aids and the like) were transferred to the State Department and the
remaining portions transferred, under the name of Strategic Services Unit,
to the War Department. Brig. Gen. John
Magruder was appointed by the Secretary of War to be Director
of SSU with the following instructions:
“Subject to the authority of and policies determined by the Assistant
Secretary of War, and such persons as he may designate, you will continue
the program of liquidation of those activities and personnel so transferred
which are no longer necessary or desirable, and preserve as a unit such of
those functions and facilities as are valuable for permanent peacetime
purposes, or which may be required by Theater Commanders or occupational
authorities to assist in the discharge of their responsibilities.” The
Assistant Secretary of War in a memorandum dated September 26, 1945,Document 95.
instructed Gen. Magruder to the same
effect. (See Tab E.)
At the present time the special, para-military operations of OSS have been substantially liquidated or are
in the process of liquidation; the unliquidated functions are those which
relate to or serve primarily the collection, analysis and dissemination of
foreign intelligence.
B. Organization of SSU: A chart of the present organization of SSU is attached hereto (Tab B). Individual
analyses of the main divisions, based on joint and several surveys by the
Committee members, are attached hereto (Tab E). Number of Employees: Attached hereto (Tab
F) is a breakdown of the personnel employed by SSU, their classifications and
salaries. It is to be noted that as of March 1, 1946, the operating
divisions employ 400 in the field and 260 in Washington, while the
auxiliary and service groups employ 1432 (including a liquidation
pool of 358). Attention is called to the use of unvouchered
funds.General Observations:In general, it may be said that the core of present SSU operations is the field
staff, which is charged with seeking information along lines
of possible security interest to the United States. These
operatives, belonging either to the SI office (originally charged with seeking
“positive” intelligence) or X–2 (originally charged with seeking “counter”
intelligence), are divisible into those attached to the
military missions still functioning abroad (as for example
in Germany, [3 lines of source text not
declassified]). The Washington staff is concerned
with (1) directing or evaluating field operations,
disseminating the intelligence obtained among interested
Government agencies, and planning directives and future
operations in consultation with interested Government
agencies; and (2) servicing the organization as a whole. The
personnel in the field and in Washington are partly civilian
and partly military, the percentage of the former being
constantly on the increase as military personnel either
leave the organization on their discharge from the military
services or become reemployed as civilians.The Committee has noted that acting under the direction of
the Secretary of War, General
Magruder has succeeded in reducing the
personnel employed from about 9,000 to about 2,000 and that
he appears to be engaged in actively liquidating those
operations of SSU which
could have no permanent peacetime value to the United
States. It is noted, however, that he is simultaneously
attempting to meet the requirements of military commanders
in the field in special areas and special military
contingents of SSU personnel
involving intelligence duties. It is noted also, however,
that valuable personnel who could profitably serve any
peacetime authority engaged in analogous work have probably
been leaving the organization for more secure employment
elsewhere.The loss of the Research and Analysis Branch, formerly in OSS and now in the State Department,
has apparently resulted in creating a gap between the investigating
units SI and X–2 and the primary consumer which also provided the
day to day directives for investigation. Nevertheless the existing
units, though skeleton in form, appear to operate on a day to day
basis without mortal impairment.Field Operations: Detailed tabulation of
the distribution of field personnel of SI and X–2 is shown in
an annexed exhibit (Tab C). The following, however, may be noted: By an arrangement dating from the earlier days of the
OSS, SSU has no operating
representatives in the Western Hemisphere, which is reserved
to the FBI, while the FBI is largely excluded (except
for liaison in Spain, Portugal, France and England) from the
rest of the world.The SI Office is conducting
certain types of clandestine operations in connection with
its work in the military missions in Germany, [8 lines of source text not
declassified].X–2 has personnel [3 lines of source text not
declassified] to some extent apparently in Germany.
In the Far East X–2 does not
appear to be as overt as SI.
The reasons for this difference do not appear.It is to be noted that the field operation is based on the
skillful construction of networks of locally recruited
agents, subagents and informants. To the extent that these
agents are paid out of unvouchered funds or otherwise by
SSU, and act under the
control of the SSU
representatives, they must be considered part of the SSU organization. No
information is available here on this subject as a whole,
although there appear to be files in which are kept the
names of these agents and pertinent data concerning
them.Washington StaffSIOffice: In the SI office nominally there is a division between
the Processing and Planning Branch and the Operations
Branch. The latter in theory is divided into areas and
country desks and deals directly with the field
representatives in communications, transmission of
operational directions and intelligence, and the like. The
former is divided more generally into geographical areas but
includes also three specialized sections—economic, technical
and propaganda; the Branch is concerned with the formulation
of general directives, broad syntheses and the preparation
of materials for reports and dissemination to interested
agencies. In practice, however, especially in the area
desks, there is at present a tendency to disregard the
distinctions between processing and operations.X–2Branch: The core of X–2 in Washington appears to be
its geographical area desks, directed by the Chief of
Intelligence and Operations working in conjunction with the
Chief of the Branch and his assistant. X–2 maintains its own liaison
section.While X–2 and SI have theoretical separation,
under the direction of General
Magruder attempts are being made to compel a
closer affiliation between the two branches.Operational Auxiliaries: (described
in Tab E). These center, in terms of importance to SSU operations, in a
communications section which is concerned with handling of
ciphers and indoctrination of staff in their use.
Communications between Washington and the field are either
through the Army installations or through the State
Department. A special cipher system is employed for SSU communications. In addition
the Operational Auxiliaries Branch includes some personnel
engaged in research in such subjects as special wireless
communication equipment for clandestine agents,
documentation intelligence (largely deriving from the days
when OSS engaged in placing
agents behind enemy lines), and secret inks.Services Branch: The services
organization (described in Tab E) is the central management
unit. It is prepared, the Committee was told, to handle
3,000 employees. Its chief special operational function, in
addition to the
functions usually performed by a management unit, is the
handling of unvouchered funds and procurement of secure
funds for agent operations in the field and the
indoctrination of field men in the use of such funds. This
branch has also had a Reproduction Section, which through
special security provisions was prepared to handle highly
confidential printing and reproduction jobs of superior
quality in reasonably small quantity. The section, for
example, has prepared secret documents for international
conversations, maps for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, secret
documents for the State Department, and the like. The unit
also contains a few individuals engaged in research in
micro-photography, of use to clandestine agents in the
field, and in special problems of reproduction arising from
the unit’s own work.Personnel: The Personnel Division
(described in Tab E—Personnel) has a security section,
apparently geared in cooperation with the staff officers of
the operating branches to recruit and screen in the United
States staff and field personnel.
C. Operating Functions:Absence of Directives:SSU today operates without any
authoritative directive for the procurement of intelligence. This
arises from the fact that OSS
directives were concerned solely with the prosecution of the war
efforts against Germany, Italy and Japan. OSS received its directives from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. The war against Germany, Italy and Japan having ceased and
the Joint Chiefs of Staff having ceased to issue directives to
SSU, the organization has
operated solely in accordance with instructions of the Secretary of
War to preserve the intelligence elements of permanent value until
the formulation of an authoritative final policy with respect to the
procurement of foreign intelligence. Thus there are, strictly
speaking, no de jure operating functions in SSU at all.De Facto Functions: Nevertheless since VE
Day, and definitely since VJ Day, the main de facto operations of
SSU have been concerned with: Planning for long term foreign clandestine intelligence
operations by the United States;Obtaining information in the field of an investigational
character, as requested by military commanders in military
zones of occupation, such as information with respect to the
activities in the Russian zones;Assisting the diplomatic missions in obtaining factual
information from police and intelligence sources, such as is
involved in visa and passport applications;The continued maintenance of liaison with intelligence
authorities of friendly and neutral countries with which the
OSS representatives had
maintained liaison during the war;The transmission of such information, of a more or less
secret character, as would appear to be of interest to
Washington agencies, such as the activities of the Russians
in their own zones and in other countries, and activities of
local intelligence agencies and developments of a political
and technical nature in countries to which SSU representatives have
access;The residual problems of the Axis defeat, the examination
of captured documents made available to SSU, the interrogation of
captured enemy personnel to the extent permitted by military
authorities, and miscellaneous assistance to the military
commanders in the areas of military occupation; as well as
dealing with aspects of the repatriation of Axis agents,
enemy assets in neutral countries and the like.Operational Distinctions between SI and X–2:The distinction between the activities of SI and X–2 has to a considerable extent been broken
down, first with the exclusion of SI representatives from certain areas, such as
the Iberian Peninsula, and to some extent Germany; secondly;
with the lack of specific allocation of functions between
SI and X–2 for present problems. In
consequence the older distinction between “positive” and
“counter” intelligence has broken down.X–2: X–2 representatives are
operating under an X–2
directive to obtain information concerning (1) the
intelligence organizations of the countries in which they
are stationed; (2) the activities of foreign intelligence
organizations in those countries; and they are required to
assist the State Department missions in obtaining facts to
enable the missions to pass upon applications for visas and
passports, as well as in such special assignments of a
factual character which the missions may give to X–2 representatives. To some
extent X–2 still “vets;” that
is, checks upon the security as disclosed by files of
persons to be employed by SSU openly or as agents.SI: SI appears to be engaged
specifically in investigations of a technical and political
character. The technical work includes investigations into
the atomic energy problem in cooperation with the Manhattan
District. The Committee, however, has made no attempt to
evaluate this work or to consult with the Manhattan District
with respect to it.It is quite clear to the Committee that much of the
distribution of tasks between SI and X–2 is
casual and fortuitous depending on the contacts made by the
field representatives rather than upon a clear division of
authority. It is also clear that General Magruder, in view
of the lessening distinction between the two branches, is
attempting to fuse them together, at least in
Washington.
D. Resources and Facilities: From a housekeeping
standpoint, the Committee has been informed and believes that SSU has equipment sufficient to handle up to
3,000 employees. Unnecessary equipment and facilities such as those used in the other operations
of OSS which have been abolished, is being
disposed of, we were told. The chief assets of SSU are, therefore, its registries and files, and a small
amount of special equipment which may be useful for future clandestine
operations.
1. Files: The intelligence files of SSU naturally relate mainly to the Axis
problem. They include carded information on individuals and organizations
(deriving from British and Allied sources and from X–2 experience); studies and reports made by SI and X–2
personnel; cables and other communications of information; lists of names of
foreign agents and suspects in the subversive field in foreign countries,
and the like. Studies have also been made, and are being made, of such
current problems as Soviet infiltration and regional political activities.
The operational files include rosters of former employees of OSS here and abroad, with personnel and
biographical data that may be useful for future recruitment and
investigation.
While the Committee was not authorized by CIG
Directive No. 1 to conduct an examination into the Research and Analysis and
Presentation Branches of OSS transferred to
the State Department, the Committee deems it desirable to note that the
files of those branches bear an important relation to the usefulness and
value of the files of SSU. This fact arises
from two causes: (1) During the existence of OSS, R&A was closely
geared to the secret intelligence branches as their chief customer and their
chief guide in the selection and pursuit of secret intelligence targets and
the evaluation of secret intelligence information; the total of OSS information in this respect is, therefore,
the sum of the files of SSU and of the files
of R&A, at least as of October 1,
1945, when the two organizations were separated; (2) A working arrangement
exists, the Committee has been informed, between the SI and R&A by which the
files of R&A up to October 1, 1945,
are available to SI; indeed interchange of
accession materials and to some extent mutual consultation continue between
SSU and R&A personnel.
The Committee notes further that files of other branches, now dissolved, of
OSS including especially personnel
rosters and reports on experience in clandestine operations are important
and should be considered as among the valuable assets of SSU.
2. Equipment: The laboratory equipment of the
Reproduction Branch (see Tab E—Services), it is understood, has been
transferred to the State Department. Should this transfer be reconsidered,
the Committee notes that the plant is apparently of unusual value, and
well-suited for exploitation by any organization characterized by a high
degree of security in its operations and its literary production, at least
from external appearance and the assurance of its directors.
The small laboratory facilities and intelligence collections of the Cover and
Documentation Section (see Tab E—Operational Auxiliaries Branch) are likewise of considerable
intelligence value, and particularly suited to any organization concerned
with future clandestine intelligence operations.
The remaining equipment, such as vehicles and the like, are easily the
subject of ordinary Government procedures of transfer and liquidation.
E. Evaluation of SSU:
Individual members of the Committee have obtained oral or written statements
from representatives of agencies which are serving as customers for the
SSU production. (See Tab E.) The
agencies consulted were the State Department, particularly the former R&A Branch of OSS, and the Economic Security Division, G–2, A–2 and ONI. It appears
quite clear from these evaluations that SSU
has been producing intelligence materials of definite value to sections in
the agencies mentioned and that any cessation in the gathering and
dissemination of such intelligence would definitely impair the work of the
customer agencies. It may be pointed out, however, that (1) in some
agencies, such as R&A in the State
Department, an impairment would be suffered also by the “going underground”
of SSU since much of the value of SSU is said to lie in the close personal
interchanges between individuals in both agencies; (2) much of the product
of SSU is not obtained clandestinely at the
present time and might well be obtained by other agencies working overtly
should SSU “go underground”—as, for example,
the interviewing of political figures, the collection of newspaper clippings
and like services not now being performed for various reasons by diplomatic
missions or other U.S. representatives abroad; (3) the product of SSU has been diminishing in quantity in many
areas and in any event is of variable quality and would stand considerable
improvement.
F. Security of Personnel: The Committee has been
assured by various supervisory officials of SSU and particularly by the Chief of the Security Section that
the loyalty of the present SSU staff is on
the whole unquestioned. However, there are several qualifications to this
conclusion: Personnel originally recruited by OSS was not subjected to any rigorous personnel
security investigation; some of this personnel is still in SSU.Some of the personnel now in the R&A Branch (transferred to the State Department),
which maintains close liaison in various ways with the personnel of
SSU and is the chief customer of
SSU intelligence procurement,
has definitely been questioned as to bias in security investigations
already conducted.Security checks within OSS were
first begun some time after the formation of the original
organization; but clearances were made in many instances on the
basis of checks by other organizations of the Government, such as
the Civil Service Commission, and with respect to the thoroughness of such
investigations by third party organizations the Chief of the
Security Section reserves his own judgment.The personnel policies of SSU,
being directed toward the procurement of specialists and experts in
specific German, Italian, and Japanese problems, are necessarily
fundamentally different from the policies of any future organization
for clandestine intelligence directed toward different ideological
targets.
It follows therefore that the personnel of any new organization built out of
SSU elements should be selected on a
case by case basis, with reexamination, in the light of new formulations of
security policies, of each employee.
III. Conclusions and Comments.
The Committee’s Assumptions. In performing the
mission outlined in CIG Directive No. 1,
the Committee found it necessary to proceed from certain assumptions: Three possibilities were presented as alternative
recommendations with regard to the distribution of the essential
operating functions and the usable resources and facilities of
SSU:These could be transferred to the Central Intelligence
Group as a going concern to form the nucleus of
permanent future CIG
operations (as envisaged by paragraph 3 of the
President’s letter of January 22, 1946);Document
71.They could be offered in whole or in part for
distribution among existing intelligence authorities to
be continued so far as convenient and possible in the
national interest;They could be completely terminated, all personnel
being recalled and dismissed, permitting the CIG and other interested
agencies to make individual arrangements for the
recruitment of likely personnel and providing for the
distribution of files and equipment among interested
government agencies.These possibilities permitted such practical alternatives as
the abolition of SI, the transfer
of X–2 to the State Department,
transfer of specialized equipment to Governmental research
laboratories, etc.In determining which of these solutions should be recommended
the Committee was impressed by several paramount considerations: There is immediate need for the continued maintenance
of foreign intelligence coverage throughout the world
and for the implementation of clandestine and
semi-clandestine operations in the areas hitherto
covered by SSU. The
national interest in an emergency sense rather than in ideal long
term conditions seemed more determinative to the
Committee.No other intelligence authority has been established
with appropriate directions to perform throughout the
world the functions of the character of those performed
by SSU and there is no
other operating unit presently directly available to the
Director of Central Intelligence for the collection,
evaluation and dissemination of clandestine
intelligence, nor has any long term decision on policy
and operations been made by the National Intelligence
Authority.The present SSU
organization is geared to perform a minimum job in this
field; it has plans and personnel with experience in the
area and in the subject matter and it is a going
concern, equipped with auxiliary services.Conclusions:The Committee, concerned with SSU alone and what the Committee conceives to be
the national interest and the preservation of existing
organization and facilities for tapping foreign intelligence
systems, is therefore led to the conclusion that the present
SSU organization provides a
going concern for operations in this field. The problems facing
this country are of an emergency nature. The CIG has no alternative organization
now in the most important field of necessary operation. The
Committee freely concedes that the organization has defects and
deficiencies and its continuance will require administrative
decisions with respect to jurisdictional demarcations of other
Governmental agencies concerned with aspects of foreign
intelligence. On balance, therefore, the Committee has concluded
that the elements of value to the Government at the present time
outweigh deficiencies.Until, therefore, a long term plan is evolved the Committee
believes the present SSU
organization should be placed under CIG and properly and closely supervised, pruned and
rebuilt, should function under specific directives in selected
and clearly defined fields of vital interest to the United
States in which clandestine operations and planning for
clandestine operations are deemed necessary.The Committee is aware that other intelligence gathering
agencies of the Government with contacts in the foreign field
exist—the Foreign Service, the Military, Naval and Air Attaché
services and particularly FBI.
It does not believe, however, that it is for the Committee to
determine what extensions to the present functions of these
agencies should be recommended especially since the Committee
has not undertaken or been authorized to survey any of these
intelligence agencies.Jurisdictional Conflicts: The Committee is
aware, however, of the possibility of some jurisdictional
inconsistencies and conflicts. With respect to those activities which
FBI has been reportedly performing
for the diplomatic missions in the Western Hemisphere and X–2 has been performing in the Eastern Hemisphere, it is
desirable that an early arrangement be made between the Secretary of
State, the Department of Justice (and the Director of the FBI) and the Director of CIG, reconsidering the division now
existing on a geographic basis of analogous functions between the two
organizations. The subject is of importance to CIG in the clandestine problem since attachment to
diplomatic missions is claimed to provide a secure channel of
communications and protection for files as well as diplomatic immunity
to key operators. A clear demarcation in the field between the activities of the
auxiliary mission members—such as the activities of the military
services—and SSU is needed; but
the Committee concludes that a closer integration of directives,
guidance and coordination of SSU
in Washington and in the field are of greater importance for the
success of the SSU
effort.The Committee believes that further consideration should be
given to a plan which will permit the special development of
purely clandestine intelligence operations under the CIG in close coordination with the
total needs of CIG for foreign
intelligence by whatever means obtained, leaving more overt
United States Governmental intelligence collection activities to
other agencies prepared and authorized to act in the field with
a minimum of embarrassment to the United States.Immediate Directives: The directives for
immediate operations to the present SSU
group, under CIG, should, based on a
quick canvass overall of needs for information from sources not
otherwise available, concentrate on: Current activities of the Soviet Union and its
satellites.The preparation of plans for long term penetration by various
devices of the key institutions of the Soviet Union and its
satellites for information of a security nature and aid to
possible military operations of the United States.The observation and reporting of Soviet activities in other
countries, through liaison with other intelligence agencies and
the like.The preparation of plans, and inauguration of operations, for
sleeper intelligence networks in the period following the
removal of American military intelligence authorities from
Germany and Japan, with specific interest in resurgence of
German and Japanese aggression and violation of American
controls.Liquidation Procedure: The Committee believes
that the SSU liquidation should continue
substantially as proposed by General
Magruder in his draft letter for the signature of the
Secretary of War.Document 95. However, the Director of Central
Intelligence should take over the responsibility and complete authority
for the direction of the liquidation, the transfer of such personnel and facilities to the
Central Intelligence Group as he desires and the terms upon which new
employment shall be provided.Budgetary: The Committee is aware that the
assumption by CIG of operational
functions will require that at an early stage CIG undertake the duty of preparing the budgets, seeking
funds and defending budgetary requests before the Bureau of the Budget
and committees of Congress. The Committee does not believe that in the
long run CIG can or should rely solely
on other departments in such matters. Nevertheless, the Committee
believes that the War Department should continue to provide the funds
necessary both for the SSU liquidation
and for the current operations to be carried on, until such time as
CIG is in a position to present and
defend a cohesive program under established procedures and as a going
concern. The Committee is led to this conclusion chiefly by three
considerations: Practically speaking, it would be difficult to separate the
liquidation financing from the current operation financing
during the period of liquidation of SSU; since the War Department has already allocated
funds for this purpose the Committee believes these funds should
be so spent.The current operations to be carried on beyond the fiscal year
are so akin to proper continuing War Department functions that
it is believed that the War Department should ask for and make
available to CIG the funds
proposed by SSU to War
Department for the fiscal year 1947.It is of great importance that so far as it is possible under
the law the amount of governmental expenditures for secret
intelligence and the nature of the items of expenditures should
be concealed. The War Department Budget is especially suited for
this purpose.The Committee is recommending, therefore, that by appropriate
arrangements between the Director of Central Intelligence and the
Secretary of War the War Department’s handling of all budget figures,
supporting data and breakdown of items and expenditures be under
conditions of secrecy and in accordance with the desires of the Director
of Central Intelligence. A budget for SSU has already been prepared and accepted by the budgetary
authorities of the War Department for the fiscal year 1947. The
Committee concludes that this budget should for the time being be
adopted (see Tab E). Internal Reorganization: Internally the SSU organization should be reorganized with
a view to redistribution of field personnel for the accomplishment of
the above mentioned missions, the pruning of administrative personnel in
Washington, and the closer coordination of the research and other
activities of the Government with the SSU organization through CIG. The Committee emphasizes the need for security both as
to the existence of the CIG operation
and to its activities.
For this purpose, the Director of CIG should
appoint his own staff for change-over and determination of liquidation items
and procedures, to work closely with General
Magruder and his office.
The Committee emphasizes the necessity for removing all personnel of CIG from Civil Service control (substituting,
however, at least equivalent protections) and recommends that procedural
problems in effecting such a decision should be further explored with
appropriate authorities. The problem of financing, transfer of budget
allocations and the like should also be considered with special emphasis on
operating completely on unvouchered funds with substantially, however, the
same internal control as that provided by the unvouchered funds arrangement
of SSU.
The security functions within the new unit should be emphasized with a
reorientation in terms of the new problems facing the CIG and personnel chosen for transfer to CIG should be hired on an individual basis with
de novo security checks in each case.
IV. Recommendations.
The Committee recommends that:The Secretary of War turn over the liquidation and further
disposition of the resources, facilities, operating functions and
personnel of SSU to the Director of
Central Intelligence, and for this purpose the Secretary of War be
requested to communicate to the Director of SSU an instruction substantially in the form of Exhibit
A.Probably the attachment
designated as “Exhibit A.” See the Supplement.The Director of SSU continue the
liquidation of SSU as speedily as
possible under the supervision of the Director of Central
Intelligence.
The Director of Central Intelligence designate one or more
assistants (a) to effect, in consultation with the Director of
SSU, an orderly liquidation
coordinated with further CIG
operations, and (b) to incorporate functions, personnel,
resources and facilities as a branch of CIG to execute such directives as the Director of
CIG with appropriate
approval may issue. These assistants should include:A deputy for the management of the staff and field
operations;A security and personnel chief;A planning chief; andAn operations chief.
None of these assistants should be drawn from
the personnel of SSU but they
should utilize existing SSU
staff to the extent deemed advisable and should coordinate their
activities with the policy and directives of NIA and CIG.
The Director of CIG issue
operating directives to the working organization along the lines and
in the order of priority indicated in paragraph 4 (d) of the “Conclusions and
Comments” section above in this report.With respect to budgetary implementation, the War Department
continue to assume full budgetary responsibility for the liquidation
of SSU and the current operations
herein recommended as follows: Out of War Department funds, as already agreed between the
Director of SSU and the War
Department, to the end of the fiscal year 1946.Obtaining appropriations in the name of the War Department
for the fiscal year 1947 in line with the budget
recommendations previously submitted by SSU for that fiscal year and
accepted by the budget authorities of the War
Department.Keeping secret, as far as possible under the law, the
existence, amounts and nature of the items of requests,
appropriations and expenditures, all handling thereof and
consultation thereon being in accordance with the desires of
the Director of Central Intelligence.The Director of CIG make
appropriate Civil Service and internal budgetary arrangements to
invest the personnel and operations of the new organization with the
maximum of security, secrecy and control;That all action taken hereunder be secret so far as
permissible.
Louis J. FortierColonel, FARepresenting CIGSamuel KlausRepresenting Dept. of StateS. P. WalkerColonel, GSC Representing G-2, WD Thomas F. CullenCapt., USNRRepresenting ONI R. H. Boberg Colonel, AACRepresenting A-2
106. National Intelligence Directive No. 4Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132. Confidential.
The draft version of the directive was discussed at the IAB meeting on March 26 (see Document 144) and at the NIA meeting on April 2 (see Document 145).Washington, April 2, 1946.
POLICY ON LIQUIDATION OF THE STRATEGIC SERVICES UNIT
REFERENCES
The Executive Order of 20 September 1945, subject: “Termination of the
Office of Strategic Services and Disposition of Its Functions”C.I.G. Directive No. 1Document
105.
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the letter from the President dated 22 January
1946 which designated this Authority as responsible for planning, developing
and coordinating the Federal foreign intelligence activities so as to assure
the most effective accomplishment of the intelligence mission related to the
national security,Document
71. the following policies and procedures relating to
the liquidation of the Strategic Services Unit (SSU) are announced:The national interest demands that the complete liquidation of
SSU shall not be accomplished
until it is determined which of its functions and activities are
required for the permanent Federal foreign intelligence program, and
should therefore be transferred to the Central Intelligence Group or
other agencies in order that its useful assets may not be lost. Such
determination and transfers shall be made and the liquidation of the
remainder of SSU shall be completed
as promptly as possible and prior to 1 July 1947. The Director of
Central Intelligence shall issue the necessary directives to effect
the liquidation. He will make recommendations to this Authority as
to the intelligence activities permanently required in the
peace-time effort.During the period of liquidation the SSU should be administered and operated so as to
service,At the NIA meeting on April 2, Secretary
of War Patterson
suggested at this point the insertion of the phrase “within your
capabilities.” The NIA approved,
but the language apparently was subsequently modified to read
“to the extent practicable.” See Document
145. to the extent practicable, the
intelligence agencies subject to our coordination. The Director of
Central Intelligence shall issue the necessary directives to the
Director of SSU required to
accomplish this mission. In addition, the Director of SSU will make available to the Director
of Central Intelligence, upon his request, any facilities and services of SSU which may be useful in the
performance of an authorized function of the Central Intelligence
Group.The Director of Central Intelligence will be responsible for
determining which funds, personnel and facilities of SSU are required for the performance of
an authorized function of the Central Intelligence Group. Such
funds, personnel and facilities of SSU will then be transferred to an appropriate War
Department unit. The Director of Central Intelligence will be
responsible for making the necessary administrative arrangements and
for issuing the necessary directives to the Director of SSU.The War Department will take the necessary budgetary action to
carry out this program.The War Department shall retain the right to determine what
portion of War Department funds, personnel and facilities can be
made available to SSU by the War
Department.
107. Memorandum From Acting Secretary of War Petersen to the Director of the Strategic
Services Unit, Department of War (Quinn)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Leahy Papers, No. 130.
Confidential. The version printed was distributed as Enclosure A to
CIG Directive No. 6 of April 8. See
the Supplement. Colonel William W. Quinn had just
succeeded Magruder as Director
of the SSU. (SSU General Orders No. 11, April 4; Central Intelligence
Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–601, Job 83–00036, Box 4, Folder 9) See
the Supplement.Washington, April 3, 1946.
Effective immediately, you are directed to continue the liquidation of the
Strategic Services Unit (SSU) as ordered in
paragraph 3 of the Executive Order dated 20 September 1945, subject:
“Termination of the Office of Strategic Services and Disposition of Its
Functions.” The liquidation will be completed not later than 30 June
1947.
The liquidation of SSU will be coordinated
with the development of the permanent peace-time intelligence program. You
will carry out the liquidation in accordance with instructions of the
Director of Central Intelligence or his designated representative. The
Director or his representative will deal directly with you. He will have
such staff as he requires working with SSU.
During the period of liquidation you will administer and operate the SSU so as to service, within your capabilities,
the intelligence agencies subject to coordination by the National
Intelligence Authority in accordance with directives provided by the
Director of Central Intelligence or his designated representative. In
addition, you will make available, within your capabilities, to the Director
of Central Intelligence, upon his request, any facilities and services of
SSU which may be useful in the
performance of an authorized function of the Central Intelligence Group.
Previous War Department instructions relating to this problem are amended
accordingly.
Howard C. PetersenPrinted from a copy that
indicates Petersen signed the
original.
108. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Souers) to the Director of
the Strategic Services Unit, Department of War (Quinn)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy
Papers, No. 130. Top Secret. The version printed was distributed as
Enclosure B to CIG Directive No. 6,
April 8. See the Supplement.Washington, April 4, 1946.
SUBJECT
Initial Directive
REFERENCE
N.I.A. Directive No. 4Document
106.
Pursuant to the provisions of N.I.A.
Directive No. 4, dated 2 April 1946, it is hereby directed that you
administer and operate the Strategic Services Unit, War Department, in
accordance with the initial policies set forth herein:
1. Operations.
Until otherwise directed, you will continue such operations, services
and liaisons considered absolutely essential to United States Armies abroad,The United States sections of Allied Control
Commissions,Diplomatic missions,Departmental agencies in the United States now being
served.You will perform such collecting missions, distribution, and other
intelligence services as may be ordered from time to time by my
representative.Nothing contained in sub-paragraph 1–a will be construed as an
authority for any expansion of the functions and facilities now
operating, nor will additional personnel be assigned to duty outside the
continental limits of the United States without the approval of my
senior representative.
2. Administration.
You will continue the orderly liquidation of the Strategic Services
Unit.You will furnish the administrative support to Operations indicated in
paragraph 1.You will furnish such administrative support to the Central
Intelligence Group as may be called for by my representative.You will provide the necessary administrative facilities to effect the
transition of personnel, funds, and communications, records, services
and facilities, with the necessary means of maintenance, from SSU to an appropriate group in the War
Department or to other appropriate agencies, as subsequently
determined.
3. Command Liaison.
Colonel Louis J. Fortier, USA,
Assistant Director and Acting Chief of Operational Services, C.I.G., is designated as my senior
representative. Further directives and orders will be issued to you by me or
by my senior representative. You will keep my senior representative informed
of the progress of the mission outlined herein. Captain Thomas F.
Cullen, USNR, will be his deputy.
Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that
indicates Souers signed the
original.
109. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Souers) to President
TrumanSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–2227, Job 83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3. No
classification marking.Washington, April 17, 1946.
It has come to my attention that a three million dollar item in the Federal
Bureau of Investigation appropriation for the coming year has been
eliminated because the Congressional Committee believed that it did not meet
with your desire that the Federal Bureau of Investigation [not?] engage in
activities beyond the continental limits.
It is of the utmost urgency that the Federal Bureau of Investigation be
permitted to continue its security functions whose ramifications extend into
foreign areas. At the present time the Federal Bureau of Investigation has
representatives in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, in London,
Paris, Rome, Manila, Tokyo, and in the American Zone in Germany.
The security mission which it performs may be illustrated by the Canadian
investigation in Ottawa which reaches into the United States as well as
England. They are engaged in other investigations which reach from South
American countries into Europe. It is difficult for them to begin these
matters at the continental borders but essential that they should initiate
their investigations at the sources from which the activities emanate.
Approval is requested for the continuance of this function.
Respectfully submitted,
Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
110. Letter From the Director of Central Intelligence (Souers) to the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Hoover)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–2227, Job
83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3. Secret; Personal.Washington, April 19, 1946.
Dear Mr. Hoover: With reference to your letter of April 16Not found. concerning your Special
Intelligence Service in the Western Hemisphere, I have been informed at the
White House that the President has passed the word to the Congressional
committee that it is his desire that this activity be continued by you. I
have also been informed by members of the Appropriations Sub-Committee that
the item covering these activities will be inserted in your Appropriations
Act in an appropriate manner.
This should clear up the confusion which developed.
With all good wishes,
Sincerely,
Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
111. Memorandum From the Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (Ladd) to
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Hoover)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, FBI Documents. No classification marking.Washington, May 14, 1946.
SUBJECT
National Intelligence Authority
I attended another meeting of the Central Intelligence Group of the National
Intelligence Authority on the afternoon of May 14, 1946. On this occasion,
as I advised you in my memorandum of May 13, 1946,Neither this memorandum nor the draft “interim
agreement” subsequently mentioned have been found. a preliminary
draft was drawn up of an
interim agreement for the handling of the intelligence coverage for the
world on an interim basis. In this directive as presently drawn, it is
recommended that those activities of SSU in
Central Europe, but not the Balkans, be transferred in toto to G-2 of the Theater Command for the use of the
military government.
It is further provided that G–2 will cover
world-wide intelligence on an interim basis, this to be decreased and turned
over to the FBI at such time as the FBI is ready to assume world-wide intelligence
coverage.
It is provided that ONI shall have world-wide
coverage for the purpose of obtaining naval intelligence material.
It is provided that G–2 have world-wide
coverage for obtaining military intelligence.
It is proposed that the FBI continue in the
Western Hemisphere for the fiscal year 1948 as at present, covering
economic, financial, political, and subversive matters, and that it expand
its operations to world-wide coverage at the earliest practical date, and
that a new Delimitation Agreement be drawn up between ONI, G–2, and
the FBI to be concurred in by the Director
of the National Intelligence Authority, delimiting and removing G–2 from all except the military intelligence
field at such time as the FBI is able to
assume jurisdiction in any given area.
It is also provided that the intelligence activities be coordinated by a head
to be designated by the Director of the National Intelligence Authority
which is to be concurred in by the Directors of the FBI, G–2, and ONI, and the head of Foreign Correlation of the
State Department (this would be Fred
Lyon), that this head when appointed should be assisted by a
subcommittee on a permanent basis representing G–2, ONI, the head of Foreign
Correlation of the State Department (Fred
Lyon), and an Assistant Director of the FBI.At this point
there is a marginal note in Hoover’s handwriting asking “What is to be the purpose
of this?” and suggesting that “just another position” or “more ‘brass’”
was being created. Hoover added
that he thought Souers was
supposed to be in charge.
A further meeting of the Central Intelligence Group is planned for 3:30 PM,
Wednesday, May 15, 1946, for the purpose of going over the final draft of
this proposal. It is pointed out in this proposal that the reason for the
urgency is the fact that the various agencies will have to prepare in the
immediate future their budget requests for 1948. It is also set forth in
this directive that the activities of SSU
shall be completely liquidated throughout the world; including their
Washington, D.C., staff, at the earliest practicable date, within 90 days if
possible, and that the files of X–2 shall be
turned over to the nearest American Consulate inasmuch as the State
Department advises they are valuable for reference purposes in granting
visas. The files in Washington are to be turned over to the Central Intelligence Group for such disposal
as the Group will deem necessary after a study of these records.
As a matter of interest, Colonel Cunningham stated at
this meeting that on the Monday following the newspaper article by
Stuart Alsop relative to the directive liquidating
SSU and recommending the FBI for world-wide coverage, Jimmy
Murphy of SSU was fired. The
reason for this was that it had been learned that he had arranged for a
subordinate official of SSU to plant the
story with Alsop in order that that article might be
written.
There is no use providing for FBI to take
over or assume world-wide intelligence coverage for we are not going to do
it. The most I will agree to now is to stay in the Western Hem. for 1 year.
I am more & more certain that this is a project we must get out of. The
trouble we had in Germany; Japan; & refusal of Souers to supply us with daily
Int.[elligence] Survey; & Inglis
protest re. Amer. Mag. article based on an agreement entered into with
British unbeknowing to us—all tend to show what a headache we would have. We
would be carrying most of the work with none of the full authority to get it
done properly.The last paragraph was
handwritten by Hoover.
112. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Controls (Lyon) to the Chief of the
Division of Foreign Activity Correlation (Neal)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Intelligence Files, Bureau of Administration,
1942–51: Lot 79 D 137, Folder SSU, Box
2. Secret.Washington, July 1, 1946.
Jack:
I met with General Vandenberg Vandenberg
became Director of Central Intelligence June 10. the
afternoon of June 28. During the conversation the subject of cover for
SSU came up.
The General told me he was the first to recognize the dangers inherent in any
system of State Department cover. He said, however, that in his opinion
there would be several cases where it would be practically imperative to
have such cover. He told me he would see to it that the requests for cover were kept to a minimum. He
suggested that he be permitted to make all such requests directly to me
rather than through any other channel in the Department. I explained to him
the difficulties we had encountered within the Department in obtaining
agreement on cover. He seemed to be aware of these complications and
obstacles.
He told me he had very concise ideas concerning the organization that would
be required to handle the CIG work. His
plans call for the complete liquidation of OSS but he intends to use certain of the talent developed by
them during the war. At the moment, it is contemplated that SSU will be operated by CIG. In other words, this is a departure from the original
plans for CIG, i.e., they are to become an
operating as well as a coordinating agency. Of particular interest was his
statement to me that he intended to use to a greater extent the Office of
Controls and FC in particular, rather than go
through some of the other channels that had been established by Colonel
McCormack.
I give you the above for your information and for discussion with me when we
get together after the leave period.
113. Letter From the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg) to the Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Hoover)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–2227, Job
83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3. Top Secret.Washington, July 3, 1946.
Dear Mr. Hoover: I deeply appreciate your cooperation in
expressing approval of my proposed N.I.A.
Directive in your letter of 2 July.Not found,
but quoted in full in Ladd’s July
22 memorandum to Hoover.
(National Archives and Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the
Central Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers, FBI Documents) See the Supplement. The
proposed NIA Directive is National
Intelligence Authority Directive No. 5, Document
160.
With reference to your comments on the statement contained in the Discussion
to N.I.A. 4, you will note that it was
amended to read as follows:
“This does not, of course, preclude the use of specialized
departmental personnel under rigid central control as mutually
agreed to by the Director of Central Intelligence and authorized
departmental officials.”
This amended version was intended to clarify the meaning of
the sentence in view of the point which you raised your letter of 25
June.Not found, but quoted in full in
Ladd’s July 22 memorandum to
Hoover; see footnote 1 above. It is my intention
to employ in the operation in question the best qualified personnel from all
possible sources. It is therefore entirely conceivable that I would like to
use on specific missions specially qualified personnel of Government
departments other than State, War and Navy. I realize, however, that any
such arrangement would have to be agreed to by the responsible officials of
those departments, as indicated in the above amended sentence. I hope that
this amendment clarifies the meaning to your satisfaction.
With reference to the second paragraph of your letter of 2 July, I am very
pleased to concur in your offer to withdraw from Central and South America
provided you are willing to postpone withdrawal until the Central
Intelligence Group is adequately organized and staffed so that we may
arrange an orderly transfer with a minimum of interruption. As evidenced by
N.I.A. support for your 1947 budget for
this activity, it is anticipated that this will involve continued coverage
of that area by you for the better part of that fiscal year. With your
cooperation to this extent, I am sure that we can work out an orderly
transition. I also hope to discuss with you at some later date the
possibility of my utilizing the services of some of your experienced
personnel.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Very truly yours,
Hoyt S. VandenbergPrinted from a copy that
indicates Vandenberg signed
the original.Lieutenant General, USA
114. Memorandum by the Director of Central Intelligence’s Executive
(Wright)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–2154, Job 83–00739R, Box 3, Folder 19. Secret.
The memorandum is addressed to “All C.I.G. Personnel Concerned.”Washington, July 11, 1946.
SUBJECT
Activation of the Office of Special Operations
REFERENCE
N.I.A. Directive No. 5The Office of Special Operations is activated this date.This Office will be responsible for the performance of the functions
assigned to the Director of Central Intelligence in paragraph 4–a of
N.I.A. Directive No. 5.Paragraph 4–a of NIA Directive No. 5 made the Director of Central
Intelligence responsible for the “Conduct of all organized Federal
espionage and counter-espionage operations outside the United States
and its possessions for the collection of foreign intelligence
information required for the national security.”The Office of Special Operations will be organized and operated as
directed by the Director of Central Intelligence.Colonel Louis J. Fortier,
USA, is relieved from duty as Assistant Director and Acting Chief of
Operational Services and assigned to the Office of the Director pending
relief from assignment to the Central Intelligence Group.Colonel Donald H. Galloway,
USA, is announced as Assistant Director for Special Operations in charge
of the Office of Special Operations.Captain William B. Goggins, USA, is relieved from
duty as Assistant Director and Acting Chief of the Central Planning
Staff and is assigned as Deputy Assistant Director for Special
Operations.Mr. Kingman Douglass is relieved from duty as
Assistant Director and Acting Deputy Director and is assigned as “B”
Deputy for Special Operations.The following personnel are assigned to duties as indicated below: Commander George B. McManus, USNR, Office
“B” Deputy for Special OperationsMr. Richard H. Crowe; Office “B” Deputy
for Special OperationsMr. Walter Pforzheimer,
Administrative DivisionMiss M. Gertrude Dove, Administrative
DivisionFor the Director of Central Intelligence:E.K.
WrightPrinted from a
copy that indicates Wright
signed the original.Colonel,
GSC
115. Letter From the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg) to the Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Hoover)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–2227, Job
83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3. Top Secret. The letter is dated July 19,
1946, which has been changed by hand to July 22. The latter date, in
turn, has been annotated by hand, “must be [July] 19.”Washington, July 19, 1946.
My Dear Mr. Hoover: I acknowledge receipt of your letters of
July 8Not found, but quoted in full in a July
22 memorandum from Ladd to
Hoover; see footnote 1, Document 113. and July
15, 1946.Not found.
I appreciate very much your offer of assistance and the suggestion that we
work out immediately a program for the transfer of secret intelligence
responsibilities in Central and South America. Accordingly, I designated
certain officials, who have conferred with Mr. E.A. Tamm on 18 July, to discuss the general policies for
this transfer, the details of which will be developed in subsequent
conferences.See the July 18 memorandum from
Galloway to Vandenberg and a July 17 memorandum
from Galloway to Tamm (both in Central Intelligence
Agency Files, HS/CSG–2227, Job 83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3) in the
Supplement. It is understood that Mr. Tamm will furnish the names of your representatives, and
designate the time when these conferences can commence.
In the discharge of its intelligence functions, FBI has acquired many advantages which will facilitate
uninterrupted continuance of intelligence operations. Since our immediate
aim is to relieve FBI at the earliest
possible date, I believe it essential that the accomplishments of FBI in gathering intelligence information, and
administrative facilities be made available to CIG insofar as is practicable. With this principle, I am
certain that I have your agreement and cooperation.
Since FBI has the authority and
responsibility to conduct intelligence operations in this area until June
30, 1947, unless previously
relieved by CIG, I recommend that your field
staff be maintained at the level you determine necessary for operations
until we advise that withdrawal is feasible. As agreed, I have designated
representatives who will study existing FBI
coverage and collaborate with your own officials in devising an orderly
detailed plan for transfer. It is my recommendation that FBI personnel should remain at each field
station for a time after the arrival of my representatives in order that the
successors may enjoy the benefits of the Bureau’s experience in each
country.
Copies of intelligence reports in the field and in Washington, prepared by
the FBI, would be of the greatest value to
CIG. It was agreed that field reports
would be turned over to my representatives. I am confident that specific
reports in your Washington Office will be made available to me whenever we
consider it necessary. Our field officers should also be acquainted by your
special agents with local contacts and sources of information which you have
developed, and arrangements worked out for possible further utilization of
these persons. Your advice on the handling of such informants, and
safeguards against untrustworthy individuals, will be greatly appreciated.
It is understood that these details are agreeable to you.
Administrative facilities now existing in the field will be of considerable
advantage to the continuance of operations. I refer to office furniture and
equipment, vehicles, radio communication apparatus, and the like. To replace
such equipment would entail delay which would be difficult to justify. It is
understood that such a transfer is agreeable to you except in the case of
photographic equipment, and I concur in your retention of this apparatus. I
will also arrange replacement in kind locally for the radio communication
apparatus which you will leave in the various stations, as agreed upon.
With regard to your letter of July 15, 1946, I request that you reconsider
the withdrawal of your personnel in the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica.
It would be most unfortunate to leave these posts vacant even for a short
time. I am sure our representatives can devise an early relief for these
particular posts and I am confident you will agree to this.
In outlining the general policies and agreements herein, I have stressed the
principle of orderly withdrawal without hiatus, bearing in mind our several
responsibilities to the Government in this important work. You and your
representatives have been most cooperative and I desire to express my
sincere appreciation.
With all good wishes,
Sincerely yours,
Hoyt S. VandenbergPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Lieutenant General, USA
116. Letter From the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(Hoover) to the
Assistant Secretary of State for American Republic Affairs (Braden)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49,
101.5/7–2246. Personal and Confidential.Washington, July 22, 1946.
My Dear Mr. Braden: I am informed that a circular wire was sent to
all Ambassadors in Latin America by the State Department concerning the
plans of the Central Intelligence Group for taking over intelligence
coverage in Latin America and the withdrawal of the FBI from that field.Not
found. I have noted that the Ambassadors were informed that in
view of the forthcoming taking over by the new organization on a world-wide
basis, it is my opinion that all FBI
personnel be withdrawn from Latin America. I wish to advise that this is not
entirely accurate. When the Federal Bureau of Investigation secured its
appropriation for the operation of the Special Intelligence Service in Latin
America during the fiscal year 1947, the Central Intelligence Group did not
have a field operating unit and it was not understood that they planned to
set up such a unit. Upon learning of the issuance of the directive by the
National Intelligence Authority authorizing the Central Intelligence Group
to set up a field force for the purpose of securing intelligence on a
world-wide basis, I wrote General
Vandenberg, the head of Central Intelligence, inquiring as to
whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation should withdraw from the Latin
American Intelligence field. General
Vandenberg advised that it was the desire of the Central
Intelligence to take over the Latin American coverage and it was, of course,
necessary for me to make immediate plans for the withdrawal of the FBI personnel now in Latin America.Document 115.
I have also noted that the Ambassadors were informed by the State Department
that a gradual transfer is being proposed of intelligence coverage from the
FBI to the CIG, perhaps with absorption of some of the present FBI personnel into the new Central Intelligence
organization. I must advise that there is no understanding or agreement with
regard to the transfer of FBI personnel to
the CIG and I cannot acquiesce in any such
transfer as there is an urgent need for the trained personnel in Latin
America in connection with the discharge of FBI responsibilities within the United States.
With best wishes and kind regards,
Sincerely yours,
J. Edgar Hoover
117. Memorandum From Acting Secretary of State Acheson to the Members of the
National Intelligence AuthoritySource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/CSG–2227, Job 83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3. Top Secret. Drafted by
E.O. Briggs. Covered by an August 5 note signed
with Acheson’s typed initials,
addressed to Secretaries Forrestal and Patterson and Admiral
Leahy, asking that the memorandum be discussed at the
NIA meeting on August 7. The
covering note also contains a footnote stating that a copy of the
memorandum was given to the CIG
Assistant Director for Special Operations by Assistant Secretary
Braden on August
6.Washington, August 5, 1946.
SUBJECT
Replacement of FBI Personnel in Latin
America by Personnel of the new Central Intelligence Group
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who since 1940 have been performing
security intelligence functions in Latin America are scheduled to be
replaced by personnel of the now Central Intelligence Group under General Vandenberg. A schedule (copy
Attached)Not found Attached to the source
text but probably the same as the schedule Attached to the letter from
Vandenberg to Braden, July 29. (Ibid.) See the
Supplement. has been drawn up by the CIG for discussion with Mr. Hoover, calling for progressive assumption of intelligence
functions between February 15 and May 15, 1947. In the meantime, however,
orders have been transmitted by the FBI
directing that the respective offices be closed and FBI personnel be withdrawn.
There is grave danger in this situation that the excellent FBI organization in Latin America may
disintegrate before it can be taken over by new personnel of the CIG. This would be a major blow to the
effectiveness of our security intelligence work in the Latin American field,
from which it might take us many years to recover.
Since the withdrawal movement started, messages of concern, apprehension or
alarm have been received from every American
Ambassador in Latin America, testifying to the excellent work
accomplished since the establishment of the Legal Attaché service of the
FBI in Latin America, and recommending
with the utmost urgency that the change-over be gradual and orderly. The
Ambassadors have in particular recommended that no FBI personnel be withdrawn until successors have arrived and
have had sufficient time and opportunity to familiarize themselves with the
work.
The Department of State shares in every respect the views expressed by our
Ambassadors in the field. When a similar step was contemplated last year, Secretary Byrnes sent a letter (Top Secret, November
30, 1945—copy enclosed)Not found. to the
then Director of the Bureau of the Budget, in which he stated:
“The situation is so serious…that I recommend as strongly as I can
the immediate provision of sufficient funds to enable the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to maintain its security intelligence
service in the other American republics until a definitive decision
shall have been taken on the over-all integrated intelligence plan
and that plan put in effective
operation.” (Underscoring supplied.)Printed here as italics.
The integrated plan referred to by Secretary Byrnes has now been adopted, but it has not yet been put “in
effective operation”. In order to safeguard the existing organization and to
provide for an orderly transition, it is urgently recommended that a
Presidential directive be sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
covering the following points.
In effecting the transfer of responsibility for security intelligence
operations in Latin America from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
the Central Intelligence Group, it is essential that the turnover be
orderly and that the existing FBI
intelligence organization, together with its facilities, equipment and
records, not be impaired.No FBI personnel now serving in Latin
America should be withdrawn until after replacement CIG personnel have arrived. There should
then be a period of time, deemed by the American Ambassador concerned to
be sufficient, for the new personnel to familiarize themselves with the
nature, scope and details of the work, prior to the departure of FBI personnel.In some cases, present FBI personnel
may desire to transfer to the CIG. This
should be facilitated, and the opportunity should be afforded for all
such personnel considered by CIG to be
qualified to transfer to the CIG
rolls.
I consider the foregoing to be of the utmost urgency and importance in
connection with national security.
118. Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of the National Intelligence
AuthoritySource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132.
Top Secret. The meeting was held at the Department of
State.Washington, August 7, 1946, 10:30
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentActing Secretary of State Dean
Acheson, in the ChairSecretary of War Robert P.
PattersonSecretary of the Navy James
ForrestalFleet Admiral William D.
Leahy, Personal Representative of the PresidentColonel Donald H. Galloway,
USA, representing the Director of Central IntelligenceAlso PresentAssistant Secretary of State Donald
RussellAssistant Secretary of State Spruille
BradenColonel William A. Eddy,
Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and
IntelligenceColonel Charles W. McCarthy, USACaptain Robert L. Dennison, USNSecretariatColonel Donald H. Galloway,
USA, acting for Mr. James S. Lay,
Jr., Secretary,
N.I.A.
1. Withdrawal of F.B.I.
Representatives From Latin America
Mr. Russell stated that the Department
of State was very much concerned over the intention of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to withdraw its representatives from Latin America prior to
the time that the personnel of the Central Intelligence Group could properly
replace them.See Document
117 and the minutes of the third meeting of the Department of
State Advisory Committee on Intelligence, August 6, in the Supplement.
(National Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot
File No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47)
He outlined the understanding of the Department of State that the F.B.I. was obligated to remain in Latin America
until June 30, 1947, if necessary.
Admiral Leahy indicated that that was
the understanding of the National Intelligence Authority, and he was
surprised to learn that the F.B.I. was
withdrawing its representatives from the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica
by August 16. He inquired as to whether or not General Vandenberg had been informed.
Colonel Galloway stated that
General Vandenberg had been
informed and that he had requested the Director of the F.B.I. to reconsider his decision and to retain his personnel until the
C.I.G. representatives could adequately
replace them. However, Mr. Hoover had
informed General Vandenberg that
this was impracticable.
Mr. Braden stated that he had made
efforts to induce the F.B.I. to keep its
personnel in these two countries without avail, and that he had also been
informed, on August 6, that the F.B.I. was
contemplating withdrawing their personnel from Haiti, El Salvador, and
Tegucigalpa on 30 September.
Colonel Galloway informed the N.I.A. that the C.I.G., by withdrawing an operative from a European post, was
prepared to send him immediately to Costa Rica to replace the F.B.I. agent being withdrawn from that
locality; that the Department of State had been advised to this effect, and
that the only thing that was preventing the departure of this C.I.G. operative was the processing of his
papers by the Department of State.
The National Intelligence Authority:
Directed the representative of the Central Intelligence Group to draft a
letter, for the signature of the members of the Authority, to the Attorney
General, requesting him to direct the F.B.I.
to retain its personnel in the Latin American countries to which presently
assigned until C.I.G. personnel could
properly replace them. It was also desired that a period of turnover be
provided for so that the new organization could be properly oriented and be
given contacts in each country.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.
119. Draft Letter From President Truman to Attorney General ClarkSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 83–00764R, Box 1,
Folder 5. No classification marking. According to Document 122, the letter was drafted by Secretary to the
National Intelligence Authority Lay and approved by all members on the understanding
that it would be sent if necessary. It appears that the draft was never
used.Washington, August 7, 1946.
Dear Mr. Attorney General: Under date of August 8,
1946, the members of the National Intelligence Authority communicated to you
a request that the Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel presently
charged with intelligence coverage in Latin America be retained at their posts until the representatives of
the Central Intelligence Group can take over in an orderly and efficient
manner.Document
120.
It is my desire that in the national interest this request be granted.
Sincerely,
Harry S. TrumanPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
120. Letter From the National Intelligence
Authority to Attorney General ClarkSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 83–00764R, Box 1,
Folder 5. Secret. According to Wright’s August 8 memorandum (Document 122) the letter was drafted by the Central
Intelligence Group.Washington, August 8, 1946.
Dear Mr. Attorney General: Pursuant to authority
contained in the President’s directive of 22 January 1946,Document 71. the
National Intelligence Authority has directed the Central Intelligence Group
to assume, by June 30, 1947, the intelligence coverage in Latin America that
is now performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Director of
Central Intelligence, by letter dated 3 July 1946,Document 113.
concurred in the offer of the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to withdraw from Latin America provided Mr. Hoover was willing to postpone withdrawal
until the Central Intelligence Group is adequately organized and staffed to
arrange an orderly transfer with a minimum of interruption.
However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has notified the Department of
State and the Central Intelligence Group that its representatives will be
withdrawn [less than 1 line of source text not
declassified] by August 16, 1946. The Department of State has also
received intimations that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is preparing
to withdraw its representatives from the other Latin American countries
prior to the time that the Central Intelligence Group will be able to
replace them.
The attached tentative scheduleNot printed; see
the Supplement. indicating the dates by which the Central
Intelligence Group is prepared to assume intelligence responsibility in the various countries of Latin
America has today been furnished the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is
requested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation be instructed to retain
its present personnel in the Latin American countries to which presently
assigned until the Central Intelligence Group is able to assume
responsibility. After the arrival of the representatives of the Central
Intelligence Group, the Federal Bureau of Investigation staff must remain
for an adequate period in order that the new organization can profit by the
Bureau’s experience in each country and in order that continuity of
operation may be assured.
The Department of State is at present processing the papers of a C.I.G. representative who is now available to
replace the F.B.I. man in [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] all other
instances, it is imperative that no withdrawals be made until the C.I.G. has an opportunity to satisfactorily
install their personnel.
We are certain that you appreciate the wisdom of this course of action and
feel certain that it meets with the desire of the President of the United
States.
The National Intelligence Authority:Printed
from a copy that indicates the original was signed by Acheson, Patterson, Acting Secretary Sullivan, and Admiral
Leahy.
121. Memorandum From the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(Hoover) to Attorney
General ClarkSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, FBI Documents, Box 8, Folder 18. No classification
marking.Washington, August 8, 1946.
I have been advised by Mr. Tamm of his
discussion today with you relative to the letter addressed to you under date
of August 8th and bearing the signatures of Messrs. Patterson, Acheson and Sullivan
and Admiral Leahy, relative to the
transfer of the intelligence functions performed by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation in Latin America to the Central Intelligence Group.Document 120. I am
addressing to you separately today a memorandum outlining in detail the
developments with reference to
this situation since the Central Intelligence Authority obtained a
Presidential directive establishing itself as an operating unit in the
collection of intelligence information, and General Vandenberg, pursuant to that directive, indicated
his desire to take over the coverage of Latin American intelligence.Dated August 8; not printed. (National Archives
and Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence
Agency, Troy Papers, FBI Document, Box 8, Folder 18) Mr. Tamm has advised me of your desire to agree
to the tentative schedule for the transfer of intelligence functions to
CIG in so far as it is practicable and
possible, in view of your feeling that the President has undoubtedly
approved the attached action recommended by Mr. Patterson and the co-signers representing the State and Navy
Departments and the White House.Document 120.
It is noted that this schedule proposes that the Central Intelligence Group
will take over the coverage of designated Latin American countries on
February 15, 1947, will take over a second group on April 1, 1947, and the
balance of the Latin American countries on May 15, 1947. If you insist on my
complying with this schedule, I will, of course, have no alternative but to
agree to it. I desire to point out to you, however, that I had anticipated
insisting with General Vandenberg
that the Central Intelligence Group take over the first group of offices on
September 15, 1946, a second group on November 1, 1946, and the balance of
the Latin American offices on January 1, 1947. I contemplated this action in
order, first, to return to the domestic service of the FBI as promptly as possible the experienced
Bureau Agents who have been operating the intelligence service in South
America. It is unnecessary for me to point out to you again the dire need
which the Bureau has at this time for special Agents, and I feel that since
the Central Intelligence Group desired to take over the Latin American
coverage, the sooner the Bureau Agents return to their domestic duties, the
better off the Bureau will be.
Since my representatives in Latin America know of the contemplated program of
General Vandenberg—the State
Department has already advised all of its Latin American Ambassadors of the
proposed CIG program—it is a matter of
considerable difficulty to keep the interest of the Bureau personnel in
Latin America at an efficient level. Since these men know that their
assignments as intelligence agents in South America will shortly terminate,
they rapidly, as a matter of human nature, lose interest in a job which they
consider is now finished and their interests naturally turn to their new
assignments and responsibilities in the United States. I feel, consequently,
that the quality of the Bureau’s performance in Latin America will probably
decline because of the diminishing interest on the part of Bureau Agents in
these assignments. I think that in
the interest of efficiency it is highly desirable to transfer these men to
their new duties and the duties in which their interests will now lie as
soon as possible. I think, conversely, it is highly desirable, since the
CIG desires to go into the Latin
American field, that they take over their responsibilities as soon as
possible.
A third element which enters into a decision upon this subject is the fact
that undoubtedly, and despite their assurances to the contrary, the Central
Intelligence Group, will definitely endeavor to proselyte Bureau personnel
presently serving upon intelligence assignments. The Bureau’s
representatives in the Latin American field are men of outstanding
qualifications with exceptional backgrounds and they have performed very
meritorious service in the Latin American field. It is logical to assume
that the Central Intelligence Group will endeavor to secure the services of
these people. I feel that the sooner the Bureau brings these people back to
the United States, the less danger there is of the Bureau’s losing the
services of experienced personnel, which it so vitally requires in the
domestic field at the present time.
I do not believe that the General
Vandenberg group can contend that they are unable to take
over the Latin American intelligence duties until next year because of their
inability to obtain personnel. Certainly when the Bureau was instructed to
establish a Latin American intelligence service, no latitude was allowed for
any extended period of personnel recruitment and the Bureau virtually
overnight placed in the Latin American countries an operating, efficient
intelligence service. A recent organization chart of the Central
Intelligence Group indicated that a staff of some 90 persons is presently
assigned at the seat of Government in Washington. This staff is about
tenfold that which the Bureau has utilized to operate a Latin American
intelligence service. In addition, I have been informed that the personnel
investigative division of the Central Intelligence Group has been
investigating about 187 applicants for positions each month. Recently
General Vandenberg advised the
National Intelligence Authority that he contemplated having the services of
3,000 people in his organization by the end of the current fiscal year, of
whom 1900 would be engaged in secret intelligence. General Vandenberg advised that in
addition to the $12,000,000.00 made available to him for the fiscal year
1947, he would need $10,000,000.00 for his operations during the current
year and expressed the view that he might have to secure an independent
budget rather than operate from funds made available by the State, War and
Navy Departments. It seems to me, consequently, that the Central
Intelligence Group is not confronted with any personnel problems and
apparently is financially able to carry on their operations. I think it is
rather interesting to note that when the Federal Bureau of Investigation
prepared an estimate for a worldwide intelligence system, we contemplated the use of 650 Agents at an
annual cost of about $10,000,000.00 a year.
I feel, consequently, that the Central Intelligence Group should be required
to take over the Latin American intelligence in three stages—taking over the
first group of offices in their proposed schedule on September 15, 1946, the
second group on November 1, 1946, and the final group on January 1, 1947.
While I, of course, will do whatever you desire in this situation, I do want
you to know that I feel very strongly that the Central Intelligence Group,
having sought the coverage of intelligence in the Latin American field,
should be required to assume promptly the responsibility for this
coverage.
I am returning herewith the original letter addressed to you by Messrs.
Patterson, Acheson, Sullivan and Leahy
and the attachment referred to therein.
122. Memorandum for the RecordSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–2227, Job
83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3. Top Secret. Although the memorandum is dated
August 8, it was obviously amended later, since the postscript refers to
developments on August 10.Washington, August 8, 1946.
Late in the afternoon of 6 August 1946, the Office of the Secretary of State
requested a meeting of NIA to be held on 7
August 1946.See Document
117. The purpose of the proposed meeting was to air the
danger involved in pulling FBI operatives
out of Central and South America prior to the time CIG was prepared to take over—and to come to necessary
decisions in the matter. At the time of calling the meeting, the State
Department requested we prepare a memorandum for NIA, outlining our actions to date in this regard and
indicating our time schedule for taking over Central and South American
activities.
The NIA meeting was held on the morning of 7
AugustDocument
118. and our memoDated
August 7. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–2227,
Job 83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3) See the Supplement. was submitted
by Colonel Galloway. All NIA members were adamant in the necessity for
FBI to remain operative in the area
until he took over and in the
necessity for an overlap of operatives in order to preserve continuity.
The meeting was brief, spearheaded by Admiral
Leahy. The Secretary NIA was
directed to prepare a letter to the Attorney General, requesting that FBI be directed to retain their operation in
the subject area until we were fully operative. The Secretary was also
directed to draft a letter to the Attorney General, to be signed by the
President, for use in the event no action was taken by the Attorney General
on the letter from NIA.
The NIA letter to the Attorney General was
prepared by us on 7 August, signed by all members of NIA, and dispatched on the morning of 8 August 1946.Document 120. The
draft of the Presidential letterDocument 119. has been approved by all
members of NIA and is being retained for
later use if necessary.
E. K. WrightColonel, GSCExecutive to the Director
On Saturday, 10 August, I was called to the office of Admiral Leahy and informed that the
Attorney General had agreed to take steps providing that FBI personnel did not move out of Latin
American areas until CIG could replace
them with proper operatives and until there was a reasonable overlap of
time between the arrival of CIG
personnel and the departure of FBI
personnel.See Document 123, which gives an account by Hoover’s assistant of the Attorney
General’s August 10 meetings with the President and Admiral Leahy.Admiral Leahy also stated that
Mr. Clark was anxious that CIG take no steps toward the employment of
FBI personnel in Latin American
areas as this personnel were all trained operators and were needed in
the domestic field.
123. Memorandum From the Director’s Assistant (Tamm) to the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (Hoover)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence
Agency, Troy Papers, FBI Documents. No classification marking.Washington, August 10, 1946.
Pursuant to your instructions, I talked to the Attorney General this morning
at his request with reference to the SIS
situation. He stated that he had been to the White House yesterday and that
he spent almost two hours talking to the President about this situation.
Prior to the time that he talked to the President, Admiral Leahy had talked to the Attorney
GeneralNo record of these conversations
with Clark has been found.
and had indicated to him that it was desired that the Department of Justice
through the Bureau render every possible assistance to the CIG in taking over the SIS work in South America. Admiral
Leahy indicated that the CIG
would not be able to move into any of the countries as rapidly as the Bureau
desired to withdraw from them but that the State Department desired to
insure a continuity of coverage and that, consequently, the Bureau should
only withdraw upon the basis of a harmonious schedule with CIG moving in to take over the various
countries.
The Attorney General stated he talked to the President about this situation
and the President indicated some doubt that the CIG would work but the President stated he had to at least try
it out in view of the recommendations made to him by his Cabinet members.
The Attorney General advised him that Ambassador
Pawley, Spruille
Braden and various other State Department representatives
were very much opposed to FBI withdrawing
but the President thought the FBI should
coordinate its program in such a way that CIG could move in on an orderly basis and take over the
operations. The Attorney General desired, therefore, that the Bureau arrange
through appropriate conference with CIG so
as to insure that our withdrawal would be upon the basis of CIG’s ability to move in and take over the
operations in various countries.
I advised the Attorney General that while you had not so stated in your
recent memorandum,Presumably Document 121. you had instructed me to
advise him orally that the CIG was
definitely stalling in this situation. I pointed out to him that it was
rather inconsistent that Bureau Agents were not good enough to carry on the
SIS operations in the Latin Americas but
at the same time their services are so indispensable that they cannot now be
withdrawn or replaced. I told the Attorney General that the CIG had a bright group of alleged intelligence
representatives, including a number of men who had deserted from the service
of the FBI during the war, who appeared, according to CIG estimates, at least capable of carrying on
the SIS operations. I stated that as a
matter of fact General Vandenberg
had the effrontery to designate as his representatives to confer with the
Bureau on the change-over of operations ex–FBI Agents who had deserted from the Bureau service while on
foreign assignment and who were definitely persona non grata to you and to
the Bureau.
The Attorney General was advised that you had instructed that we be entirely
reasonable in attempting to work out a schedule for the transfer of SIS duties but that from the schedule submitted
by CIG, it was very obvious that CIG was stalling and the dates set by them were
unreasonable. I told him that you had, upon the basis of my previous
conversation with him in which he expressed the desire to support the
President in getting this plan set up and in operation, instructed that we
make reasonable concessions to the CIG in an
effort to bring about a reasonable schedule for the transfer of duties. I
pointed out to the Attorney General that the withdrawal of individual
personnel, such as the withdrawal of the Legal Attaché in Brazil, did not
indicate that the office was being closed but that this was an
administrative transfer of an individual Agent predicated upon a reduction
program which you had outlined subsequent to the termination of the war. I
told the Attorney General that there were some 25 or 30 men currently under
transfer back to the United States but that these transfers had nothing to
do with the change-over of the SIS coverage
to CIG, but rather were routine transfers
which would have been effected even though the Bureau remained in SIS. I told the Attorney General you desired
him to have this information in the event any question were raised about the
recall to the United States of any individual Agent.
The Attorney General stated that he desired to make reasonable concessions to
CIG in permitting them to take over the
intelligence coverage and stated he desired me to talk to Admiral Leahy and outline to him the
Bureau’s problem and its position with reference to these problems. I
suggested to the Attorney General that, in the light of the information
which I had furnished to him, he might desire himself to talk to Admiral Leahy and indicate that we would
go along in anything that was reasonable in the light of all the
circumstances, but the Attorney General stated he believed it would be
better if a Bureau representative conferred direct with Admiral Leahy. He stated he would call
Admiral Leahy and arrange an
appointment and asked that I let him know how we made out with Leahy.
The Attorney General indicated that he told the President that it was
anticipated that CIG would try to proselyte
the Bureau’s personnel and the President said that of course he would not
tolerate anything of that kind and if it became necessary, he would issue an
order to CIG prohibiting them from hiring
FBI people.
124. Memorandum From the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(Hoover) to Attorney General ClarkSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Troy Papers, FBI Documents. No classification marking. A typed note on
the source text indicates that it was sent at 5 p.m. on August 12. This
memorandum from Hoover is based
on a longer August 12 memorandum from Tamm to Hoover.
(Ibid.) See the Supplement.Washington, August 12, 1946.
Pursuant to the appointment arranged by you with Admiral Leahy, Mr. Tamm consulted with the Admiral this morning. Admiral Leahy was informed that I was
endeavoring, in accord with your desires, to assist in every practical way
to arrange for the transfer of the Latin American coverage to the Central
Intelligence Group but that there were certain elements and factors about
which it was felt Admiral Leahy
should be advised. He was informed that some months ago, in accord with your
authorization, I had drawn up a schedule for a worldwide intelligence
service under the Bureau’s direction, which contemplated the use of some 650
agents, at an annual cost of ten million dollars, with the cost of operation
concealed within the Bureau’s appropriation to avoid publicity with
reference thereto. It was pointed out that this plan had not been
acceptable, but that the Bureau had, after the Central Intelligence Group
was established, been virtually evicted from South America.
Admiral Leahy was informed that when
General Vandenberg was asked
whether he desired to take over the Latin American coverage, he stated that
he did desire to do so, but when I had attempted to initiate a program of
withdrawing the FBI staff from South
America, this withdrawal had been opposed except on an unacceptable
long-term basis. It was pointed out to the Admiral that this placed the
Bureau in a position where its Agents were not good enough to remain in
South America but at the same time their services were, at least at this
time, indispensable. It was pointed out to Admiral Leahy that it is impossible to maintain the morale
and efficiency of the Bureau Agents on Latin American assignments on a high
basis due to the fact that their interest was bound to lag in the knowledge
of their pending return to domestic responsibilities, and that as a result
the whole spirit of the Bureau’s SIS
Division was bogging down.
Admiral Leahy was advised that the
Bureau had, upon Mr. Roosevelt’s
direction, placed in operation in Latin America virtually overnight an
efficient intelligence service. In answer to Admiral Leahy’s question as to whether it is impossible for
the Central Intelligence Group to obtain an adequate operating staff, the
Admiral was advised that while this program might be somewhat difficult, it
was not impossible as evidenced by
the fact that the Bureau had done it under the difficulties of wartime
pressure.
It was pointed out to Admiral Leahy
that while Bureau Agents were apparently not good enough to continue in the
Latin American intelligence field, the persons designated by General Vandenberg to work with the
Bureau in turning over the SIS
responsibilities to the Central Intelligence Group were ex-FBI Agents who had deserted the Bureau service
in time of war for personal reasons and were definitely persona non grata to
the Bureau.
Admiral Leahy indicated that it was
President Truman’s desire to
establish a worldwide intelligence service and to relieve the Bureau of all
of its foreign responsibilities in the interest of enabling the Bureau to
discharge its domestic responsibilities. He stated that the President and he
were of the opinion that the Bureau should continue to maintain agents in
any part of the world deemed necessary for the facilitating of the discharge
of the Bureau’s domestic responsibilities.
Admiral Leahy was advised of the fact
that many of the Latin American Ambassadors are protesting against the
withdrawal of the Bureau but that I would not permit our agents to plan with
them any program of opposition.
To summarize the Bureau’s overall position, Admiral Leahy was informed that I am making every effort to
coordinate the Bureau’s program of withdrawal with CIG’s program of taking over, but that I was convinced that the
CIG was stalling. Admiral Leahy is of the opinion that
General Vandenberg and his
group are stalling and indicated that he would take this entire matter up
with General Vandenberg upon the
latter’s return to the United States in order to facilitate, expedite and
clarify this situation. The Admiral was assured that the Bureau has no
desire to be arbitrary or stubborn in this situation but will do everything
possible to bring about an expeditious clarification of the entire
change-over program.
Respectfully,
John Edgar HooverPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
125. Memorandum From the President’s Chief of Staff (Leahy) to the Director of
Central Intelligence (Vandenberg)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 131. Secret.Washington, August 12, 1946.
August 12th Attorney General Clark
sent Mr. Tamm of F.B.I. to see me in regard to providing reliefs
for the F.B.I. intelligence agents now in
Latin America.See Document
124. The Attorney General wishes that the provision of
National Intelligence Agents be expedited as much as possible and the
President wishes us to comply.
F.B.I. needs its agents for work here within
the United States.
Positive objection was expressed to our having sent ex-F.B.I. men to discuss our common problems with
F.B.I.
It would appear advantageous for the Director of C.I. himself to make all
contacts with Mr. Hoover, and that
ex-F.B.I. men now in the C.I. Group
should certainly not be used for such contacts.
Granting that there will be a temporary reduction of efficiency by an early
relief of F.B.I. agents in Latin America, it
is my opinion that the reliefs can be accomplished at a much earlier date
than as at present scheduled and that it should be done.
It is certain that we should not employ in the C.I.G. any persons now in
F.B.I., and it is my opinion that to avoid offending Mr.
Hoover we should not hereafter,
without specific approval in each instance by the Authority, employ any
persons who at any time separated themselves from F.B.I.
William D. LeahyPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
126. Memorandum for RecordSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–2227, Job
83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3. Secret.Washington, August 19, 1946.
REFERENCE
Letter to the Attorney General from NIA dated 8 August 46Document 120.
At 1045 this date the undersigned talked with Mr. Douglas
McGregor, Acting Attorney General, concerning the reference
letter.
Mr. McGregor stated that the Attorney General had
informed him that the F.B.I. would not
withdraw from Latin American countries until the Central Intelligence Group
had been able to furnish replacements and arrange an orderly transfer. Mr.
McGregor said that he understood no formal reply to
the reference letter was to be made since the above decision of the Attorney
General was already known.
The undersigned expressed the belief that no reply was necessary if the
N.I.A. could be assured that the request
in the reference letter would be honored. Mr. McGregor
reaffirmed the fact that the Attorney General had agreed to this
request.
James S. Lay, Jr.
127. Letter From the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(Hoover) to the
Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–2227, Job
83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3. Strictly Confidential.Washington, August 19, 1946.
Dear General
Vandenberg: Reference is made to the letter of
Colonel Edwin K. Wright of the
Central Intelligence Group directed to me on August 7, 1946,Not printed. (Ibid.) See the Supplement. which
attached a schedule for the transfer of responsibility for intelligence
coverage from the FBI to the CIG in Latin America. I must advise that the dates set forth in this schedule
for transfer of responsibility, that is, February 15, 1947, for the first
group of countries, April 1, 1947, for the second group, and May 15, 1947,
for the third group, make the position of the FBI in Latin America rather difficult. Operations under the
limited scope and the restrictions necessary incidental to complete
withdrawal make difficult efficient and productive operations over an
extended period. The FBI personnel involved
in Latin American operations are critically needed in connection with our
domestic responsibilities and I am most anxious to return them to the
domestic field.
I had hoped that the CIG would be able to
take over responsibility in the first group of countries by September 15,
1946; in the second group by November 1, 1946; and the remainder by January
1, 1947. As you will note, this would give approximately six months from the
time of the issuance of the directive to the Central Intelligence Group for
the orderly transfer of responsibility from the FBI to the CIG in Latin
America. I would appreciate your further consideration in this matter and
your advice as to any adjustments that can be made in the schedule.In Vandenberg’s September 3 reply to Hoover he asserted that “it would not
be possible in any case to approximate the dates you mention,…for the
three areas indicated.” (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/CSG–2227, Job 83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3) See the
Supplement.
With best wishes and kind regards,
Sincerely yours,
J. Edgar Hoover
128. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg) to Secretary of
State ByrnesSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 101.5/9–1246. Top Secret. Similar memoranda were sent to the
other NIA principals.Washington, September 12, 1946.
SUBJECT
External Activities of the Central Intelligence Group
All activities of the Strategic Services Unit will be discontinued effective
19 October 1946.
Coincident therewith, the Special Operations Office of the Central
Intelligence Group will assume responsibility for the conduct of espionage
and counter-espionage operations in the field for the collection of foreign
intelligence information required for the national security. Every possible
effort is being made to extend and develop foreign coverage. Only a limited
number of carefully selected individuals formerly with Strategic Services
Unit will be employed to inaugurate the program under the new auspices.
It is, and will continue to be, the primary objective of Special Operations,
Central Intelligence Group, to make a real contribution to the effective
operation of the various departments of the Government.
It is requested that interested agencies of the State Department be advised
of the above.
Hoyt S. VandenbergLieutenant General, USA
129. Letter From the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg) to the Assistant
Secretary of State for American Republic Affairs (Braden)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–2461, Job
83–00764R, Box 4, Folder 7. Secret. The date is handwritten on the
source text. No drafting information appears on the source text but the
tone of the letter suggests that it was written by Vandenberg.Washington, October 9, 1946.
Dear Mr. Braden: The excellent dispatch from Ambassador
Flack, in which he sets forth his views concerning
essential intelligence services in Bolivia,Not
found. has been read by me with interest and appreciation.
On the one hand, facts so forcibly brought out in this communication are
gratifying to me because they confirm the very real need for effective
CIG service in Latin America and
manifest an appreciation of that need by an ambassador whose support and
cooperation are essential to the success of our activities. On the other
hand, conclusions are depressing for I must agree with Ambassador
Flack in his conviction that continuous and
effective coverage is imperative and that no new organization, regardless of its potentialities,
can equal an established service until the novice has gained an equal
experience and established comparable contacts. I concur in Ambassador
Flack’s implication that it would be most desirable
to retain in Bolivia, and elsewhere in Latin America, as much of the present
functioning FBI organization as it is
possible to transfer to CIG. Such a transfer
was hoped for when first the Latin American assignment was given to CIG and a proper request for such an
arrangement was duly made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The
Director, FBI, disapproved the transfer to
CIG of any FBI personnel stationed in Latin America for the reason that
these experienced agents were badly needed in domestic work. I understand
Mr. Hoover’s desire to retain in his
organization experienced personnel trained by the Bureau and of continued
usefulness on the home front and I propose to do nothing in violation of his
decision. However, I seriously doubt that the withdrawal from Latin America
of all FBI representatives, many of whom
would cheerfully elect to remain at their posts, is in the interest of the
United States.
I appreciate the continued cooperation and support of the Department of
State.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely,Printed from an unsigned
copy.
130. Strategic Services Unit General Orders No. 16Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–601, Job 83–00036, Box 4, Folder 9. Restricted.
Draft copies (dated September 5) of SSU
Headquarters’ message to its field stations closing down operations and
Vandenberg’s parallel
message are ibid. Colonel Quinn’s October 16
memorandum to Penrose and others outlines
administrative arrangements concerning the transfer.
(Ibid.)Washington, October 19, 1946.
TERMINATION OF SSU
OPERATIONS
Effective 2400, 19 October 1946, all operations of the Strategic
Services Unit are terminated.Administrative activities incident to disposition of personnel,
material, records, claims, settlements, etc., will be continued until
final and complete liquidation
of the Strategic Services Unit is effected at a later date. William W. Quinn Colonel, InfantryDirector
131. Instruction From the Assistant Secretary of State for Administration
(Russell) to the
Minister in Tangier (Alling)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 101.5/1–347. Top Secret. More or less identical instructions
presumably were sent to other posts, but no other instructions or list
of other addresses has been found.Washington, January 3, 1947.
Sir:
SUBJECT
Security Intelligence Coverage. Relationship Between Department of
State and the National Intelligence Authority. Assignment of CIG Representatives to Foreign Service
Establishments
Background:
The Secretary of State refers to Department of State Radio Bulletin No. 19
dated January 22, 1946. Within the White House Section, and under the
heading Foreign Intelligence, is set forth a
Presidential Directive creating the National Intelligence Authority
consisting of the Secretaries of State, War and Navy, and a personal
representative of the President. The Secretary of State is Chairman of the
National Intelligence Authority (NIA). (The
Presidential Directive is also contained in State Department Bulletin No. 334, dated February 3, 1946.)
Section Two (2) of the Directive provides for the formation of a Central
Intelligence Group (CIG) consisting of
persons and facilities assigned from State, War and Navy. Heading CIG is a Director of Central Intelligence,
Lt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg.
Under authority of the intelligence directive, the National Intelligence
Authority has charged CIG with world-wide
security intelligence coverage.
As will be recalled, during the past few years, there have been operating in
a number of our missions and consulates, personnel of other government
agencies who have been assisting with security intelligence—one of these
organizations, the Strategic Services Unit (former OSS) of the War Department, was liquidated as of October 20,
1946. Another of the agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, soon
will withdraw its personnel from abroad. The new organization, CIG, will assume many of the duties previously
performed by both organizations.
State Department Part in the New Security Intelligence
Operations:
The member agencies of CIG (State, War and
Navy) are each providing that organization with certain facilities as called
for in Section Two (2) of the Presidential Directive of January 22,
1946.
[3 pages of source text not declassified]
Communications From Missions and Consulates to the
Department:
This document is regarded as the basic instruction covering the relationship
between the Department of State and CIG. It
is not considered all-inclusive. As necessity requires, there will be other
instructions. Missions and Consulates should feel free to request
clarification on specific points, and bring to the attention of the
Department any phase of the operation which appears to be distinctive to a
particular post.
[2 paragraphs and 1 heading (12 lines of source text) not
declassified]
Inasmuch as the Secretary of State is Chairman of the National Intelligence
Authority (NIA) and the Department of State
is a member of the Central Intelligence Group (CIG), much importance is placed in the Department’s
responsibility as regards the Presidential Directive of January 22, 1946.
The Acting Secretary, in a recent communication to the Director of Central
Intelligence, stated: “I hope that the cooperation between the Department of
State and your representatives abroad will result in efficient and cordial
integration of our foreign intelligence.”Not
found.
The success of this counter-intelligence program depends upon the manner in
which it is put into effect at the various posts. Care should be taken in
the designation of the Mission’s representative who will coordinate the
activities. Full responsibility is placed upon the Chief of Mission for
implementing the plan; therefore, his personal attention should be given to
its activation.
Very truly yours,
For the Secretary of State:Donald RussellPrinted from a copy that bears this typed
signature.
132. Letter From the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg) to Secretary of
State ByrnesSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–2227, Job 83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3. No
classification marking.Washington, January 3, 1947.
Dear Mr. Secretary: As you are aware, arrangements
have been completed for the withdrawal from Latin America of special agents
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have been performing intelligence
duties as legal attachés of the various diplomatic missions in South and
Central America and in the Caribbean area. Representatives of the Central
Intelligence Group will take over the intelligence duties in Latin America
which have been performed by the FBI since
1942. In order that the continuity of intelligence operations in Latin
America shall not be prejudiced, arrangements have been made with Mr.
J. Edgar Hoover to the effect
that legal attachés representing the FBI
shall not depart from their posts of duty until such time as qualified and
trained CIG representatives shall arrive at
the respective capitals in the American Republics.
I am transmitting to you herewith a scheduleNot
printed; see the Supplement. setting forth the dates when CIG representatives will arrive for duty in the
various Latin American countries. This schedule has also been supplied to
the FBI, which has indicated that an FBI representative will be present at each post
when the local attaché relinquishes his duties and the CIG representative takes over. Mr.
Daniel DeBardaleben, of CIG, will proceed to Latin America and his trip will follow the
itinerary and schedule attachéd hereto. Mr.
DeBardaleben has my entire confidence and he is
completely familiar with the arrangements which have been made as between
the FBI and the CIG in regard to the latter’s assumption of intelligence duties
in the American Republics.
Mr. Frederick B. Lyon, Director of the
Office of Controls of the Department of State, and Mr. Jack D.
Neal, Chief of the Division of Foreign Activity Correlation
of the Department, have worked closely with the appropriate representatives
of CIG in the implementation of the
arrangements looking forward to the assumption by CIG of intelligence duties in Latin America. Both Mr. Lyon and Mr. Neal are
not only entirely familiar with the Intelligence activities of the FBI in Latin America but are also being kept
completely informed as to CIG plans to
assume intelligence operations in that area.
The purpose of this communication is not only to advise you of the foregoing,
but also to suggest that you may care to appoint a representative of the Department of State to
accompany Mr. DeBardaleben and Mr. J. Edgar Hoover’s representative, in order
that the Department of State may be represented in each case when the CIG representative is installed in the various
diplomatic missions in South and Central America and in the Caribbean area.
The CIG representatives who have been
selected and who are currently being trained for duty in the American
Republics are, I believe, excellently qualified for their duties. I wish to
assure you that I consider the CIG
intelligence commitment in the American Republics as second to none in
importance and significance, and that CIG
representatives who will shortly proceed to their posts of duty in South and
Central America and in the Caribbean area are being instructed to cooperate
in every way possible with the various chiefs of diplomatic missions in the
Latin American capitals, with a view to obtaining the best possible results
and integration of the intelligence effort.
Respectfully yours,
Hoyt S. VandenbergPrinted from a copy that
indicates Vandenberg signed
the original.Lieutenant General, USA
133. Letter From Secretary of State Byrnes to the Director of Central Intelligence
(Vandenberg)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–2227, Job 83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 3.
Secret.Washington, January 8, 1947.
Dear General
Vandenberg: The receipt is acknowledged of your
letter of January 3Document
132. with reference to contemplated arrangements
covering the replacement in Latin America of special agents of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation with representatives of the Central Intelligence
Group.
You may recall that as a result of our discussions last year it was agreed
not only that the FBI representatives would
remain until after the arrival of
their CIG replacements, but also that
because of varying circumstances at each capital, no period could be
specified in advance as representing the time necessary between the arrival
of the CIG representative and the departure
of his FBI predecessor. It was left
therefore that the American Ambassador concerned would be responsible for
indicating, after the arrival of the CIG
representative at his post, the overlap necessary at that post.
Provided this arrangement is maintained I see no objection to the projected
trip of Mr. DeBardaleben of CIG and a colleague from FBI,
and I am also prepared in accordance with your suggestion to authorize Mr.
Jack D. Neal, Chief of the Division of Foreign
Activity Correlation, to proceed to Latin America as the representative of
the Department of State at approximately the same time.
In connection with the foregoing we are fully convinced of the importance of
the work which you are about to undertake in Latin America, and we share
your desire to have that work accomplished with the fullest and most
complete collaboration between field representatives of CIG and the personnel of the Foreign
Service.
Sincerely yours,
For the Secretary of State:Spruille BradenAssistant Secretary
134. Memorandum From the Director of the Strategic Services Unit,
Department of War (Quinn) to the Assistant
Secretary of War (Petersen)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–804, Item 7.
Confidential. The source text may be a transcript prepared for the CIA
Historian in the early 1950s.Washington, April 11, 1947.
SUBJECT
Liquidation of SSUOn 2 April 1946 you appointed me Director of the Strategic Services
Unit of the War Department. On 3 April 1946 you issued instructions to
me directing that liquidation of SSU be
completed not later than 30 June 1947.Document 107. You further directed
that this liquidation be coordinated with development of the permanent peace-time
intelligence program, and that SSU
service the intelligence agencies and make available to the Director of
Central Intelligence any facilities or services of SSU which might be useful in the
performance of the authorized functions of the Central Intelligence
Group.All civilian personnel of SSU have
been terminated and military personnel have been transferred or
reassigned. Foreign missions and stations were liquidated as SSU installations on or before 20 October
1946.Funds adequate to meet outstanding obligations of SSU have been allocated from appropriations
of the War Department available for that purpose. These funds will be
administered in accordance with arrangements which have been made with
administrative personnel of your office. Experience indicates that
claims and inquiries arising out of past operations of OSS-SSU
will continue, and no accurate estimate can now be made of their number
or when they will cease. They are, however, so few that personnel now on
duty with the Central Intelligence Group and familiar with such matters
can supply necessary information and assistance. Such questions may,
therefore, be referred to proper CIG
officials.The disposition of the assets and facilities of SSU has been coordinated with the Director
of Central Intelligence in accordance with his requirements and to his
satisfaction.Effective this date liquidation of SSU
is complete with the exceptions noted in paragraph 3, above, and your
instructions have been complied with. It is therefore recommended that I
be relieved as Director, SSU.In an April 11 memorandum to Petersen, Vandenberg concurred in
Quinn’s recommendations. (Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–804, Item
7) William W. QuinnPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Colonel, Inf.
135. Letter From the National Intelligence
Authority to Representative Clare E.
HoffmanSource:
Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1, Folder 3. Top
Secret. Representative Hoffman (Republican,
Michigan) was Chairman of the House Committee
on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. At the time the letter was
written, the committee was considering the legislation on armed forces
unification, which included provisions establishing the Central
Intelligence Agency on a statutory basis. The question of clandestine
operations arose in the committee as a result of press stories and press
criticism about the efforts to centralize all clandestine intelligence
operations in CIG. See Document 319, which records the NIA’s discussion of the letter, which was
proposed to the Authority by Hillenkoetter.Washington, June 26, 1947.
My Dear Mr. Chairman: It has been brought to our
attention that numerous newspaper articles have stated that the Central
Intelligence Group has usurped various departmental intelligence functions
and forced established organizations out of the field. These charges have
been particularly leveled at the operation by the Central Intelligence Group
of clandestine intelligence activities. These charges are not true.
It has long been felt by those who have successfully operated clandestine
intelligence systems that such work must be centralized within one agency.
As a corollary to this proposition, it has likewise been proven that a
multitude of espionage agencies results in two shortcomings: first, agents
tend to uncover each other or block each other’s funds or similarly
neutralize each other, being unaware of identical objectives; second, each
agency tends to hoard its own special information or attempts to be the
first to deliver a choice piece of information to higher authorities. This
latter type of competition does not permit the overall evaluation of
intelligence on a given subject, as each agency is competing for
prestige.
For the reasons cited above, which were highlighted by experience during the
last war, it was felt inadvisable, after due study by interdepartmental
committees, to permit the several departments to conduct independent
clandestine operations. For this reason, the National Intelligence
Authority, under date of 8 July 1946, issued the following directive, which
is quoted in part:
“Pursuant to the President’s letter of 22 January 1946, designating this
Authority as responsible for planning, developing and coordinating all
Federal foreign intelligence activities, so as to insure the most effective
accomplishment of the intelligence mission related to the national security,
. . . . the Director of Central Intelligence is hereby directed to perform
the following services of common concern, which this Authority has
determined can be more efficiently accomplished centrally: Conduct of all
organized Federal espionage and counter-espionage operations outside the United States and its
possessions for the collection of foreign intelligence information required
for the national security.…”
This Authority reaffirms this directive as of the utmost importance to the
national security, for the reasons outlined above. Similarly, the Central
Intelligence Group should be free to assume, under our direction, or the
subsequent direction of a National Security Council, the performance, for
the benefit of the intelligence agencies of the Government, of such
services, of common concern, including the field of collection, as this
Authority or a subsequent Council determines can be more efficiently
performed centrally.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of StateNo
signatures or any annotation indicating the letter was signed and sent
appears on the source text. The NIA
minutes cited in the source note above, however, explicitly state that
the NIA members signed the
letter.Secretary of WarSecretary of The NavyPersonal Representative of the President
136. Memorandum of ConversationSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Records of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Administration—Subject Files, 1944–47: Lot 53 D 28,
Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence, Box 19. Secret. Drafted
by Humelsine and Armstrong.Washington, April 16,
1948.
SUBJECT
Publicity on Bogota Intelligence Reports
PARTICIPANTS
CIA—Rear Admiral R. H.
HillenkoetterS/S—Mr. HumelsineSA-A—Mr. Armstrong
Upon entering Admiral Hillenkoetter’s
office, he said to Mr. Armstrong,
“Well, I kept you off the spot, didn’t I?” To this Mr. Armstrong replied, “Perhaps, but you
certainly put the State Department on it.” Admiral Hillenkoetter admitted this.
Admiral Hillenkoetter then described
the circumstances of the hearing before the Committee headed by Congressman
Clarence Brown on the preceding day. He said that
the statement which he had made before the Committee had been shown to
Admiral Leahy (and indicated
that the President had been consulted in the matter) and that he had then
shown it to Secretary Forrestal. He
stated that Admiral Leahy and
Secretary Forrestal had told him to
go ahead with the statement even if it involved a public hearing. Admiral Hillenkoetter stated that the
hearing before the Committee had been first in executive session, but that
upon its completion, the Chairman had called in the press and required him
to read his statement again to the reporters.
Mr. Humelsine requested Admiral Hillenkoetter to explain his
references in his testimony to the CIA report allegedly “censored” by a Mr.
O.J. Libert at Bogota. Admiral Hillenkoetter picked up a memorandum, a copy of
which is attachéd, and read it.Not printed; see
the Supplement.
The memorandum had been prepared, he said, by the CIA Agent [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] in
Bogota and was an explanation of the Agent’s instructions to CIA in
Washington that the message he sent on March 23rd should not be forwarded to
the State Department. Mr. Humelsine
and Mr. Armstrong noted that the
statement did not indicate that Ambassador Beaulac had
interposed any objection to the message being transmitted to the State
Department and that the CIA Agent had accepted unquestioningly the authority
of an administrative officer of the International Conference Division as
sufficient to block the transmission of the message. Mr. Armstrong asked why the Agent had not gone
back to the Ambassador and urged the sending of the information, if he
thought it was important. Admiral
Hillenkoetter responded that the Agent had to “live” with the
Embassy and therefore could not afford to antagonize the personnel
there.
Mr. Humelsine then said to Admiral Hillenkoetter, “It is
inconceivable to me that you personally could have had the information to
which your man Attachéd such importance and not have sent it to the
Department regardless of your subordinate’s instructions from Bogota.”
Admiral Hillenkoetter replied
that in hindsight he felt he should have done so and that, in fact, when the
information was received, on or about March 23, he had suggested doing so.
However, in a discussion of the matter with his Deputy, General E.K. Wright, his Executive Officer,
Captain Ford, and Colonel
Galloway, the Deputy Director for Special Operations, he had
been advised against doing so on the grounds that their man in Bogota would be placed in serious
trouble vis-à-vis the Ambassador and the staff.
Admiral Hillenkoetter went on to
indicate the general character of the difficulties which his overseas covert
operations have encountered at various [less than 1 line
of source text not declassified] posts. He particularly referred to
a situation at [1 line of source text not
declassified] and pointed out that the man had gone to [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] in
September 1947 and had not as yet been able to make any official report or
even send official word of his arrival on duty. Mr. Humelsine said that this was news to him
and, it being a serious matter, would be investigated at once.
Admiral Hillenkoetter then recited
the history of the efforts CIA has made to obtain departmental agreement to
the enlargement of its overseas staff and said that since July 1947 he had
been trying to get [less than 1 line of source text not
declassified] additional number of agents without success. He
stated that he had talked to Mr. Peurifoy about it last fall and had at first found him
sympathetic to his request and to the CIA’s staffing problem. After a
further delay, Mr. Peurifoy had
written him to the effect that the additional assignments not only would not
be granted, but that by January 1st the overseas force would have to be
reduced to no more than 200 agents. He recalled that Mr. Peurifoy had subsequently told him that he
had signed this letter only with “great reluctance”. Admiral Hillenkoetter recounted
conversations which he had had with Mr. Armour, Mr.
Neal, Mr. Ravndal, and others
on the subject in which the divergence of views on the function of CIA in
the field became apparent. He stated that he had also talked to Secretary
Forrestal and that the latter had
talked to Mr. Lovett. It had been
agreed between them that the Committee surveying CIA operations headed by
Mr. Allen Dulles would attempt to
resolve the impasse. [3 lines of source text not
declassified]
Admiral Hillenkoetter said that the
CIA had been unjustifiably, in his opinion, put on the spot by the State
Department’s failure to release publicly the information which had been
given by Lincoln White at a Thursday evening, April
15th, press conference and that he thought the Department deserved whatever
heat might now be on it. Mr. Humelsine pointed out that the State Department looked upon
this situation as being the responsibility of the Executive Branch of the
Government, not of one department which could disclaim responsibility by
shifting the burden to another. He asked the Director why he had not
informed the Department that CIA was under pressure and requested its
cooperation. Mr. Humelsine recalled
to the Director that he had telephoned him, at Mr. Lovett’s request, when he first heard that
there would be a congressional investigation and had asked him if there was
anything the State Department could do to help. Mr. Armstrong said that he too had telephoned
the Director in the same vein and noted that in neither case had the Director indicated that the
CIA was under disturbing pressure or that the State Department could, or
should, do anything in the circumstances. Admiral Hillenkoetter referred to the fact that the
newspapers and radio had continuously indicated that CIA was being held
accountable for the alleged intelligence failure at Bogota and said that the
Department should have known that the only corrective would be to issue a
statement on the quantity and quality of information that had been
available.
Admiral Hillenkoetter then reverted
to the difficulties he has encountered in getting his program implemented
through the State Department and the Foreign Service and said that he would
much prefer to have relations with the Department centralized in one office
and that if he could do all of his business with Mr. Armstrong’s office, he thought that better
results would ensue. He emphasized that his relations with Mr. Armstrong and the substantive side of
intelligence were satisfactory, and that he hoped that the Department would
take steps to make his relations center in one place. Mr. Humelsine said that he thought this was
essential and should be carried into effect and he would so report to Mr.
Lovett.
In closing, Admiral Hillenkoetter
stated that if relations with the Department did not improve in the near
future, [2 lines of source text not declassified] he
intended to inform the President and, if necessary, the Congress, that they
could not hold him responsible for obtaining the intelligence information
that he is charged with at present. He stated that he would have to bring
the blocking of his plans by the Department to public notice, since not, in
some cases, he is able to get only 60% or less of the information that he
should and would get if his program were fully put into effect.
Souers’ Tenure as Director of Central
Intelligence
Introduction
With the signing of the directive on coordination of foreign intelligence on
January 22, 1946 (Document 71), a peacetime
national intelligence system was finally established. In fact, however, it
existed only on paper. OSS had been broken
up and dissolved. The Strategic Services Unit remained in the War Department
as a potential nucleus of a clandestine intelligence capability, but at that
point no one was certain of how or even whether it would be absorbed into
the new national intelligence structure. A mechanism for producing
“strategic and national policy intelligence” had yet to be devised, and
there was not yet even a common definition of the term.
Beyond the generalities, there was no agreed view of how the new system
should operate or even of what it should do. President Truman had his own idea of what the new
arrangements could do for him, reflecting mainly his concern to be kept
informed in a way that ensured that all of the relevant information was put
together in a single package. Apart from this, his interest in the
intelligence set-up seemed to be limited. The armed forces had been the
prime movers of the effort to set up a centralized intelligence capability
but they would soon begin to show signs of alarm that the new system was
becoming too independent. The Department of State wanted to exert major
influence on the Central Intelligence Group but seemed uncertain about how
to do so, perhaps because it was still in the middle of its own bruising
battle over intelligence. Secretary of State Byrnes feared that the new arrangements would enhance
Admiral Leahy’s role in foreign
policy, to the detriment of the Department’s.
Truman appointed Rear Admiral Sidney W. Souers as the
first Director of Central Intelligence on January 23, 1946. As Deputy
Director of Naval Intelligence, Souers had been one of the architects of the system that
came into being with the President’s directive. He had written the
intelligence chapter of the Eberstadt
Report, which advocated a unified intelligence system and apparently had
made a significant impact on Forrestal. Toward the end of 1945, when the competing plans
for a national intelligence system were deadlocked, Souers’ views had come to the attention
of the President, and he seems to have played a role in breaking the
impasse. Working with Clark Clifford,
he helped turn the Three Secretaries’ proposal of January 7 into the
directive signed by the President on January 22.
On the same day that he appointed Souers Director of Central Intelligence, Truman named Admiral Leahy as his personal representative on the National Intelligence
Authority (NIA). Leahy heretofore had played a significant
behind-the-scenes role on intelligence matters. From now on, he was a
somewhat more visible as well as influential figure.
The documentation on Souers’ tenure
is limited, and partly because he was so briefly in office (serving less
than 5 months), and partly because the intelligence structure was still so
rudimentary. What has been found seems adequate to trace major trends, but
there is a change in the quality of the surviving documentation, which
begins to be more formal and bureaucratic, a change that becomes even more
marked as the institutional development of the intelligence system continues
under Souers’ successors.
Although there were latent conflicts over fundamental intelligence issues
from the beginning, these conflicts were muted under Souers’ directorship. A reserve officer,
he had been anxious to return to private life but was prevailed upon to
serve as Director of Central Intelligence while a “permanent director” was
sought. Both his personal style and the nature of his responsibilities at
that point made it possible for him to avoid or at least minimize
controversy. At the same time, having been through the controversy over the
founding of the system, Souers was
aware of the potential for disagreement and tended to move carefully. All of
these tendencies were reinforced by his awareness that he was dependent on
the State, War, and Navy Departments for personnel and funds. His approach
was perhaps best summed up in National Intelligence Authority Directive No.
1, which declared that “The Central Intelligence Group shall be considered
organized and operated as a cooperative interdepartmental activity, with
adequate and equitable participation by the State, War and Navy
Departments.” (Document 141)
Souers had gone to work the last
week of January. One of his first jobs was to organize the Central
Intelligence Group, but even before that he had to write its charter. He did
so in NIA Directive No. 1, in effect a set
of instructions to himself, which laid out the basic guidelines for the
operation of the national intelligence system. In two of its provisions, the
directive foreshadowed later controversies. Paragraph 2, which provided that
“The Central Intelligence Group will furnish strategic and national policy
intelligence to the President and the State, War and Navy Departments”
marked, at least symbolically, the beginning of the debate over national
intelligence estimates and over whether CIG
should be a large research and analytical agency or a small but expert
estimative staff. Similarly, paragraph 3 of NIA Directive No. 1 encapsulated another future debate. It
provided that “All recommendations, prior to submission to this Authority,
will be referred to the [Intelligence Advisory] Board for concurrence or
comment…. If any member of the Board does not concur, you will submit to
this Authority the basis for his non-concurrence at the same time that you
submit your recommendation.” In a
sense, this was the starting point for the long-running contest over the
respective powers of the Director of Central Intelligence and the
departmental intelligence chiefs that was fought out in the Intelligence
Advisory Board and its successor, the Intelligence Advisory Committee.
Whether the IAB/IAC was a board of directors or simply an advisory panel was an
issue that was still being debated 4 years later.
The inauguration of the new intelligence system also marked the beginning of
its two deliberative groups, the National Intelligence Authority and the
Intelligence Advisory Board. The former held three meetings during Souers’ directorship, the latter four. In
general, their records during the Souers’ period tend to be briefer and “drier” than in later
periods, when a fuller record of the discussions (and eventually a
transcript) were introduced. In any case, the proceedings of both bodies are
important sources both at this and later periods, and the records of the
NIA during its approximately 18 months
of existence especially so because they provide a record of Cabinet-level
oversight of the intelligence structure.
During Souers’ tenure there also
began the series of National Intelligence Authority Directives which
provided the basic charters for the intelligence system during its formative
period. While these are formal documents, they tend to reflect the main
issues and concerns, at least of an institutional and procedural nature,
with which the intelligence system was grappling. The discussions of the
draft directives in the NIA and the IAB, despite the latter’s penchant for becoming
involved in detail, provide significant insights into how intelligence
issues were approached.
Souers’ organizational problems were
in one sense relatively simple. His main concerns were to have a planning
group that could sort out the problems and issues that had to be addressed
and a reporting group that could provide a nucleus for the “strategic and
national policy intelligence” function. All of this could be and was done
with a small staff. Souers’ problem
was that the staff (and the funding) had to come from the State, War, and
Navy Department, and there seems to have been a constant struggle to ensure
a flow of qualified personnel to CIG.
NIA Intelligence Directive No. 2 of February
8, 1946 (Document 142), drafted for the Authority
by Souers and his colleagues,
assigned two “first priority” tasks to the new Director of Central
Intelligence. One of them, “conducting a survey of existing facilities for
collection of foreign intelligence information, and submission of
appropriate recommendations,” was the charter for the planning process on
which Souers understandably put so
much emphasis. To achieve this objective, he established a Central Planning
Staff responsible for “planning for the coordination of intelligence
activities related to the national security, and … preparing recommendations
regarding the establishment of such over-all policies and objectives as will assure the most effective
accomplishment of the national intelligence mission.” In this initial phase,
the Planning Staff seems to have been occupied mainly in preparing studies
on a wide variety of proposed functions and real or perceived intelligence
problems. There are some indications that at the outset Souers would have preferred to conduct
the planning process by interdepartmental committee but that the problem of
getting adequate committee staffing from all concerned agencies led him to
rely increasingly on his own Planning Staff.
The second of the “first priority” tasks laid upon Souers was the “production of daily
summaries containing factual statements of the significant developments in
the field of intelligence and operations related to the national security
and to foreign events for the use of the President.”
Although there was little question that the President wanted some kind of
daily digest of information (in his own mind it seems to have been one of
the main reasons he established a national intelligence system), the
President’s summary gave the National Intelligence Authority its first
contentious issue. At the Authority’s first meeting on February 5, Secretary
of State Byrnes raised the problem
and “pointed out that he is responsible for reporting to the President on
matters of foreign policy.” (Document 140)
Byrnes was not mollified by Souers’ explanation that his reports to
the President, based on intelligence dispatches, would be “purely factual”
and not imperative or offer advice or by a subsequent explanation by
Admiral Leahy of why the
President wanted the summaries. The Authority decided to defer action
“pending further study by Secretary Byrnes.” Byrnes then
discussed the matter with the President and at the NIA’s second meeting on February 8 (see the Supplement) and
told his colleagues that the President had assured him that “only factual
statements were desired” in the summaries. The Authority thereupon agreed to
describe them accordingly in NIA Directive
No. 2. The daily summary appeared for the first time the following week.
For the preparation of summaries and other substantive intelligence papers,
Souers established a Central
Reports Staff, which was intended from the beginning to produce estimates
but which had to devote much of its energy and resources to the preparation
of summaries. During Souers’
directorship, it had not been decided whether the Central Reports Staff
should try to develop a separate research capability of its own or whether
it would remain a small group of experts who would work closely with the
departmental intelligence agencies, drawing on their resources and
synthesizing their products. But there was a hint of the future in the
Intelligence Advisory Board meeting on April 8, 1946 (Document 146). After a discussion of the State Department’s
difficulties in securing budgetary support for its fledgling intelligence
organization, and against the
prospect of the Russell Plan’s
dispersal of the analytical units to the policy offices, both the Army
G–2 (who would shortly become the
Director of Central Intelligence) and the Chief of Naval Intelligence
suggested that perhaps the time had come for the State Department to
transfer the research and analysis function it had inherited to the Central
Intelligence Group.
In his valedictory report to the National Intelligence Authority on June 7,
1946 (Document 154), Souers laid out the agenda for his successor. He indicated
that the initial planning and organizing phase had been completed and that
the Central Intelligence Group should begin operation of centralized common
services as soon as possible. He alluded to the inauguration of the
Presidential summaries, but declared that “the primary function of C.I.G in the production of intelligence,
however, will be the preparation and dissemination of definitive estimates
of the capabilities and intentions of foreign countries as they affect the
national security of the United States.”
Finally, Souers asserted that “the
National Intelligence Authority and the Central Intelligence Group should
obtain enabling legislation and an independent budget as soon as possible,
either as part of a new national defense organization or as a separate
agency.” This last recommendation became one of General Vandenberg’s first and highest
priorities when he succeeded Souers
a few days later.
137. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Souers) to the National Intelligence AuthoritySource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Bureau of Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, History of the
National Intelligence Structure. Confidential.Washington, February 2, 1946.
SUBJECT
Proposed Tentative Organization of the Central Intelligence
GroupThe President’s letter of January 22, 1946,Document 71.
requires the assignment of accessory personnel and facilities from the
Departments of State, War and the Navy in order to form a Central
Intelligence Group.An initial personal authorization and an outline of organization
should now be approved so that the Group may be activated and proceed
with the pressing problems
now confronting the National Intelligence Authority. The problems
requiring earliest attention are:The production of daily and weekly summaries of the most
significant intelligence and operational information related to
national security and foreign policy for the use of the
President, the members of the National Intelligence Authority,
and certain additional limited distribution.Conducting a survey of existing facilities for collecting
foreign intelligence information, with a view to determining how
these facilities may be better coordinated and improved.The proposed organization is set forth in the enclosed directiveNot printed; see the Supplement. The
enclosure was a draft of NIA
Directive No. 2. For text of the directive as issued, see Document 141. which has been
prepared for your approval. It provides the necessary tentative charter
and sufficient personnel to activate the organization and begin
operating.It is recommended that the members of the National Intelligence
Authority approve and sign the enclosed directive. Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
138. Minutes of the First Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Confidential. The meeting was held in the
New War Department Building.Washington, February 4, 1946, 3:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Rear Admiral Sidney W.
Souers, Director of Central Intelligence, in the ChairMembers PresentMr. Alfred McCormack, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State in Charge of Research and
IntelligenceBrig. Gen. John Weckerling (representing
Lt. Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg,
Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2, WDGS)Rear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceBrig. Gen. John A. Samford, Acting Assistant
Chief of Air Staff, IntelligenceAlso PresentCapt. Thomas F. Cullen, USNRCapt. W. B. Goggins, USNMr. L. L. Montague, Department
of StateCol. E. P. Mussett, USACol. C. P. Nicholas, USACol. W. A. Perry, USASecretaryMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Department of State
1. Proposed Policies and Procedures Governing the Central
Intelligence Group
The paperA draft of NIA Directive No. 1, not found. was discussed
paragraph by paragraph.
Admiral Inglis questioned whether
paragraph 3, on the composition of the Intelligence Advisory Board,
permitted other officials of the State, War and Navy Departments, such as
the Director of Naval Communications, to participate in meetings of that
Board. After discussion and amendment
The Intelligence Advisory Board:Concurred in the paper as amended at the meeting. (Subsequently
circulated as N.I.A. 1.)Appended to a February 4 covering memorandum
from Souers to the
NIA. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of
State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research: Lot
58 D 776) See the Supplement.Agreed that the wording of paragraph 3 does not preclude
membership by heads of other intelligence agencies of the State, War
and Navy Departments, but that each case will be decided on its
merits by agreement between the Director of Central Intelligence and
the permanent members of the Intelligence Advisory Board.
2. Proposed Tentative Organization of the Central
Intelligence Group
The paper was discussed and amended.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Concurred in the paper as amended, subject to a revision of Appendix “A” so
that the totals would be approximately 40 each for State and Navy, and 80
for War. (Subsequently circulated as N.I.A.
2.)The paper discussed was the enclosure to
Souers’ February 2
memorandum to the NIA. (National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of
State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776)
See the Supplement. A version circulated as NIA 2, dated February 5, is in the National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Leahy Papers. See the
Supplement. Appendix “A” dealt with personnel assignments.
139. Minutes of the 184th Meeting of the Secretary of State’s Staff
CommitteeSource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot
File No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47.
Secret. Drafted by E.A. Jamison. The meeting was
held in the Secretary’s office.Washington, February 5, 1946, 9:35
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Present:Absent:The Secretary (presiding)The CounselorThe Under SecretaryMr. HackworthMr. BentonMr. PasvolskyMr. BradenMr. ClaytonMr. McCormackMr. RussellMr. Henderson}(for Mr. Dunn)Mr. Matthews (for Mr.
Dunn)Mr. Vincent (for Mr. Dunn)Mr. Culbertson (WE)Mr. JamisonMr. Lewis
[Here follows discussion of matters unrelated to intelligence.]
National Intelligence Authority
Mr. McCormack reviewed for the
Committee the drafts of two directives which it was proposed that the newly
created National Intelligence Authority would issue to the Director of
Central Intelligence.Drafts of NIA 1, attached to Souers’ February 4 memorandum to the
NIA (ibid., RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research:
Lot 58 D 776), and NIA 2, February 5
(ibid., RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 130), are in the
Supplement. NIA 1 and NIA 2 are printed as Documents 141 and 142. He
explained that these were prepared by Admiral
Souers who had been appointed Director of Central
Intelligence under the plan issued by the President. Mr. McCormack said that the final order for the
National Intelligence Authority differed in two respects from that proposed
by the Department of StateSee document SC–172.
Mr. McCormack mentioned, however,
that the three Secretaries did not send to the President the plan
proposed by the Department but a compromise plan prepared by the Navy
Department. [Footnote in the source text; SC–172 is printed as Document 46.] because of amendments which
had been suggested by Admiral Leahy
at a meeting in which the State Department was not represented. These
changes had involved taking the coordinating authority away from the Department of State, placing
it in the hands of a Director appointed by the President, and adding
Admiral Leahy as the Personal
Representative of the President on the Authority.
Mr. McCormack outlined the two draft
directives, indicating that they prescribed the functions of the National
Intelligence Authority, specified certain details of the dissemination and
distribution of intelligence, and outlined personnel requirements. He said
that the directives would require each of the three Departments to provide
for the Director of Central Intelligence with competent people for a survey
of materials which might be available. He referred particularly to Section 7
of the first directive, under which the Director would be authorized to
obtain all necessary facilities, intelligence and information in the
possession of the respective Departments, including necessary information as
to policies, plans, actions, capabilities and intentions of the United
States with reference to foreign countries. He said that this provision
would open to inspection all available material in the Department. Mr.
McCormack pointed out that the
second directive described the two main missions of the Intelligence
Authority as (1) the preparation of a daily and weekly summary of all
important intelligence, to be made available to the President, to members of
the Authority and to certain others, and (2) to conduct a survey of existing
facilities for collecting foreign intelligence information with a view to
making recommendations as to how they may be better coordinated and
improved. The second directive also outlined a table of organization to be
established by June 30, 1946, including a statement of the facilities to be
contributed by each of the Departments. Under this the State Department
would be called upon to furnish, by the end of the year or before, 43 people
to the Central Intelligence Group. Mr. McCormack explained that this would necessarily be
contingent upon obtaining the people and the necessary appropriation.
The Secretary asked Mr. McCormack for
details on that section of the directives outlining materials to be made
available, and Mr. McCormack repeated
Section 7 of the first Directive as given above. The Secretary pointed out
that the determination of what was “necessary” under that section carried
with it much responsibility. He said that a great deal would depend upon the
individual who performed this function.
Mr. Russell inquired whether the
danger of misinterpretation of the Department’s position might not arise as
a result of the coordination of intelligence by the Director. Mr. McCormack remarked that the term
“intelligence” apparently would be interpreted quite broadly so that it
would include steps taken in the adoption of policies and in their
implementation. The Secretary expressed the view that the practical question
concerned the method by which the reporting would be done. Mr. Russell stated his view that there would be
considerable danger in reports on State Department policy being presented to
the President from sources other
than the Department, since these would be no less binding upon the
Department. It was his view that statements of policy in any form should be
made by the person responsible for their formulation and implementation. Mr.
McCormack emphasized the
important influence which might be exerted if there were any inclination to
short circuit the Department on matters of policy. Mr. Acheson said that danger was inherent in the
decision which had been made to take the primary responsibility for
coordination out of the Department of State.
Mr. Henderson asked whether it would not still be
possible for the Department of State to approach the President directly with
its own report of intelligence. Mr. Russell said that this would probably be ex post facto, and
the Secretary agreed that that would be the likely result. The Secretary
said that, since the information for the President would come from the
Intelligence Authority and not from the Department of State, someone else
would do the reporting. There would be coordination without full explanation
and the way would be left open for misinterpretation. The Secretary again
expressed the view that much would depend upon the person doing the job.
Mr. Braden pointed out that the
situation which had existed during the war period, with the War and Navy
Departments doing considerable reporting on political affairs, had been
confusing, however necessary, in the emergency. The Secretary agreed that
War and Navy were continuing to do political reporting. He indicated that
the only method under the new plan by which the Department could be sure
that its policies and actions might not be misinterpreted would be to submit
a report of its own directly to the President before the coordinated report
from the Director of Central Intelligence had been sent in.
In answer to a question by Mr. Vincent as to whether the
Department of State would have the authority to see the coordinated reports
of the Director of Central Intelligence before they were presented to the
President, Mr. McCormack said that
under the proposed directives a copy would be sent to the Department after
presentation to the President. Mr. Braden emphasized the importance of State Department
controlling the reporting of its activities and policies but Mr. McCormack again indicated that struggle had
been lost in the order establishing the National Intelligence Authority.
(The Under Secretary left the meeting at this point.)
Mr. Braden inquired as to what would be
done about the FBI program in this
hemisphere since ARA had found this to be highly valuable if not essential.
Mr. McCormack said that Admiral Souers was apparently seeking to
avoid placing large numbers of OSS personnel
in the Departments of War and State, and did not wish to replace such useful
functions as those of the FBI in the other
American republics. The Secretary said that he had come to have a much
higher regard than formerly for
the work of the FBI in such activities, and
he added that there was additional practical value in the fact that the
FBI was highly successful in obtaining
appropriations from Congress.
Mr. Henderson, referring to the 43 people who would be
assigned from State Department to the National Intelligence Authority, asked
whether they would continue to be responsible to the Department. Mr.
McCormack said that they would be
entirely under control of the Director of Central Intelligence. Mr.
Henderson said that in his view the Department
should maintain control over them.
Mr. Clayton stated that it was his
view that the only department or agency of the Government competent to
express foreign policy was the Department of State through its responsible
officers. Plan as outlined in these directives, he felt, would only bring
continued and interminable trouble. The Secretary said that this meant that
the Department must coordinate its reports and present them to the President
each day, that this must be done in the most attractive and impressive
manner by competent officers.
In stating again his view that the Secretary should proceed very cautiously
on the program as set forth, Mr. Russell indicated that an alternative method might be for
the Department of State to prepare a report for the President within the
Department, a copy of which would be sent to the Director of Central
Intelligence for the purpose of coordinating it with intelligence from other
sources. Mr. McCormack suggested that
another possible solution was to confine the daily report to intelligence,
under a narrow definition, from the War, Navy and State Departments, but the
Secretary expressed his fear that this would not prove practicable. The
consensus was that in his meeting with the other members of the National
Intelligence Authority the Secretary should present fully the Department’s
position on the coordination and reporting of policies to the President.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
Annex ISecret—Not for Circulation to
Anyone Without Express Approval of Executive Secretary. This
addendum is designated as “Annex I” although it is the only annex
found with this set of minutes.
There was considerable discussion of the degree to which Admiral Leahy was maintaining control
of the intelligence function. The Secretary said that although the
President felt that by closing the Map Room in the White House Admiral Leahy’s influence would be reduced, actually
under this setup his control would be very much greater. He said that
the Admiral would now be able to spend all of his time with the National
Intelligence Authority. Mr. Russell said that the President would be put in a
position of seeing only that material which had been screened through
Admiral Leahy and that
reporting on policies or actions would be done without State Department
approval. Mr. McCormack reported
that Admiral Leahy had
apparently facetiously noted in his comments on the proposed directives
that the requirement that the State Department furnish reports on its
policies should be left out, since the State Department had no policies.
Mr. Russell said that however
facetiously suggested this proposal should be seized upon, and that the
requirement in the directives that statements on policies be submitted
should be taken out.
140. Minutes of the First Meeting of the National Intelligence
AuthoritySource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of
State, Decimal File 1945–49, 811.002/1–2446. Confidential. The meeting
was held at the Department of State.Washington, February 5, 1946, 11:30
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentSecretary of State James F.
ByrnesSecretary of War Robert P.
PattersonSecretary of the Navy James
ForrestalFleet Admiral William D.
Leahy, Personal Representative of the PresidentRear Admiral Sidney W.
Souers, Director of Central IntelligenceAlso PresentMr. H. Freeman Matthews, Department of
StateMr. Davidson Sommers, War DepartmentMr. Edward Hidalgo, Navy DepartmentSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr., Central
Intelligence Group
1. Proposed Policies and Procedures
Governing the Central Intelligence Group (N.I.A. 1)See footnote 1, Document 139.
Secretary Patterson suggested deleting
the word “prior” on the 8th line of page 3, in order to make it clear that
approval by the Authority was not required.
Admiral Souers suggested that this
might also be accomplished by substitution of the words “action by” for
“prior reference to”. He also recommended that a period be placed after
“departments” on line 4, paragraph 7, page 4, and that the remainder of the
sentence be deleted.
The National Intelligence Authority:
Agreed to the following amendments in N.I.A.
1: Substitute “action by” for “prior reference to” in line 8 of page
3.Place a period after the word “departments” in line 4, paragraph 7
of page 4 and delete the remainder of that sentence.
2. Proposed Tentative Organization of the
Central Intelligence Group (N.I.A.
2)See footnote 3,
Document 138.
Secretary Byrnes asked what paragraph
2–a on page 1 contemplated as to foreign policy. He pointed out that he is
responsible for reporting to the President on matters of foreign policy.
Admiral Souers explained his
understanding was that the President wanted him only to go through the
dispatch traffic and make a digest of significant developments. Admiral Souers emphasized that there was
no intention that he should interpret these dispatches or advise the
President on any matters of foreign policy. His report was intended to be
purely factual as regards the activities of the United States in the field
of foreign affairs.
Secretary Byrnes stressed the fact
that it was his function to furnish the President with information on which
to base conclusions.
Admiral Leahy expressed his
understanding that the President wanted the information from all three
departments (State, War and Navy) summarized in order to keep him currently
informed. Admiral Leahy pointed out
that Secretary Byrnes presents the
viewpoint of the Department of State while the President would like to
receive significant information available in all three departments in a
single summary.
Secretary Byrnes pointed out that
Admiral Souers would not be
presenting the viewpoint of any single department. Although the Central
Intelligence Group would be composed of personnel from all three
departments, Secretary Byrnes
believes that any man assigned to that Group must be responsible solely to
Admiral Souers.
Admiral Souers suggested that, in
order to clarify the meaning of paragraph 4 on page 3, it might be reworded
as follows: “Production of daily and weekly summaries of the significant
developments in the field of intelligence and operations related to the
national security and to foreign
events for the use of the President, the members of this Authority, and
additional distribution shown in Appendix ‘C’.”
After further discussion,
The National Intelligence Authority:
Agreed to defer final action on N.I.A. 1 and
N.I.A. 2, pending further study by
Secretary Byrnes.
141. National Intelligence Authority Directive No. 1Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132. Confidential.
Also reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under
Harry Truman, pp.
35–37.Washington, February 8, 1946.
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
GROUP
Pursuant to the attached letter from the President, dated 22 January 1946,
designating the undersigned as the National Intelligence Authority, you are
hereby directed to perform your mission, as Director of Central
Intelligence, in accordance with the following policies and procedures: The Central Intelligence Group shall be considered, organized and
operated as a cooperative interdepartmental activity, with adequate
and equitable participation by the State, War and Navy Departments
and, as recommended by you and approved by us, other Federal
departments and agencies. The Army Air Forces will be represented on
a basis similar to that of the Army and the Navy.The Central Intelligence Group will furnish strategic and national
policy intelligence to the President and the State, War and Navy
Departments, and, as appropriate, to the State–War–Navy Coordinating
Committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other governmental
departments and agencies having strategic and policy functions
related to the national security.
The composition of the Intelligence Advisory Board will be
flexible and will depend, in each instance, upon the subject
matter under consideration. The Special Assistant to the
Secretary of State in charge of Research and Intelligence, the
Assistant Chief of Staff G–2,
WDGS, the Chief of Naval
Intelligence and the Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Intelligence
(or their representatives) will be permanent members. You will
invite the head
(or his representative) of any other intelligence agency having
functions related to the national security to sit as a member on
all matters within the province of his agency.
All recommendations, prior to submission to this Authority, will
be referred to the Board for concurrence or comment. Any
recommendation which you and the Intelligence Advisory Board
approve unanimously and have the existing authority to execute
may be put into effect without action by this Authority. If any
member of the Board does not concur, you will submit to this
Authority the basis for his non-concurrence at the same time
that you submit your recommendation.
Recommendations approved by this Authority will, where applicable,
govern the intelligence activities of the separate departments
represented herein. The members of the Intelligence Advisory Board
will each be responsible for ensuring that approved recommendations
are executed within their respective departments.You will submit to this Authority as soon as practicable a
proposal for the organization of the Central Intelligence Group and
an estimate of the personnel and funds required from each department
by this Group for the balance of this fiscal year and for the next
fiscal year. Each year thereafter prior to the preparation of
departmental budgets, you will submit a similar estimate for the
following fiscal year. As approved by this Authority and within the
limits of available appropriations the necessary funds and personnel
will be made available to you by arrangement between you and the
appropriate department through its member on the Intelligence
Advisory Board. You may determine the qualifications of personnel
and the adequacy of individual candidates. Personnel assigned to you
will be under your operational and administrative control, subject
only to necessary personnel procedures in each department.The Central Intelligence Group will utilize all available
intelligence in producing strategic and national policy
intelligence. All intelligence reports prepared by the Central
Intelligence Group will note any substantial dissent by a
participating intelligence agency.As required in the performance of your authorized mission, there
will be made available to you or your authorized representatives all
necessary facilities, intelligence and information in the possession
of our respective departments. Arrangements to carry this out will
be made with members of the Intelligence Advisory Board. Conversely,
all facilities of the Central Intelligence Group and all
intelligence prepared by it will be made available to us and,
through arrangements agreed between you and the members of the
Intelligence Advisory Board, subject to any authorized restrictions,
to our respective departments.The operations of the intelligence agencies of our departments
will be open to inspection by you or your authorized representatives
in connection with your planning functions, under arrangements
agreed to between you and
the respective members of the Intelligence Advisory Board.You are authorized to request of other Federal departments and
agencies any information or assistance required by you in the
performance of your authorized mission.You will be responsible for furnishing, from the personnel of the
Central Intelligence Group, a Secretariat for this Authority, with
the functions of preparing agenda, reviewing and circulating papers
for consideration, attending all meetings, keeping and publishing
minutes, initiating and reviewing the implementation of decision,
and performing other necessary secretarial services.
Secretary of StateNo
signatures or any annotation indicating the directive was signed appears
on the source text.Secretary of WarSecretary of the NavyPersonal Representative of the President
142. National Intelligence Authority Directive No. 2Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–244. Confidential. This “tentative” version was
approved at the February 8 NIA meeting.
Appendices A–C are in the Supplement under cover of a February 11
memorandum from Souers.
(National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/2–1146)Washington, February 8, 1946.
ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE GROUP
(Tentative)
REFERENCES
The President’s letter of 22 January 1946, establishing the National
Intelligence AuthorityN.I.A. Directive Number 1Document
141.Pursuant to the President’s letter of 22 January 1946, designating the
undersigned as the National Intelligence Authority, the Central
Intelligence Group is hereby
constituted and will be activated this date by the Director of Central
Intelligence. In accordance with personnel authorizations approved by
this Authority, the Departments of State, War, and the Navy will assign
personnel to the Central Intelligence Group, and make reliefs and
replacements, upon the Director’s requisition. The approved initial
personnel authorization is enclosed (Appendix “A”).The initial authorization provides the minimum personnel necessary for
the tasks of organizing, surveying pressing problems, and meeting
initial requirements. As soon as practicable the Director will submit
his recommendations for augmentation of the Group.Initial principal offices and sub-divisions shall be as shown on the
chart (Appendix “B”), with functions as follows:Director of Central
Intelligence—Responsible for all operations of the Central
Intelligence Group in accordance with the President’s letter of
22 January 1946 and Directives of the National Intelligence
Authority. He will make the assignments of all personnel in the
Group. At the appropriate time, he will select an Assistant
Director from each of the four personnel contingents (State,
Army, Navy, Air), one of whom he may designate as his
Deputy.Administrative Section—This Section
will perform all necessary administrative and security functions
of the Group, and will provide the Secretariat for the National
Intelligence Authority.Central Reports Staff—This Staff will
assist the Director in accomplishing the correlation and
evaluation of intelligence relating to the national security,
and in accomplishing appropriate dissemination within the
Government of the resulting strategic and national policy
intelligence.Central Planning Staff—This Staff will
assist the Director in planning for the coordination of
intelligence activities related to the national security, and in
preparing recommendations regarding the establishment of such
over-all policies and objectives as will assure the most
effective accomplishment of the national intelligence
mission.Central Intelligence Services—The
Central Intelligence Services shall be such operating agencies
as may hereafter be established upon approval of this Authority
under the provisions of paragraph 3c of the President’s
Directive of 22 January.Initial Tasks. The Director of Central
Intelligence will give first priority to the following tasks: Production of daily summaries containing factual statements of
the significant developments in the field of intelligence and
operations related to the national security and to foreign
events for the use of the President, the members of this
Authority, and additional distribution shown in Appendix
“C”.Conducting a survey of existing facilities for collection of
foreign intelligence information, and submission of appropriate
recommendations.Secretary of StateNo
signatures or any annotation indicating the directive was signed appears
on the source text.Secretary of WarSecretary of the NavyPersonal Representative of the President
143. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Souers) to the Secretary of
State’s Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence (McCormack)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 101.5/2–1446. Confidential.Washington, February 14, 1946.
SUBJECT
Arrangements to make certain State Department intelligence and
information available to the Current Section, C.I.G.In accordance with paragraph 7, N.I.A.
Directive No. 1,Document 141. I request that you make appropriate
arrangements within the Department of State to make the following
intelligence and information available to the Current Section, C.I.G., in the performance of the priority
task indicated in paragraph 4 a, N.I.A.
Directive No. 2:Document 142.Information copies of the selected dispatches now delivered to
Mr. Reams in the Office of the
Secretary.A copy of Mr. Reams’ daily one-page
summary of the most important of such dispatches, normally
completed at 0930.Advanced copy prepared by Mr. Edgar for the Staff Officers’ Top Secret daily
summary, normally available between 1030 and 1130.The several daily and weekly Top Secret and Secret summaries
prepared in the Department.Access to this material will be limited to members of the Current
Section, all of whom have been cleared for access to intelligence and
information of the highest security classification.I request also that you obtain any necessary authorization in the
Department of State for the installation of properly secure teletype
communications between Mr. Edgar’s
office (Room 108) and the location of the Current Section in the
Pentagon, and for the transmission thereon of the material indicated
under 1 b and 1 c. This provision is essential to ensure its timely
availability to the Current Section. Messrs. Reams
and Edgar have been consulted by
Messrs. Montague and
Ruddock in this regard, and have indicated
their informal concurrence. In view of the urgency of the matter, I am
concurrently requesting of General
Vandenberg that he arrange for the installation of such
communications and for the indoctrination and technical training of
operators to be furnished by me. Sidney W. Souers
144. Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Top Secret. Limited Distribution. The
meeting was held at the New War Department Building.Washington, March 26, 1946, 3:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Rear Admiral Sidney W.
Souers, Director of Central Intelligence, in the ChairMembers PresentMr. Ludwell L. Montague
(representing Mr. Alfred
McCormack, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State in
Charge of Research and Intelligence)Lt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, WDGSCommodore Charles J. Rend (Representing Rear
Admiral Thomas B. Inglis, Chief
of Naval Intelligence)Brig. General George C.
McDonald, Assistant Chief of Air Staff,
IntelligenceMr. J. Edgar Hoover, Director
of the Federal Bureau of InvestigationAlso PresentMr. Kingman Douglass, Central Intelligence
GroupColonel Louis J. Fortier,
USA, Central Intelligence GroupCaptain Thomas F. Cullen, USNR, Central
Intelligence GroupColonel Charles P. Nicholas, USA, Central
Intelligence GroupColonel Harry F. Cunningham, USA, Central
Intelligence GroupColonel Willis A. Perry, USA, Central
Intelligence GroupSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, National Intelligence AuthorityMr. J.K. Tibby, Assistant Secretary
1. Policy on Liquidation of the Strategic Services
Unit
The directives proposed for submittal to the National Intelligence Authority
were read and minor amendments agreed upon.
Admiral Souers emphasized that the
intention was not to absorb SSU as an entity
within the Central Intelligence Group, but rather to assure the careful
liquidation of the Unit, over a period of months, so as to utilize its
services during that period and to permit the preservation and transfer to
permanent departments and agencies of SSU
elements found to be of continuing usefulness.
General Vandenberg asked whether
under the contemplated liquidation procedure, the G–2 of U.S. Forces, in the China Theater would be protected
from the liquidation of the SSU unit now in
China before other arrangements could be made by G–2 to provide for those operations considered essential by
G–2.
Admiral Souers said that this was an
example of the departmental interests which the proposed liquidation
directives were designed to protect. He recalled that General Vandenberg had recently forwarded
to C.I.G. a plan for post-war intelligence
in China as prepared by G–2, USFCT. In the course of planning post-war
intelligence coverage in that area, it might be found desirable to charge
C.I.G. itself with responsibility for
filling certain gaps. However, C.I.G. could
not enter such fields directly except by authorization of the National
Intelligence Authority, and in the meantime it would be the task of the
Director of Central Intelligence to insure that no available and necessary
services were discarded, through liquidation of SSU, until services as good or better could be provided to take
their place.
Commodore Rend proposed a revision of the paper designed
to clarify its language, but after Admiral
Souers explained the reasons for the present language of the
paper, Commodore Rend expressed his agreement.
Mr. Hoover said he was glad to see
that the directives provided for gradual rather than abrupt liquidation,
since this would more readily permit the retention of valuable elements by
the Government. He thought the objectives were very satisfactorily
expressed.
After concluding discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Concurred in the draft directives as amended (subsequently submitted to the
National Intelligence Authority as N.I.A.
3).NIA 3
was a draft of NIA Directive No. 4,
“Policy on Liquidation of the Strategic Services Unit,” Document 106.
2. C.I.G. Weekly
Summary
Admiral Souers reported that plans
for issuance of a C.I.G. Weekly Summary were
in hand. The Central Reports Staff had worked up several practice issues.
However, it was clear that if the Weekly were to fulfill its real
function—and be more than a rehash of preceding Daily Summaries—two or three
seasoned intelligence officers with specialized experience would have to be
added to the staff. He was attempting to strengthen the present staff with
this in mind, by negotiations with the several departments.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Took note of the above comments.
3. J.I.C. Papers
The Director said that arrangements had been made with the Joint Intelligence
CommitteeA committee of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff responsible for preparing intelligence estimates and
studies. for C.I.G. to receive
copies of appropriate J.I.C. papers. In
reply the Secretary of J.I.C. had suggested
that all C.I.G. papers be furnished to his
office for file and for the use of the Joint Intelligence Staff. Admiral Souers was willing to send
appropriate C.I.G. papers to the Secretary
of J.I.C., but felt that many papers of
C.I.G. would not be of benefit to J.I.S. and should therefore not be sent.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Concurred with Admiral Souers’
proposed policy.
4. Special Agents
General Vandenberg inquired how soon
the Central Intelligence Group would be in a position to interview the
individuals who are now presenting themselves as prospective special agents
abroad. General Vandenberg said
there were a number of these candidates, and that he was using a few of
them. He is anxious to turn such activities over to the Central Intelligence
Group, however, as soon as possible, because of the danger that agents from
different agencies may get crossed up in the field.
Admiral Souers stated that he wanted
to be completely prepared to conduct such operations before interviewing or
hiring any individuals. He does not want to confuse the permanent program
with the existing operations of SSU. One of
the biggest problems will be to find the appropriate man to head this
operation, who can then utilize the services of these individuals on a
professional basis. In the meantime, Admiral
Souers would prefer that existing agencies conduct their
operations in this field until a permanent program has been decided upon by
the N.I.A. and established. He feels that
one of the most urgent elements in this program is the use of ordinary
business, scientific and professional men and travelers who are going
abroad. This will not be a “cloak and dagger” type of operation, but will
require careful organization.
General Vandenberg expressed the
belief, and Admiral Souers agreed,
that all such clandestine operations should be under a single directing
head.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Took note of the above discussion.
145. Minutes of the Third Meeting of the National Intelligence
AuthoritySource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132.
Confidential. The meeting was held at the Department of State. This was
an instance in which the meetings of the National Intelligence Authority
and the Committee of Three overlapped. A record of the NIA portion of the meeting also exists in
the Committee of Three minutes. (Ibid., RG 107, Records of the Office of
the Secretary of War, Secretary of War Patterson’s Subject File, RPP Committee of Three, Safe
File No. 1) A note on the source text indicates Admiral Leahy “subsequently approved
the action taken at the meeting.”Washington, April 2, 1946, 11
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentSecretary of State James F.
Byrnes, in the ChairSecretary of War Robert P.
PattersonSecretary of the Navy James
ForrestalAlso PresentMr. Howard C. Petersen,
Assistant Secretary of WarMr. H. Freeman Matthews, Department of
StateMr. Edward Hidalgo, Navy Department
1. Progress Report by Director of Central
Intelligence
At Secretary Byrnes’ request,
Admiral Souers gave a brief
report on the progress of organization of the Central Intelligence Group,
and noted some of the more important projects now in progress. He invited
attention to the fact that the most urgent problem concerning the
disposition of the Strategic Services Unit was covered by the paperSee the source note, Document
106. for consideration at this meeting. Admiral Souers also explained that
further details concerning current projects were available in the weekly
Status Report which was distributed to the Authority.Not printed.
2. Policy on Liquidation of the Strategic
Services Unit (N.I.A. 3)
Secretary Patterson suggested the
following amendments:The addition of a new paragraph to the proposed N.I.A. Directive (page 4) as follows:
“5. The War Department shall retain the right to determine
what portion of War Department funds, personnel and
facilities can be made available to SSU by the War Department.”
Insert the words “within your capabilities” in the second line of
the third paragraph following the word “service”, and in the sixth
line of the third paragraph following the word “available.”
The National Intelligence Authority:
Approved N.I.A. 3 subject to the above
amendments (Enclosure A thereto subsequently circulated as N.I.A. Directive No. 4).Document 106.
146. Minutes of the Third Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Confidential; Limited Distribution. The
meeting was held at the New War Department Building.Washington, April 8, 1946, 3 p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Mr. Kingman Douglass, Acting Director of Central
Intelligence, in the ChairMembers PresentMr. Alfred McCormack, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State in Charge of Research and
IntelligenceLt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, WDGSRear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceBrig. General George C.
McDonald, Assistant Chief of Air Staff,
IntelligenceAlso PresentCaptain W.B. Goggins, USN, Central Intelligence
GroupColonel C.P. Nicholas, USA, Central Intelligence
GroupSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, National Intelligence Authority
1. 1947 Budget for Intelligence Work of the Department of
State
Mr. McCormack submitted the letter in
Enclosure “A”In the April 8 letter, McCormack asked
Douglass to obtain the IAB’s views on a possible recommendation by the NIA to Congress in support of the
Department of State intelligence budget. See the Supplement. for
consideration.
Mr. Douglass asked for the comments of the other members
on the suggestion in Mr. McCormack’s
letter.
General Vandenberg felt that the
Secretary of State had considerable influence in the Congress and might well
be able to secure the requested appropriation if he so desired. Therefore,
until the Secretary of State requests assistance from the other N.I.A. members, General Vandenberg is very reluctant to advise the Secretary
of War to take any action. General
Vandenberg noted that Admiral
Souers in the last N.I.A.
meeting had already expressed the opinion, from the viewpoint of C.I.G., that more than $2,000,000 was required
for State Department intelligence. General
Vandenberg understood that the Secretaries of War and the
Navy had concurred with Admiral
Souers.
Admiral Inglis agreed with General Vandenberg that N.I.A. action should not be taken until the
Secretary of State requested such assistance. Admiral Inglis asked whether Mr. McCormack was representing the Secretary of
State in presenting this matter.
Mr. McCormack explained that his
action was not taken on a specific request from the Secretary of State. In
his capacity as Special Assistant, however, Mr. McCormack felt that it was his duty to do all in his power
to secure the appropriation which the Secretary of State had requested and
had not officially revised or withdrawn. He admitted that there was some
difference of opinion within the Department of State as to the organization
and even the need for intelligence activities in that Department.
Admiral Inglis did not wish to comment
upon any matters of internal disagreement within the Department of State. He
felt, however, that the Central Intelligence Group should take over from the
Department the basic intelligence research and analysis function.
Mr. McCormack stated that he was not
insisting that any action be taken, but he thought it entirely appropriate
that the Board advise the N.I.A. what effect
the reported action of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, if sustained
by the Congress, would have upon the work of the Central Intelligence
Group.
General Vandenberg believed that the
N.I.A. would always have difficulty in
such cases until it has its own operating funds. With such funds its
recommendations regarding departmental budgets will have more weight with
Congress. So long as its funds come from the various Departments, however,
its recommendations regarding budgets will not have great influence.
General Vandenberg questioned
whether this Board should become involved in this matter at this time, or
whether it would not be preferable to find out first what the Secretary of
State proposes to do.
Mr. McCormack believed that this Board
has the authority to advise the N.I.A. at
this time on its own initiative.
General Vandenberg maintained that
Admiral Souers had already
advised the N.I.A. of the C.I.G. views on this point; the only question
at present was whether that advice was sufficient.
Mr. Douglass thought there was an additional question of
how much burden would be placed upon the War and Navy Departments to fill
the gap created by the lack of a State Department intelligence organization.
He thought this might require an increase in War and Navy Department budgets
for intelligence.
Admiral Inglis pointed out that the
Navy Department intelligence budget had already been submitted. It might,
therefore, be harder to change that than to attempt to retain the State
Department budget.
General Vandenberg felt that if the
State Department intelligence budget was refused, Congress would react
unfavorably to a subsequent War and Navy Department request for additional
appropriations for the same purpose.
Admiral Inglis believed that the Board
should either suggest doing nothing, or recommend to the N.I.A. that the research and analysis function
be transferred from State to
C.I.G. In the latter case, he felt that
the personnel assigned to C.I.G. should be
carefully screened and that the funds for research and analysis should come
from the State Department for the 1947 fiscal year. He thought that C.I.G. should have an independent budget for
the 1948 fiscal year.
General Vandenberg thought that the
N.I.A. was already in a difficult
situation for the coming year, and questioned whether the additional burden
of a research and analysis unit should be added during that time. He was in
agreement, however, with the ultimate desirability of having such a research
and analysis unit in C.I.G.
Mr. Douglass thought that the Secretary of State might
feel that $2,000,000 was enough to meet his needs and would be reluctant to
transfer anything to C.I.G. Mr.
Douglass, however, also agreed with the
desirability of a research and analysis unit in C.I.G.General Vandenberg said that if the
State Department decided to decentralize intelligence, he did not think that
Department could object to C.I.G. assuming
the research and analysis function.
General McDonald thought that the
N.I.A. should not do anything unless the
Secretary of State requested its assistance.
Mr. McCormack pointed out that so far
as the official record is concerned, the Secretary of State had requested
over $5,000,000 for intelligence, which the Bureau of the Budget had reduced
to about $4,000,000.
Admiral Inglis thought that C.I.G. could be properly concerned about the
loss of the $330,000 earmarked for its operations.
General Vandenberg thought that the
C.I.G. had a proper interest in this
budget, but that the actions of C.I.G.
should depend on what action the Secretary of State planned to take.
General Vandenberg therefore
thought that the first step should be for the Director of Central
Intelligence to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State and find out
his views and proposed actions.
Colonel Nicholas questioned whether the Director of
Central Intelligence, with the concurrence of this Board, could not advise
the Secretary of State of the detrimental effect upon C.I.G. of the proposed cut in the budget.
General Vandenberg agreed. He
thought that if the Secretary of State indicated that he felt further action
in support of his intelligence budget was unnecessary, this Board might
justifiably express its alarm at that time.
Mr. McCormack suggested that his
letter be tabled until the Director of Central Intelligence had seen the
Secretary of State and until the House Appropriations Committee had acted on
the budget.
Mr. Douglass thought the solution might be to advise
Admiral Leahy of the
situation.
General Vandenberg thought the
C.I.G. should find out what the
Secretary of State intends to do. If he intends to accept the refusal of the
budget without further action on his part, the C.I.G. should express its alarm. However, if the Secretary of
State proposes to take all possible action in support of his budget.
General Vandenberg believed
that no further action was necessary by C.I.G.
Mr. McCormack noted that the great
difficulty is the uncertainty in the minds of his employees created by the
action of the House Appropriations Subcommittee. This uncertainty causes the
capable personnel to resign in favor of more secure employment.
Mr. Douglass agreed to attempt to see the Secretary of
State as suggested.
Admiral Inglis suggested that the
possibility of transferring the research and analysis function from State to
the C.I.G. might also be discussed with the
Secretary of State.
General Vandenberg expressed his
willingness to concur in such a transfer if State agreed to finance the
operations for the next year. He believed, however, that C.I.G. should not oppose the State Department
if it desired to retain that function.
Admiral Inglis said that he still
considered the transfer as the best ultimate solution.
General Vandenberg thought that the
Director of Central Intelligence might find out from the Secretary of State
his reactions to a recommendation by this Board that C.I.G. assume this research and analysis function. General Vandenberg thought that
intelligence would be forthcoming if this function was in either the State
Department or the C.I.G., but he agreed that
transfer to C.I.G. was the preferable
solution.
Mr. McCormack expressed the belief
that the Secretary of State has not yet formulated a definite opinion
regarding the ultimate form or composition of the intelligence activities in
the State Department.
After further discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:Agreed to recommend to the Director of Central Intelligence that he:Advise the Secretary of State of the adverse effect, upon
the work of the Central Intelligence Group, of a substantial
reduction or deletion of the 1947 appropriation for
intelligence work in the Department of State.Ascertain the views and proposed actions of the Secretary
of State regarding this appropriation.Ascertain, if the opportunity arises, the views of the
Secretary of State as to the possibility that the
intelligence research and analysis function, for which this appropriation
was requested, might be transferred from the Department of
State to the Central Intelligence Group.No record has been found of a
communication or discussion between Souers and Byrnes on these
subjects.Agreed to defer further consideration of Mr. McCormack’s letter (Enclosure
hereto) pending the above action by the Director of Central
Intelligence and further information concerning the action of the
House Appropriations Committee on the 1947 budget for State
Department intelligence work.
147. Central Intelligence Group Administrative Order No. 3Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–208. Confidential. The source text is dated by
hand and carries the handwritten notation “Revised.”Washington, April 19, 1946.
ACTIVATION OF THE CENTRAL REPORTS STAFF
Reference: N.I.A. Directives
Nos. 1 and 2Documents
141 and 142.
Pursuant to N.I.A. Directive No. 2,
the Central Reports Staff is hereby established, its initial strength to
be as authorized in N.I.A. Directive No.
2, Appendix A.Not printed. (National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Leahy
Papers) Attached to NIA 2, February
5, in the Supplement.The Chief, Central Reports Staff, shall be responsible to the Director
of Central Intelligence for the preparation, substantive content, and
appropriate dissemination of all intelligence reports produced by the
Central Intelligence Group pursuant to paragraph 3–a of the President’s
directive of 22 January 1946 and to N.I.A. directives. One Assistant to the Chief, C.R.S., shall be designated by each
permanent member of the Intelligence Advisory Board. In distinction from
other C.R.S. personnel, who, in accordance with N.I.A. Directive No.1, shall be assigned to C.I.G. and responsible to the Director of
Central Intelligence, these Assistants shall be assigned to the offices
of the permanent members of the I.A.B.
and responsible to them, although detailed to serve full-time with the
Chief, C.R.S. They shall: Represent the interests of their respective members of the
Advisory Board in the operations of the Central Reports
Staff.Represent the Central Reports Staff in its relations with
their respective agencies.Assist the Chief, C.R.S., in: The formulation of directives to the subdivisions of
C.R.S and of requests upon departmental agencies for
essential information.The review of summaries, estimates, and studies
prepared by the subdivisions of C.R.S.The recommendation of appropriate dissemination of
such summaries, estimates, and studies.Although it shall be the endeavor of the Chief, C.R.S., and his
Assistants to effect such reconciliation of conflicting departmental
estimates as to obviate disagreement at the level of the Intelligence
Advisory Board, unanimous concurrence shall not be required, it being
the responsibility of the Chief to determine the position to be taken in
the C.R.S. report in accordance with the weight of the evidence or of
opinion. In all cases of important disagreement, however, the substance
of the disagreement shall be reported. On assignment to the Central Intelligence Group and detail to the
Central Reports Staff, the remaining personnel authorized in N.I.A. Directive No. 2, Appendix “A”, shall
be responsible to the Chief, C.R.S. They shall be selected with a view
to obtaining a proper balance of regional and functional specialization.
The internal organization of the Central Reports Staff shall be effected
in a manner calculated to utilize the resources inherent in this group
as a whole in the preparation of both periodical summaries and special
estimates. During the period of activation the Chief, C.R.S., is
authorized to organize the personnel then present as he may consider
most expedient for the accomplishment of the tasks then undertaken,
keeping the Director of Central Intelligence informed. When the Staff
has been fully activated, he will submit to the Director a formal plan
of organization based on experience for approval and publication.The initial task of the Central Reports Staff shall be the production
of a daily summary in accordance with paragraph 4–a of N.I.A. Directive No. 2. Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
148. Memorandum by the Director of Central Intelligence (Souers)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–276. Top Secret; Limited Distribution.Washington, April 29, 1946.
CIG 8
DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLIGENCE ON U.S.S.R.
By informal arrangement under the coordination of the C.I.G., M.I.S.. has sponsored the organization of a Planning
Committee, with representation of the C.I.G., State Department, M.I.S.., O.N.I., and A–2,
to formulate a plan to utilize the facilities of all interested
Government agencies for the production of the highest possible quality
of intelligence on the U.S.S.R. in the shortest possible time. It was
agreed that C.I.G. would take over
formal sponsorship of the project at the earliest possible moment, but
that meanwhile active work on it would be started.The Planning Committee has drawn up a plan for Development of
Intelligence on the U.S.S.R. which has been approved informally by each
of you. The plan provides that after such approval, formal action will
be arranged for as deemed advisable by C.I.G.Paragraph 3 of N.I.A. Directive No. 1
provides a procedure by which the necessary formal directive can be
published and carried out by unanimous approval of the Director of
Central Intelligence and the Intelligence Advisory Board, without action
by the National Intelligence Authority.A draft of a formal directive is enclosed. If all members of the
Intelligence Advisory Board concur in the draft without substantial
change, a meeting will not be necessary. It is recommended that the
draft be approved and that each member of the Intelligence Advisory
Board arrange for any additional implementation required by this
Department.Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
EnclosureTop Secret.
Draft Central Intelligence Group Directive
DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLIGENCE ON U.S.S.R.
Memorandum by the Director of Central Intelligence,
With the Unanimous Concurrence of the Intelligence Advisory
Board
There is an urgent need to develop the highest possible quality of
intelligence on the U.S.S.R. in the shortest possible time. By
informal agreement, a Planning Committee, composed of a coordinator
from the Central Intelligence Group (C.I.G.) and representatives from the State Department,
Military Intelligence Division (G–2),
Office of Naval Intelligence (O.N.I.) and the Office of the Assistant Chief of Air
Staff–2 (A–2), has been formed and has drawn up a plan to coordinate
and improve the production of intelligence on the U.S.S.R. This plan
has been approved informally by all members of the Intelligence
Advisory Board and is now in operation.The purpose of this Directive is to formalize the temporary
agreement and establish it as a project under the coordination of
the Director of Central Intelligence. The mission of the project is
to develop and pool the appropriate resources of all agencies of the
United States Government in order to insure the production of the
highest possible quality of intelligence on the U.S.S.R. and its
peripheral areas in the minimum time.A Planning Committee is established to devise ways and means for
carrying out the mission. This Committee will consist of a
coordinator, furnished by the Director of Central Intelligence, and
of one representative each of the Special Assistant to the Secretary
of State in Charge of Research and Intelligence; the Assistant Chief
of Staff, G–2, W.D.G.S.; the Chief of Naval
Intelligence; and the Assistant Chief of Air Staff–2. The
coordinator will act in a supervisory capacity. The Planning
Committee will select a chairman and a secretary from among its
representatives. The chairman of the Committee will consult the
coordinator whenever necessary to secure assistance of the Central
Intelligence Group on problems confronting the Committee. When
appropriate, the coordinator will meet with the Committee. In case
of disagreement within the Planning Committee, the matter will be
submitted by the coordinator to the Director of Central Intelligence
for decision. a. A Working Committee is established to carry out the policies
and plans prepared by the Planning Committee. It will be composed of
the necessary personnel from the State Department, G–2, O.N.I. and A–2. The secretary of the Planning Committee
will be the chairman of the Working Committee. The chairman of the
Committee will consult the C.I.G.
coordinator on the Planning Committee whenever necessary to secure
assistance of the Central Intelligence Group on problems confronting
the Committee. When appropriate, the C.I.G. coordinator will meet with the Committee.b. The Working Committee will establish and coordinate a system to
compile a digest of all types of factual
strategic intelligence on the U.S.S.R. This digest shall be known as
Strategic Intelligence Digest (S.I.D.). Facilities of the member agencies will be
utilized to the maximum extent. The Committee will establish its own
methods of operation.c. Copies of S.I.D. will be
distributed to member agencies and the C.I.G. only. Strategic Intelligence Estimates (S.I.E.),
based on the S.I.D., will be
prepared by member agencies individually as required to meet their
own needs and also whenever requested by the Director of Central
Intelligence. All estimates prepared by member agencies will be
furnished the C.I.G. Whenever the
national interest requires it, estimates will be prepared by the
C.I.G.d. The Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2, W.D.G.S., will
provide office space and other necessary facilities for the Working
Committee in the Pentagon Building. Each member of the Intelligence Advisory Board will furnish the
name of his representative on the Planning Committee to the Director
of Central Intelligence. These representatives will be responsible
for furnishing the lists of personnel authorized to work in or help
the Working Committee. a. The classification of this project shall be Top Secret. The
greatest care will be taken to maintain the security of the
existence of the operation.b. Access to Government agencies other than those participating in
the project will be arranged by C.I.G. Representation on the Working Committee from
additional Government agencies will be approved first by the
Planning Committee.
149. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Souers) to the President’s Chief of StaffSource: Truman
Library, Papers of Harry S.
Truman, President’s Secretary’s Files. Secret. Truman had directed General
Eisenhower, the Army Chief of Staff, to
recommend a successor to Souers. Eisenhower proposed General
Bonesteel. (Letter,
Eisenhower to Truman, April 27; ibid.) See the
Supplement.Washington, May 7, 1946.
Attached is a brief of the biographical data of Major General
Charles Hartwell Bonesteel.Not printed, but see the Supplement. The data on
which it is based was obtained from public sources and was not discussed
with anyone.
There is nothing in the record of this officer to indicate that he has ever
had any broad experience in intelligence matters. He has had no intelligence
duties.
The N.I.A. is a new concept in intelligence
which requires a breadth of view and a deep understanding of the entire
field on the part of the Director of Central Intelligence. The officers in
the various departments engaged in this activity on the working level are
generally experts in their spheres and too often the officers assigned to
the higher level posts have been possessed of limited experience in
intelligence. To insure the most beneficial results in the Central
Intelligence Group it is necessary that the Director be an officer to whom
those specialists will look for leadership and guidance based on a thorough
and comprehensive knowledge of this complex subject.
In order that coordination be effected to the greatest extent, and the
transfer effected of many functions of ONI,
G–2, A–2 and State to the C.I.G., it is essential that these services
recognize the strong leadership and inherent skill in C.I.G. top level personnel.
General Bonesteel is 61 years of age and seems to have
passed the peak of his career some years ago. His record while honorable is
not too impressive.
Lieutenant General Vandenberg is 47
years of age, has a fine war record, is regarded as an outstanding officer
and is keenly interested in intelligence. His leadership in G–2 has been strong and determined. He has
demonstrated his recognition of the necessity for the reorientation of the
intelligence structure.
Respectfully,
Sidney W. Souers
150. Memorandum From the President’s Chief of Staff (Leahy) to President TrumanSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 131.
Secret.Washington, May 9, 1946.
Referring to the attached letter addressed to you by General
Eisenhower on 27 April 1946Not printed, see the source note, Document 149. in regard to the appointment of a
Director of Central Intelligence to relieve Rear Admiral Souers, I have looked into the suitability of
Major General Bonesteel for this assignment and am in
agreement with the memorandum of 7 May by Rear
Admiral Souers attached hereto.Document 149.
In my opinion it is essential in the formative period of the National
Intelligence Authority to have as Director of Central Intelligence an
officer of proved ability in the collection and evaluation of intelligence,
who has also superior executive ability and an established prestige in the
intelligence field, as well as in the opinions of the Secretaries of State,
War, and Navy.
We appear to be unable to find any available officer of the Army other than
General Vandenberg who fully
meets these specifications.
It is therefore recommended that the Secretary of War be informed of the high
importance that the President attaches to the successful completion of the
development of the National Intelligence Authority and that he desires that
General Vandenberg be made
available for assignment as Director of Central Intelligence to relieve
Rear Admiral Souers within the
ensuing two months.
W. D. LeahyPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
151. Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Top Secret. The meeting was held at the War
Department.Washington, May 9, 1946, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Rear Admiral Sidney W.
Souers, Director of Central Intelligence, in the ChairMembers PresentDr. William L. Langer, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State in Charge of Research and
IntelligenceLt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2,
W.D.G.S.Commodore Charles J. Rend (representing Rear
Admiral Thomas B. Inglis, Chief
of Naval Intelligence)Brig. General George C.
McDonald, Assistant Chief of Air Staff,
IntelligenceMr. D. M. Ladd, for Items 1 and
2 (representing Mr. J. Edgar
Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation)Also PresentMr. Kingman Douglass, Deputy Director, Central
Intelligence GroupColonel M. N. Huston, G–2Captain R. K. Davis, USN, O.N.I.Colonel E. P. Mussett, A–2Lt. Colonel F. K. Newcomer, G–2Colonel L. J. Fortier,
Central Intelligence GroupCaptain W. B. Goggins, USN, Central Intelligence
GroupColonel R. H. Boberg, Central Intelligence
GroupColonel H. F. Cunningham (for Item 1), Central
Intelligence GroupCaptain R. Goldthwaite, USN (for Items 2–4),
Central Intelligence GroupColonel C. P. Nicholas, Central Intelligence
GroupColonel W. A. Perry, Central Intelligence
GroupColonel T. J. Sands, Central Intelligence
GroupSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, National Intelligence AuthorityMr. J. K. Tibby, Assistant Secretary
1. Policy on Clearance of Personnel for
Duties With Central Intelligence Group (C.I.G. 7 and C.I.G. 7/1)Neither printed. (Both ibid.,
HS/HC–276)
The proposed amendments to C.I.G. 7, as
contained in C.I.G. 7/1, were taken under
consideration.
Admiral Souers was of the opinion
that the screening committee recommended by the Chief of Naval Intelligence
in C.I.G. 7/1 would be difficult to
administer and in fact, was an unnecessary duplication of other provisions
of the paper, since Paragraph 8 of C.I.G. 7
provided that no individuals could be certified for duties with the Central
Intelligence Group until after a security inquiry which would include a
records check of member agencies of the I.A.B.
Commodore Rend felt that it is impossible to do too much
in the interests of security. He saw no completely desirable substitute for
the proposed formal screening committee, even if it were to involve some
degree of duplication, and he was sure that he spoke the views of the Chief
of Naval Intelligence in this connection.
Admiral Souers agreed that all
practicable security measures should be taken even if they involved extra
work, but he thought all such measures should be practical and capable of
efficient administration.
In the course of further discussion, in which other members expressed
satisfaction with the language of the section as written, Colonel
Boberg proposed as the basis of a generally
agreeable solution the revision of Paragraph 7 of C.I.G. 7 to read:
“7. Reports of investigations will be subject to review in each case
by the Security Officer, C.I.G., who will verify that member departments other than
the nominating department have cleared the nominee. Final
decision as to acceptability of an individual for an assignment to
the Central Intelligence Group will rest with the Director of
Central Intelligence.”
The amendment was accepted.
The recommendations of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and of the State
Department were then considered. Admiral
Souers said that he agreed with Mr. Hoover’s criticism of Paragraph 9 of C.I.G. 7 and believed that the remedy should be
the addition to that paragraph of the following provision:
“In each case of clearance based on a previous satisfactory character
and loyalty investigation or on the basis of a minimum of ten (10)
years honorable Government service, a check of the appropriate
records in the Department of State; Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Military Intelligence Service, War Department, and Office of Naval
Intelligence, Navy Department, will be made prior to the issuance of
a clearance certificate.”
Mr. Ladd and other members of the
Intelligence Advisory Board agreed to this change.
Dr. Langer set forth the purpose of
the State Department recommendations covering exceptional cases, but after
discussion it was agreed that the provisions of C.I.G. 7 (Paragraph 13) were satisfactory to all concerned.
After accepting further minor amendments offered by the Central Planning
Staff,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Approved C.I.G. 7, subject to the amendments
above (Enclosure to C.I.G. 7 subsequently
issued as C.I.G. Directive No. 8Dated May 9. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 130) See the
Supplement.).
2. Provision for Monitoring of Press and
Propaganda Broadcasts of Foreign Powers (C.I.G. 1/1 and C.I.G. 1/2)CIG 1, February
25, 1946, CIG 1/1, April 26, 1946, and
CIG 1/2, May 8, 1946. (Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See the
Supplement.
Admiral Souers reviewed the history
of the Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service (FBIS). He noted the recommendation in his own report (C.I.G. 1/1) that the service be continued under
C.I.G. direction and War Department
administration, and invited attention to the dissenting recommendation of
the Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2, in C.I.G. 1/2, that the project be administered by
the Department of State or by the C.I.G.
directly. On the second point, Admiral
Souers could not agree with General Vandenberg that the Central Intelligence Group
should administer such a service directly. The C.I.G. is not an independent agency and thus is not empowered
to sign contracts, nor does it have technical personnel readily available.
While the C.I.G. was authorized to perform
“such services of common concern as the National Intelligence Authority
determines can be more efficiently accomplished centrally”, he believed the
most efficient procedure in this case was probably that outlined in C.I.G. 1/1.
General Vandenberg agreed it would
be difficult for the C.I.G. to assume direct
administrative control of FBIS at this
time. Yet he felt that the position of the War Department should be
appreciated and understood. As he saw it, the War Department had accepted
the interim responsibility for administering FBIS until the end of this fiscal year, in order to serve the
many Government agencies interested in the product of monitoring. Now, more
than ever, it was clear that the bulk of the information obtained by this
means was not primarily related to military intelligence; rather it related
to political and economic intelligence, and for this reason was surely of
greater interest to the Department of State than to the War Department. He
doubted whether G–2 could continue to justify
requests for FBIS appropriations for these
reasons, and he felt there should be no delay in placing the administration
of FBIS in an agency of primary interest,
such as State, or in C.I.G. as a centralized
service.
Admiral Souers noted that the
disposition proposed in C.I.G. 1/1 would
require the approval of the National Intelligence Authority. Should the
Authority agree that the War Department was the appropriate agency to
administer the service, it could be presumed that the Secretaries of State,
War, and the Navy could defend the conclusion in relation to
appropriations.
General Vandenberg thought it would
be easier for the three Secretaries to defend the service within State or
C.I.G. than in the War Department.
Admiral Souers said he had
originally thought the State Department would be the ideal lodgment for
FBIS, and in fact he believed the
former Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence (Mr. McCormack) had once held the same view.
However, there had recently been so much question as to the scope of the
operations to be undertaken by State that he thought it best to leave the
administrative responsibility where it was—that is, in the War
Department—with over-all direction from
C.I.G.
General Vandenberg pointed out that,
since only about 5% of all foreign broadcasts are monitored, priorities must
be constantly shifted to meet the most important requirements. The War
Department is unable to anticipate the shifting requirements for political
and economic information, and thus to adjust its coverage of foreign output,
as promptly as would a directly interested agency such as the Department of
State. Moreover, all that would be necessary for such a change would be to
transfer the existing technical group and point their activities in the
direction of major interest.
Dr. Langer said he recognized the
force of General Vandenberg’s
argument. Much of the material which FBIS
was obliged to cover dealt with political, economic, and psychological
developments of the greatest interest and importance to the State
Department. It might be logical to place FBIS administration under State. At the same time, in view of
the current heavy burden on State Department administrative facilities, he
was not sure that the Department could now assume a new responsibility of
such dimensions. The subject was one on which he could not express a final
judgment without checking with his own Department.
General Vandenberg added that G–2 would be glad to lend to State the services
of necessary experts, and to arrange for a gradual transfer of
administrative responsibility, if such measures would assist a solution.
After concluding discussion, and on the motion of Admiral Souers,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:Deferred action on C.I.G. 1/1
pending further study.Noted that the Director of Central Intelligence directed the
Central Planning Staff to consult with appropriate officials in
G–2 and the State Department as
to the practicability of transferring the monitoring function to the
State Department, and to recommend any revisions in C.I.G. 1/1 deemed appropriate.
3. Development of Intelligence on
USSR (C.I.G. 8Document 148. and
C.I.G. 8/1Dated May 8, 1946. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–276) See the Supplement.)
The memorandum of the Director of Central Intelligence (C.I.G. 8) and the proposed amendments thereto
(C.I.G. 8/1) were considered by the
Members.
After discussion, the following amendments to the Enclosure to C.I.G. 8 were adopted: In Paragraph 3 the fourth sentence was revised to read: “The
Planning Committee will select a chairman from among its
representatives. The Secretary shall be furnished by a member agency
by mutual agreement.”In Paragraph 4.a., the words “as necessary and available” were
inserted at the end of the second sentence.In Paragraph 4.b., the word “practicable” was inserted at the end
of the third sentence.
4. Distribution of C.I.G.
Daily Summary
Admiral Souers advised that inquiry
had been received from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
as to the possibility of his being placed on the distribution for the C.I.G. Daily Summary. He noted that since the
distribution of the Summary had been established by the National
Intelligence Authority, any increased distribution would require the
Authority’s approval.
After discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Noted that the Director of Central Intelligence would discuss informally with
the Secretary of State the distribution of the C.I.G. Daily Summary to the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
152. Memorandum From President Truman to Secretary of War PattersonSource: Truman Library, Papers
of Harry S. Truman, Official
File. No classification marking.Washington, May 16, 1946.
Admiral Souers, who has been serving
as the Director of the Central Intelligence Group, will be leaving that
position in a short time
I discussed his successor with General Eisenhower and
suggested to him that Lieutenant General
Vandenberg was the proper man to succeed Admiral Souers. General
Eisenhower told me that he needed General Vandenberg and he recommended
Major General Bonesteel to me.See the source note to Document
149.
It seems to me that Lieutenant General
Vandenberg is the proper person for this position—he knows it
from “A to Z”, he is a diplomat and will be able to get along with the State
and Navy, as well as the War Department, and if it will not completely
cripple General Eisenhower I would like very much to
have Lieutenant General Vandenberg
assigned to serve as the Director of the Central Intelligence Group.Vandenberg was sworn in as Director of Central
Intelligence on June 10.
Harry S. TrumanPrinted from a copy that
indicates President Truman
signed the original.
153. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Langer) to the Secretary of State’s Staff
CommitteeSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot
File No. 122, Box 94. Restricted. Transmitted by a covering note stating
that the Advisory Committee on Intelligence had considered the problem
and decided that it required a decision at the level of the Secretary’s
Staff Committee. (Memorandum from Langer to John Gange, June 7;
ibid.) See the Supplement. The action by the Advisory Committee on
Intelligence is in the minutes of its first meeting, June 4. (National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot
File No. 122, Box 94) See the Supplement.Washington, June 6, 1946.
ARMY AND NAVY DESIRE TO ESTABLISH INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AT
U.S. CONSULATES
The Problem:
The War and Navy Departments have requested the State Department to undertake
negotiations for permission to assign military and naval personnel for
intelligence activities at a number of U.S. consulates throughout the world.
The State Department has drawn the attention of the Army and Navy to the
unprecedented character of the requests in peace-time and to the
inevitability of reciprocity having to be accorded the foreign nations
involved.
On April 29 the Department forwarded memoranda to the Assistant Chief of
Staff, G–2, and the Chief of Naval
Intelligence, requesting that their Departments provide (a) details of the
total program which each contemplated, (b) statements of the privileges and
immunities desired for the personnel attached to the consulates and their
archives and (c) a statement of the extent to which they are prepared to
have reciprocal privileges granted to the countries concerned.None of the documents referred to in this memorandum
has been found.
On May 23 the War Department furnished the requested information. Its program
contemplates the establishment of intelligence activities at nine locations,
involving a total of 53 persons on a permanent basis. The War Department
desires that its personnel and their archives have the same privileges,
exemptions and immunities as the personnel of the State Department at
consular offices, and it has no objection to according reciprocal privileges
to the countries concerned. Up to this time no reply to the April 29
memorandum has been received from the Navy Department.
Recommendation:
1. That the Department formulate an overall policy with respect to the
establishment of Army and Navy intelligence personnel and activities at U.S.
consulates which will provide for the disposition of the requests of the War
and Navy Departments.
Discussion:
Since November 1945, in the case of the War Department, and since May 1945,
in the case of the Navy Department, the State Department has received
requests from time to time to initiate negotiations with certain foreign
governments for permission to assign military or naval personnel to
designated U.S. consulates for intelligence purposes. A meeting of
representatives of the Offices and Divisions of the Department whose areas
were affected by the requests was held on March 13, 1946, to consider the
fundamental problems raised by those requests. The matter was referred to
LE for an opinion on the feasibility of
concluding such arrangements. While recognizing the lack of precedent for
agreements of that nature, LE found nothing
to estop arrangements being negotiated with the foreign countries concerned,
pointing out, however, that the privileges and immunities to be accorded the
assigned military or naval personnel and their archives should be specified
clearly in any agreement concluded.
After further discussion of the question among the affected Offices and
Divisions of the Department, on April 29 substantially identical memoranda
were dispatched to the Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2, and the Chief of
Naval Intelligence (Annex I).None of the
annexes has been found. It was pointed out that the Department
felt it necessary to be apprised of the complete programs contemplated by
the Army and the Navy before approaching other governments in the matter,
and it was requested that information to that end be provided, together with
statements of the privileges, exemptions and immunities desired for the
assigned military and naval personnel. A statement was also requested of the
extent to which the War and Navy Departments were prepared to grant
reciprocal privileges to each country concerned. It was pointed out that the
granting of such privileges to one power would probably cause others to
request like privileges, whether or not the U.S. desired to establish
intelligence personnel within their territory.
The War Department replied on May 23 and furnished the information requested
in the memorandum of April 29 (Annex II). The program of the War Department
contemplates a total of nine locations; three would involve the consent of
France, three of Great Britain and one each of Holland, Belgium and
Portugal. The program provides for the assignment of 18 officers, 10 warrant
officers, and 25 clerical assistants, or a total of 53 persons (Annex III).
The War Department states that the arrangements would be of a permanent
nature in each case. It desires that the proposed assigned personnel have
the same diplomatic privileges, exemptions and immunities as personnel of
the State Department at consular offices. It states that it has no objection
to according reciprocal privileges to the countries concerned but it does
not indicate its attitude with respect to other countries.
No reply to the April 29 memorandum to the Chief of Naval Intelligence has as
yet been received. The individual requests made to the State Department by
the Navy Department from time to time indicate, however, that the Navy
desired arrangements which would involve the consent of Great Britain,
Holland and Norway.
154. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Souers) to the National Intelligence AuthoritySource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC-39, Item 1. Top Secret. Also reproduced with
title page in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under
Harry Truman, pp.
41–51.Washington, June 7, 1946.
SUBJECT
Progress Report on the Central Intelligence Group
1. Establishment
The Central Intelligence Group was officially activated on 8 February 1946
pursuant to the approval of N.I.A. Directive
No. 2. Actually, a small group of personnel from the State, War, and Navy
Departments had been assembled beginning on 25 January, three days after the
President signed the letter directing the establishment of the National
Intelligence Authority.
2. Organization
The Central Intelligence Group has been organized in accordance with N.I.A. Directive No 2. The major components at
the present time are the Central Planning Staff, charged with planning the
coordination of intelligence activities, and the Central Reports Staff,
responsible for the production of national policy intelligence. A Chief of
Operational Services, with a small staff, has been designated as a nucleus
from which an organization to perform services of common concern may be
built. A small Secretariat to serve the National Intelligence Authority, the
Central Intelligence Group, and the Intelligence Advisory Board, has been
created. The Administrative Division consists of an Administrative Officer,
a Security Officer, a Personnel Officer, and a small group of trained
personnel to provide necessary administrative services for the Central
Intelligence Group.
3. Personnel
Personnel for C.I.G. has been requested and
selected on the principle that only the most experienced individuals in each
field of intelligence activity should be utilized in this vital preliminary
period. The responsible officers in the Departments have cooperated
wholeheartedly toward this end. However, the procurement of C.I.G. personnel has necessarily been a rather
slow process, in view of the demobilization and the fact that C.I.G. and departmental requirements for
qualified individuals naturally had to be reconciled in many specific cases.
The present status of C.I.G. personnel is
shown in the following tabulation:
StateWarNavyTotalActualAuth.“Auth.”—Authorized by N.I.A. Directive No. 2.
[Footnote in the source text.]Actual Auth.ActualAuth.Actual Auth.Central Reports Staff51710(5A“A”—Personnel
assigned by A–2. [Footnote in the source
text.])264181961Central Planning Staff61013(5A)208102740Administrative DivisionIncludes
Office of Director, Secretariat, and Chief of Operational
Services. [Footnote in the source text.]51616(3A)334152564TOTAL164339(13A)79164371165Accepted but not yet assigned to C.I.G.5— 6—2— 13 —TOTAL21434579184384165% of Authorized49%—57%—42%—51%—
It may be seen that the organization of the Central Planning Staff has been
given priority, since effective planning is considered a necessary prelude
to accomplishment of the C.I.G. mission.
Concentration is now placed on manning the Central Reports Staff. The need
for filling positions in the Administrative Division has been largely
alleviated by the part-time use of the personnel and facilities of the
Strategic Services Unit, although this Division will require reinforcement
when centralized operations are undertaken.
A development of great importance regarding personnel has been the
designation of specially qualified consultants to the Director of Central
Intelligence. An outstanding scientist with wide intelligence experience,
Dr. H. P. Robertson, is Senior Scientific Consultant to
the Director. Arrangements are well advanced for the designation of Mr.
George F. Kennan, recently Charge
d’Affaires in Moscow and a Foreign Service Officer with a distinguished
career, as Special Consultant to the Director, particularly on U.S.S.R.
affairs.
4. Activities
The activities of the Central Intelligence Group to date have been
characterized principally by the administrative details of organization, the
consideration of urgent problems, and the basic planning for a sound future
intelligence program. Basic policies and procedures regarding the
organization have been established. Urgent problems in the intelligence field, especially as regards
certain vital operations, have been carefully studied and appropriate action
has been or is ready to be taken. Substantial progress has been made in the
analysis of long-range intelligence problems. The throes of initial
organization and planning are, therefore, generally past, and the time for
initiation of centralized intelligence operations has now been reached.
Coordination of Intelligence Activities. Beginning on
12 February 1946, four days after the activation of C.I.G., the C.I.G. has been
receiving numerous suggestions or recommendations for studies leading to the
effective coordination of Federal intelligence activities. A number of other
studies of this type have been initiated by C.I.G. These problems generally fall into three categories: (a)
problems for which partial but inadequate solutions were evolved during the
war; (b) problems which existing Governmental machinery was unable to solve
or incapable of solving; and (c) problems which required new solutions in
the light of the post-hostilities situation.
Some of these problems, particularly in the third category, require urgent
interim solution. Among these problems for which interim solutions have been
evolved or initiated are the liquidation of the Strategic Services Unit, the
development of intelligence on the U.S.S.R., and the coordination of
scientific intelligence.
Problems for which immediate solutions are well advanced include the following:Provision for monitoring press and propaganda broadcasts of
foreign powers.Provision for coordinating the acquisition of foreign
publications.Coordination of collection of intelligence information.Coordination of intelligence research.Essential elements of information.Provision for collecting foreign intelligence information by
clandestine methods.Intelligence on foreign industrial establishments.Interim study of the collection of intelligence information in
China.Central Register of Intelligence Information.
Projects which are in various stages of study or planning cover the following
additional subjects: Disposition of files of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.Censorship planning.Intelligence terminology.Resources potential program.Application of sampling techniques to intelligence.Survey of coverage of the foreign language press in the United
States.Intelligence on foreign petroleum developments.Coordination of geographical and related intelligence.Disposition of the Publications Review Subcommittee of the Joint
Intelligence Committee.Survey of the Joint Intelligence Study Publishing Board.Disposition of the photographic intelligence file in the
Department of State.Coordinated utilization of private research in the social
sciences.Index of U.S. residents of foreign intelligence potential.Exploitation of American business concerns with connections abroad
as sources of foreign intelligence information.Planning for psychological warfare.Utilization of the services of proposed minerals attachés.
One of the functions of C.I.G. which has
assumed great importance is the support of adequate budgets for Departmental
intelligence. Coordinated representation to the Bureau of the Budget and the
Congress, of the budgetary requirements for intelligence activities,
promises to be one of the most effective means for guarding against
arbitrary depletion of intelligence resources at the expense of national
security. So long as the C.I.G. is dependent
upon the Departments for budgetary support, however, its authority to speak
as an unbiased guardian of the national security will be suspect and
therefore not wholly effective.
Production of National Policy Intelligence. Pursuant
to N.I.A. Directive No. 2, the Central
Reports Staff concentrated on the production of a factual Daily Summary, the
first issue of which was dated 13 February. Although this Summary covered
operational as well as intelligence matters and involved no C.I.G. interpretation, it has served to keep
the C.I.G. personnel currently advised of
developments and formed a basis for consideration of future intelligence
reports.
Despite the undermanned condition of the Central Reports Staff, the urgent
need for a Weekly Summary has resulted in the decision to produce the first
issue on 14 June. Until adequately staffed in all geographic areas, however,
this publication will concentrate on those areas for which qualified
personnel are now available. The concept of this Weekly Summary is that it
should concentrate on significant trends of events supplementing the normal
intelligence produced by the Departments. Procedures are being developed to
ensure that the items contained therein reflect the best judgment of
qualified personnel in C.I.G. and the
Departments.
The primary function of C.I.G. in the
production of intelligence, however, will be the preparation and
dissemination of definitive estimates of the capabilities and intentions of
foreign countries as they affect the national security of the United States.
The necessity of assigning the best qualified and carefully selected
personnel to this vital task has delayed its initiation. Solution of the
relationship of this C.I.G. activity to the
Departments, the State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other agencies
concerned with the national security, has also been deferred pending the
procurement of adequate personnel. This procurement has now been given
priority, and it is anticipated that the Central Reports Staff will be
prepared to produce national policy intelligence at an early date.
Performance of Centralized Operational Services. The
operation of central services by the C.I.G.
has been considered to be a subject requiring careful study to insure that
Departmental operations are not impeded or unnecessarily duplicated. The
urgent need for central direction of the activities and liquidation of the
Strategic Services Unit was recognized by the N.I.A. and an arrangement was effected whereby this Unit is
operated by the War Department under directives from the Director of Central
Intelligence. This arrangement temporarily provided C.I.G. with facilities for direct collection of required
information but is admittedly only a stop-gap measure.
C.I.G. planning and organization has now
progressed to the point where firm recommendations may be made for C.I.G. operation of intelligence services which
can be more efficiently accomplished centrally. Among those operations under
consideration as C.I.G. activities are: Monitoring press and propaganda broadcasts of foreign
powers.Collection of foreign intelligence information by clandestine
methods.Production of static intelligence studies of foreign areas, to
replace Joint Army–Navy Intelligence Studies (JANIS).Establishment of a Central Register of Intelligence
Information.Basic research and analysis of intelligence subjects of common
interest to all Departments, such as economics, geography,
sociology, biographical data, etc.
In the consideration of performance by C.I.G.
of central operations, however, the administrative, budgetary and legal
difficulties of the present organization have presented real problems. The
reduction of Departmental funds and personnel for intelligence activities
have made it difficult for Departments, despite their desire to cooperate,
to furnish the necessary facilities to C.I.G. The inability of C.I.G.
to recruit personnel directly from civilian life, and the administrative
complications of procuring personnel from the Departments, are likely to
jeopardize effective conduct of C.I.G.
operations. The lack of enabling legislation making the C.I.G. a legal entity has made it impossible to
negotiate contracts which are required for many operations, such as the
monitoring of foreign broadcasts.
5. Conclusions
The present organizational relationship between the National
Intelligence Authority, the Central Intelligence Group, and the
Intelligence Advisory Board is sound.The initial organizational and planning phase of C.I.G. activities has been completed and
the operation of centralized intelligence services should be undertaken
by C.I.G. at the earliest practicable
date.The National Intelligence Authority and the Central Intelligence Group
should obtain enabling legislation and an independent budget as soon as
possible, either as part of a new national defense organization or as a
separate agency, in order that (1) urgently needed central intelligence
operations may be effectively and efficiently conducted by the Central
Intelligence Group, and (2) the National Intelligence Authority and the
Central Intelligence Group will have the necessary authority and
standing to develop, support, coordinate and direct an adequate Federal
intelligence program for the national security. Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
Vandenberg’s Tenure as Director of
Central Intelligence
Introduction
Souers had agreed to serve as the
first Director of Central Intelligence with the understanding that it was an
interim appointment. By at least April 1946, he, Admiral Leahy, and the President had found
a successor, General Hoyt
Vandenberg, the Army’s Assistant Chief of Staff for
Intelligence (G–2).
Souers had established the basic,
although still embryonic, institutions of what today is known as the
Intelligence Community and had emphasized planning for their development and
elaboration. In his final report to the National Intelligence Authority,
however, he articulated the view that more far-reaching steps would have to
be taken in the future to make the Presidential directive of January 22,
1946, effective.
If Souers had been a conciliator who
moved cautiously in order to maintain the “cooperative interdepartmental
activity,” Vandenberg was an
aggressive Director of Central Intelligence who actively sought to extend
the responsibilities of the Central Intelligence Group and the powers of his
office. Because the relatively simple beginnings under Souers became an increasingly complex
pattern of intelligence activities and institutions under Vandenberg, there are many lines of
development to be traced in the history of his directorship, brief though it
was. There are two dominant themes, however. One was Vandenberg’s effort to alter drastically
the balance between the Central Intelligence Group and the departmental
intelligence agencies, at the expense of the latter. The second is the
resulting contest between Vandenberg and the departmental intelligence chiefs over
their respective powers, which was really a clash between (or among)
different concepts of the national intelligence system. Vandenberg’s tenure began and ended with
high points in these controversies, and in between there were few issues
concerning the developing intelligence structure that did not reflect the
tension.
The documentation in this chapter is fairly full and gives a reasonably
accurate sense of the main issues, especially as they relate to the debate
over the allocation of power within the intelligence structure. As in the
case of Souer’s tenure, the
documentation is increasingly bureaucratic in character and in numerous
instances the debates are waged over or reflected in fairly routine or at
least undramatic issues. During the period covered by this volume, the
Director of Central Intelligence and the departmental intelligence chiefs
rarely discussed substantive intelligence issues concerning foreign
developments or the capabilities and intentions of foreign governments.
Although there was considerable
debate in the intelligence system, what was recorded at senior levels almost
exclusively concerned the intelligence system, jurisdictional,
organizational, and procedural issues.
The minutes of the National Intelligence Authority and the Intelligence
Advisory Board, together with the papers prepared for their consideration,
document these concerns, albeit somewhat formally. There is also a limited
amount of material available on Department of State and to a lesser extent
Central Intelligence Group views on developments in the intelligence system,
as well as some documentation on the initiation of various intelligence
programs and activities. What are lacking are less formal documents
providing more intimate and less discreet comments and observations,
documents giving insights into the making of intelligence policy at senior
levels, and documents clearly reflecting the impact of intelligence on
foreign and strategic policy. By comparison with the period leading up to
the signing of the January 22 Presidential directive, the subsequent
documentation tends to be much more guarded and less revealing.
When Vandenberg took over as
Director of Central Intelligence on June 10, 1946, he inherited a going
concern but a small one whose future was still uncertain. If the Central
Intelligence Group in fact was to become the dominant agency in the national
intelligence structure, and the Director of Central Intelligence the
effective and unchallenged head of that structure, there were major
obstacles to be overcome. One of these was that the CIG existed on a non-statutory basis and depended on budgetary
allocations from the State, War, and Navy Departments (documents on this
subject are in the section on the National Security Act of 1947). In
addition to these, however, there were other major barriers. One was that
the Central Intelligence Group had only a minimal capability for research
and analysis. It had, of course, been producing political summaries, but it
lacked the resources to produce on its own “strategic and national policy
intelligence,” however that term was defined.
Another barrier was the unsettled status of the Director of Central
Intelligence in the national intelligence structure and, by extension, the
respective roles of the Central Intelligence Group and the departmental
intelligence components. Was the DCI
independent of and above the departmental intelligence chiefs, or were the
latter, in their common capacity as the Intelligence Advisory Board, a
“board of directors” who had collective status and authority? Neither of
these issues was resolved by the time Vandenberg left office, but during his brief tenure he
defined them sharply and highlighted their significance by taking strong and
sometimes confrontational positions on them. To some degree he even provoked
these conflicts (although they were probably latent in the system) since it
was in reaction to Vandenberg’s
policies that the IAB first seriously
asserted the doctrine of “collective responsibility.”
A Central Intelligence Agency historian (who was also a participant in and
observer of many of the events of which he later wrote) sums up Vandenberg’s tenure as follows:
“Although Vandenberg had no
long-term interest in the subject, he had very positive ideas about
the proper role of the DCI and the
CIA. He had a poor opinion of Souers’ cautious, consultative approach to the
IAB and was resolved not to
follow it. A youthful, vigorous, and self-confident man at
forty-seven, his instinct was to take command and issue orders. In
this he was a reincarnation of General Donovan. Indeed, he outdid Donovan, who had been more
realistic. Vandenberg’s
simple conception was to build up the prospective CIA into an
independent, entirely self-sufficient, national intelligence
service. He would then discover wasteful duplication of intelligence
effort and reduce the departmental intelligence services to mere
staffs of briefers for presenting the CIA product in their
respective departments. Thus, Vandenberg’s purpose was to create the single
intelligence service that the wartime G–2 Policy Staff had warned against. Moreover, it was
entirely contrary to the intention of JIC 239/5, JCS 1181/5,
the Lovett Report, and the
President’s letter.” (Ludwell Lee
Montague, General Walter Bedell Smith as Director
of Central Intelligence, October 1950–February 1953
(University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992),
pages 27–28)
Vandenberg had been in office about
10 days when he circulated to the Intelligence Advisory Board a draft NIA directive (Document
156), proposing “a redefinition of the functions of the Director
of Central Intelligence which will give him the necessary authority to
augment the Central Intelligence Group so that he may effectively perform
his assigned missions.” The draft directive authorized the Director of
Central Intelligence to centralize interagency research and analysis, “to
act as the executive agent of this Authority in coordinating and supervising
all Federal foreign intelligence activities,” and to conduct “all Federal
espionage and counter-espionage operations for the collection of foreign
intelligence.” The draft directive also required the State, War, and Navy
Departments to “make available to the Director of Central Intelligence, upon
his request, the necessary funds, personnel, facilities, and other
assistance required for the performance of the functions authorized
herein.”
The Intelligence Advisory Board, with a strong lead from Dr. William L. Langer, the Secretary of State’s
Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence (the successor to Colonel
McCormack), forced Vandenberg to draw back, although not
necessarily to back down. As eventually adopted by the National Intelligence
Authority, the directive (Document 160) was cast
in milder and less prescriptive language. Nevertheless, Vandenberg had won some, and perhaps a
great deal, of the substance he was seeking. Moreover, his financial problem
was considerably eased by the NIA’s
agreement to seek new arrangements for handling CIG funding (see the section on the National Security Act of
1947). For a summary of this
episode, see Montague, General Walter Bedell
Smith as Director of Central Intelligence, pages
28–29.
Although this initial clash was echoed in a number of other engagements
throughout the months that followed, Vandenberg did not again seek an across-the-board expansion
of his authority until February 1947, when he once more asked the National
Intelligence Authority to clarify his powers vis-à-vis the Intelligence
Advisory Board and the departmental intelligence chiefs. After discussion,
the Authority agreed to approve a formula proposed by Vandenberg which read as follows:
“The Director of Central Intelligence shall operate within his
jurisdiction as an agent of the Secretaries of State, War and the
Navy, and the necessary authority is hereby delegated … to the
Director of Central Intelligence so that his decisions, orders and
directives shall be considered as emanating from them and shall have
full force and effect as such, provided any aggrieved agency may
have access to that agency’s Secretary and through him to the N.I.A.” (Document
185)
The Authority’s action did not settle the matter and, indeed, probably
intensified the conflict. Within a month, Admiral Inglis, Director of Naval Intelligence and
perhaps the most persistent and articulate proponent of the idea that the
Intelligence Advisory Board was a board of directors for the national
intelligence system had circulated to the IAB a paper proposing procedures to ensure that the comments or
concurrence of the Board were secured on all matters referred by the
Director of Central Intelligence to the NIA.
(Document 189) But the issue raised by
Inglis was to be debated during
Admiral Hillenkoetter’s
directorship rather than Vandenberg’s and not really settled until General Smith became Director of Central
Intelligence in the fall of 1950.
The controversy over the DCI’s authority
permeated, or at least touched, a number of other issues. Discussions of
such subjects as “static intelligence” (the then current term for what later
became known as “basic intelligence,” the preparation of intelligence
handbooks and encyclopedias), the delineation of collection responsibilities
(a project pressed by the Department of State) and the development of the
first set of “National Intelligence Requirements” (on China), all had
overtones of the authority question.
One of the most sensitive issues concerned intelligence estimates, the
“strategic and national policy intelligence” of the 1946 Presidential
directive. The directive made the DCI
responsible for this kind of intelligence but said no more. Hardly any
aspect of the subject escaped debate; for example, how estimates were to be
produced, who should produce them, whether and how agencies were to
participate in the process, and how dissents would be handled. Even the
definition of “strategic and national policy intelligence” was involved. In
fact, it was a central issue, because the definition of the term also
involved a definition of the powers of the Director of Central
Intelligence.
As noted earlier, one of Vandenberg’s major goals was to build up the CIG’s research and analytical capability. He
established an Office of Research and Evaluation and began to build up an
analytical staff, proposing to expand an existing establishment of 60 to a
strength of 2,000. In July 1946, he directed the preparation of an
assessment of “Soviet Foreign and Military Policy,” designated as “ORE–1.” (Text reproduced in Michael
Warner, ed., CIA Cold War Records: The CIA
under Harry Truman
(Washington, D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency, 1994), pages 65–76) ORE–1 was a forerunner of what later became
known as National Intelligence Estimates. It also touched off renewed
controversy about procedures and responsibilities for estimative papers and
revealed deep and genuine differences of view on these issues. The estimates
controversy overlapped the separate but related issue of whether CIG should engage in the production of finished
analytical intelligence, a source of particular concern to the Department of
State, which saw CIG encroaching on its
responsibilities for political and economic analysis. It was for all of
these reasons that the definition of “strategic and national policy
intelligence” was so important to Vandenberg, since the definition held one of the keys to
breaking down a major obstacle to a predominant CIG role in the production of finished intelligence.
Eventually, in February 1947, Vandenberg went to the National Intelligence Authority and
won the Authority’s endorsement for the following definition:
“Strategic and national policy intelligence is that composite
intelligence, interdepartmental in character, which is required by
the President and other high officers and staffs to assist them in
determining policies with respect to national planning and security
in peace and in war and for the advancement of broad national
policy. It is in that political-economic-military area of concern to
more than one agency, must be objective, and must transcend the
exclusive competence of any one department.” (Document 185)
As with so many other issues, the NIA’s
action did not settle the case, and estimative intelligence remained a
source of contention throughout the tenure of Vandenberg’s successor, Admiral
Hillenkoetter.
The long controversies over jurisdictional boundaries and authority were
often more substantive than they appeared. Although there were unabashed
bureaucratic contests for power, there were also genuinely held and
fundamentally different concepts of how the intelligence system should
function and what it should do, differences that went back to 1945 and
before and that were to last long beyond the 1940s. In retrospect, the
national intelligence leadership, which was trying to do a number of things
for the first time, inadvertently fueled many of the controversies. Never
having had a peacetime national intelligence system before, there was an
inevitable process of trial and error in which the participants often magnified and complicated what
appear now to be relatively simple problems.
Nevertheless, the conflicts and difficulties of the time should not obscure
the incremental progress toward the construction of a national intelligence
system. Vandenberg reorganized the
CIG, made an important beginning in the
field of scientific intelligence, dealt with the vexing and arcane problem
of the relationship between the CIG and the
Joint Intelligence Group of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, began developing a
centralized system of biographic information and reference, helped to give
foreign broadcast monitoring a permanent home, and made some progress on the
production of “basic intelligence” handbooks and encyclopedias. These and
many other subjects were prosaic, but they played important roles in the
formation of the national intelligence system. In all of these fields, too,
the departmental intelligence components made significant contributions and,
more important, were at this period the major producers of finished
intelligence.
As in the case of his predecessor, Vandenberg’s tenure was short. As the administration and
Congress moved toward armed services’ unification, Vandenberg was being mentioned as a
candidate for a senior post in the soon-to-be-created independent Air Force.
By February 1947, the National Intelligence Authority had chosen his
successor, and on May 1 Vandenberg
departed to become Deputy Commander of the Army Air Forces and shortly
thereafter, Vice Chief of Staff (and later Chief of Staff) of the U.S. Air
Force.
155. Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Confidential. The meeting was held at the
War Department.Washington, June 10, 1946, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Lt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Director of Central IntelligenceRear Admiral Sidney W.
Souers, in the ChairMembers PresentMr. William L. Langer, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMaj. General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Director of Intelligence, WDGS (Designate)Commodore Charles J. Rend (representing Rear
Admiral Thomas B. Inglis, Chief
of Naval Intelligence)Brig. General George C.
McDonald, Assistant Chief of Air Staff,
IntelligenceMr. D. M. Ladd (representing Mr.
J. Edgar Hoover, Director,
Federal Bureau of Investigation)Also PresentDr. Kingman Douglass, Deputy Director, Central
Intelligence GroupColonel Carter W. Clarke, G–2Captain R.K. Davis, USN, O.N.I.Captain J.J. Rochefort, USN, O.N.I.Colonel E.P. Mussett, A–2Lt. Colonel F.K. Newcomer, G–2Colonel L.J. Fortier, Central
Intelligence GroupCaptain W.B. Goggins, USN, Central Intelligence
GroupMr. L.L. Montague, Central
Intelligence GroupColonel H.F. Cunningham, Central Intelligence
GroupColonel C.P. Nicholas, Central Intelligence
GroupColonel W.A. Perry, Central Intelligence
GroupColonel T.J. Sands, Central Intelligence
GroupSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, National Intelligence AuthorityMr. J.K. Tibby, Assistant Secretary
1. Provision of Monitoring of Press and
Propaganda Broadcasts of Foreign Powers (C.I.G. 1/1, C.I.G. 1/2, and
C.I.G. 1/3)None printed. (Dated respectively, April 26, May 8, and June 4; ibid.,
HS/HC–276) See the Supplement for all.
Admiral Souers recalled that the
proposals raised in C.I.G. 1/1 and 1/2 had
been considered provisionally in the previous meeting. In view of General Vandenberg’s suggestion that the
operation of FBIS be assumed by State, that
department had been asked to make a study of its capabilities. The State
Department replied (in C.I.G. 1/3) that
while they were keenly interested in having the monitoring service continue
it would be impossible for the Department to assume administrative
responsibility for FBIS during the next
fiscal year. Admiral Souers felt
that these developments justified the Members in approving C.I.G. 1/1, which in substance called for War
Department operation of FBIS under
directives from the Director of Central Intelligence as to collecting and
distributing missions.
Dr. Langer underscored the reasons
leading to State’s conclusions. These were chiefly technical and budgetary.
For example, State estimated that the administrative costs of FBIS would mean a 50 per cent increase in the
entire amount budgeted for State’s intelligence service—at a time when even
the presently budgeted amounts had not been finally approved by Congress.
There were also questions of the establishment of new stations in military
zones, the transfer of some facilities now under British auspices, the
procurement of new equipment, and the like—all of which he felt could be more effectively
handled by the War Department at present.
General Vandenberg observed that an
eventual alternative to State or War Department administration would be
direct control by Central Intelligence, if C.I.G. were to obtain an operating appropriation of its own.
But such considerations could not apply in the solution of the immediate
problem.
In the course of the general discussion which followed it was brought out by
Admiral Souers that the Central
Intelligence Group at present could not accept a transfer of funds from War
for direct administration of FBIS, since
C.I.G. was not an authorized disbursing
agency. It was therefore the consensus of the Members that the best
immediate solution was operation by the Director of Central Intelligence
with the administrative assistance of the War Department.
After concluding discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Approved C.I.G. 1/1 subject to textual
clarification to insure that the recommendation to the National Intelligence
Authority provided for operation of the monitoring function by the Director
of Central Intelligence with the administrative assistance of the War
Department. (Report to N.I.A. to be
circulated as N.I.A. 5.)Not printed. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical
Files, HS/HC–243) NIA 5 was a slightly
revised version of CIG 1/1. See footnote 1 above.
2. C.I.G. Weekly
Summary
Admiral Souers invited discussion
and criticism of the trial issue of the C.I.G. Weekly Summary circulated on 7 June.Not found. The discussion which followed
centered on two issues developed by Dr. Langer: first, whether interpretive articles such as the
Weekly contained could be prepared more effectively in C.I.G. Specifically, he asked Dr. Langer to arrange a means whereby political
intelligence texts could be promptly checked when necessary with a State
Department specialist. He transmitted further specific comments and
suggestions from G–2 regarding the trial
issue to Mr. Montague.
The Members of I.A.B. were in agreement with
General Vandenberg’s
proposal.
Commodore Rend commented that it was essential to
commence regular publication of the Weekly, despite shortcoming that might
be inevitable in early issues; and General McDonald and Mr. Ladd
thought that, in view of all the circumstances, the reports staff should be
congratulated on a good beginning.
3. Provisions for Coordinating the
Acquisition of Foreign Publications (C.I.G. 9)Dated May 31. (Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276) In its final form the
paper was issued as NIA Directive No. 6,
July 26. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132) Both are in the
Supplement.
Admiral Souers noted that replies
had not yet been received from all Members regarding C.I.G. 9, which had been circulated for informal consideration.
After brief discussion, during which it was agreed to reduce the
classification of the paper to “Restricted”,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Approved C.I.G. 9. (Enclosures to be
submitted to N.I.A. as N.I.A. 4.)
4. Remarks by Admiral
Souers
Admiral Souers said he wanted to
take occasion, on being relieved as Director of Central Intelligence, to
express to all Members of the Intelligence Advisory Board his appreciation
for the unstinted cooperation he had received from each one. He took great
satisfaction in turning over his duties to General Vandenberg.
General Vandenberg, in an
acknowledgment in behalf of all those present, expressed the hope that the
work of Central Intelligence should be maintained at the standard set by
Admiral Souers.
156. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg) to the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–276. Top Secret; Limited Distribution.Washington, June 20, 1946.
CIG 10
FUNCTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
REFERENCES
Minutes, I.A.B. 2nd Meeting, Item
4Document
144.Minutes, I.A.B. 3rd Meeting, Item
1Document
146.C.I.G. 1/1Dated April 26; see footnote 1, Document
155.Minutes, I.A.B. 5th Meeting, Item
1Document
155.The former and the present Directors of Central Intelligence are in
agreement that the initial organizing and planning stages of the Central
Intelligence Group have been completed, and that the time has arrived to
request that the National Intelligence Authority authorize the Director
of Central Intelligence to undertake certain operations and functions of
vital importance to the national intelligence mission. The enclosed
report to the National Intelligence Authority is designed to obtain that
authority.Attention is invited to the fact that the provisions of paragraph 2 of
Appendix “A” hereto have been previously discussed in reference b. The
provisions of paragraph 4 a of Appendix “A” hereto were briefly
discussed in reference a. Paragraph 4 b is intended to serve in lieu of
the revision of C.I.G. 1/1 agreed in
reference d. Paragraph 3 of Appendix “A” hereto has not been previously
discussed by the Intelligence Advisory Board, although its concept has
been incorporated in approved papers on specific problems involving the
coordination of intelligence activities.It is recommended that the Intelligence Advisory Board concur in the
submittal of the Enclosure for consideration by the National
Intelligence Authority.Hoyt S. VandenbergPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Lieutenant General, USA
Enclosure
Draft Report by the Director of Central Intelligence
(Vandenberg)As indicated in Vandenberg’s covering memorandum, the report was
submitted to the National Intelligence Authority.
FUNCTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
REFERENCES
President’s letter of 22 January 1946Document 71.N.I.A. Directive No. 1Document
141.N.I.A. Directive No. 2Document
142.
Report by the Director of Central Intelligence, with
the Unanimous Concurrence of the Intelligence Advisory Board
The President’s letter of 22 January 1946, directing the
establishment of the National Intelligence Authority, contained, in
paragraph 3 thereof, a general description of the functions
envisaged for the Director of Central Intelligence. N.I.A. Directive No. 1, containing the
basic policies and procedures governing the Central Intelligence
Group, further clarified the functions of the Director of Central
Intelligence, particularly as regards his relationship with the
National Intelligence Authority and the Intelligence Advisory Board.
N.I.A. Directive No. 2 contained
an initial personnel authorization for the Central Intelligence
Group, providing only the minimum necessary for the tasks of
organizing, surveying pressing problems, and meeting initial
requirements. N.I.A. Directive No. 2
also instructed the Director of Central Intelligence to submit his
recommendations for augmentation of the Central Intelligence Group
as soon as practicable. Pursuant to those instructions, this report
proposes a redefinition of the functions of the Director of Central
Intelligence which will give him the necessary authority to augment
the Central Intelligence Group so that he may effectively perform
his assigned missions.A draft N.I.A. directive,
redefining the functions of the Director of Central Intelligence, is
contained in Enclosure “A” (Appendix “A” hereto). Discussion of the
provisions of this draft directive is contained in Enclosure “B”
(Appendix “B” hereto).The former Director of Central Intelligence, Rear Admiral Sidney W. Souers,
has concurred in the recommendations contained herein. This report also has the
unanimous concurrence of the Intelligence Advisory Board, which
included the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this
case.It is recommended that the National Intelligence Authority approve
the draft directive in Enclosure “A” (Appendix “A” hereto).
Appendix A
Draft National Intelligence Authority Directive
FUNCTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
Pursuant to the President’s letter of 22 January 1946 designating this
Authority as responsible for planning, developing and coordinating all
Federal foreign intelligence activities so as to assure the most
effective accomplishment of the intelligence mission related to the
national security, the functions of the Director of Central Intelligence
are hereby redefined as follows:In a June
26 memorandum Vandenberg
submitted a “corrected” form of the draft NIA Directive “based upon informal discussions of
C.I.G. 10.” At this point the
following phrase was added; “subject to the provisions of the said
letter.” (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276)
See the Supplement.Paragraph 3 of the President’s letter of 22 January 1946
defined the functions of the Director of Central Intelligence as
follows:
“3. Subject to the existing law, and the direction and
control of the National Intelligence Authority, the
Director of Central Intelligence shall: “a. Accomplish the correlation and evaluation
of intelligence relating to the national security,
and the appropriate dissemination within the
Government of the resulting strategic and national
policy intelligence. In so doing, full use shall
be made of the staff and facilities of the
intelligence agencies of your departments.“b. Plan for the coordination of such of the
activities of the Intelligence agencies of your
Departments as relate to the national security and
recommend to the National Intelligence Authority
the establishment of such over-all policies and
objectives as will assure the most effective
accomplishment of the national intelligence
mission.“c. Perform, for the benefit of said
intelligence agencies, such services of common
concern as the National Intelligence Authority
determines can be more efficiently accomplished
centrally.“d. Perform such other functions and duties
related to intelligence affecting the national
security as the President and the National
Intelligence Authority may from time to time
direct.”
In performing the functions specified in paragraph 3 a of the
President’s letter, the Director of Central Intelligence is
hereby authorized to undertake such basic research and analysis
of intelligence and counter-intelligence information as may in
his opinionIn Vandenberg’s correction
of June 26 the rest of this sentence reads: “and that of the
appropriate member of the Intelligence Advisory Board, be
required to supplement the research and analysis performed
by the State, War and Navy Departments in the fields of
primary interest to each of those Departments.” be
required to produce the necessary strategic and national policy
intelligence. This will include the centralization of research
and analysis activities of common intelligence interest to more
than one agency when, in the opinion of the Director of Central
Intelligence, such activities can be more efficiently performed
centrally. Under such procedure, existing organizations of the
State, War and Navy Departments, including their funds,
personnel and facilities, performing those functions, will be
integrated into the Central Intelligence Group as a central
service to all intelligence agencies subject to N.I.A. coordination.The last sentence of paragraph 2 was
eliminated in the June 26 draft.In addition to the functions specified in paragraph 3 b of the
President’s letter, the Director of Central Intelligence is
hereby directed to act as the executiveIn the June 26 draft “executive” was
omitted. agent of this Authority in coordinating and
supervising all Federal foreign intelligence activities related
to the national security in accordance with the over-all
policies and objectives established by this Authority.Pursuant to paragraph 3 c of the President’s letter, the
Director of Central Intelligence is hereby directed to perform
the following services of common concern which this Authority
has determined can be more efficiently accomplished centrally: Conduct of all Federal espionage and counter-espionage
operations for the collection of foreign intelligence
information required for the national security.Conduct of all Federal monitoring of press and
propaganda broadcasts of foreign powers required for the
collection of intelligence information related to the
national security.To the extent of available appropriations and within the
limits of their capabilities,In
the June 26 draft the phrase “as determined by the
respective Departments,” was added at this point. the
State, War and Navy Departments will make available to the
Director of Central Intelligence, upon his request, the necessary funds,
personnel, facilities and other assistance required for the
performance of the functions authorized herein. At the earliest
practicable date, the Director of Central Intelligence will
submit for approval by this Authority any supplemental budget
required to perform the functions authorized herein, in addition
to the appropriations available for this purpose in the State,
War and Navy Departments.Where the performance of functions authorized herein requires
the liquidation, transfer or integration of funds, personnel or
facilities for existing activities of the State, War and Navy
Departments, the liquidation, transfer or integration will be
accomplished at the earliest practicable date by mutual
agreement between the Director of Central Intelligence and the
official now responsibleThe
phrase “by mutual agreement between the Director of Central
Intelligence and the official now responsible” became in the
June 26 draft “as agreed to by the Director of Central
Intelligence and the official responsible”. for such
activities so as to involve a minimum of interruption in the
performance of these functions.
Appendix B
Discussion of the Draft National Intelligence
Authority Directive
Discussion by paragraphs of the provisions of the draft directive in
Enclosure “A” (Appendix “A” hereto) follows:
Paragraph 2: Paragraph 3–a of the President’s
letter makes the Director of Central Intelligence responsible for the
correlation, evaluation and dissemination of strategic and national
policy intelligence relating to the national security, making full use
of the staff and facilities of the intelligence agencies of the State,
War and Navy Departments. This means that the Director of Central
Intelligence is responsible for the accuracy, adequacy and timeliness of
intelligence required for the national security. To discharge his vital
responsibilities, the Director of Central Intelligence should not be
required to rely solely upon evaluated intelligence from the various
Departments. He should also have the authority, when he deems it
necessary in the interests of national security, to undertake within the
Central Intelligence Group basic research and analysis of original and
unevaluated intelligence and counter-intelligence information from all
available sources. This authority is especially necessary to ensure
adequate coverage, from a national viewpoint, of those fields which are of common
intelligence interest to more than one agency, such as economics,
science, biography, geography, sociology, etc. In many of those fields
the national security requires that basic research and analysis
activities be centralized so as to serve the intelligence agencies
subject to N.I.A. coordination.
Paragraph 3: Paragraph 3–b of the President’s
letter charges the Director of Central Intelligence with planning for
the coordination of intelligence activities related to the national
security and recommending over-all policies and objectives to the
National Intelligence Authority. No provision is made in the President’s
letter for an executive agent of the National Intelligence Authority who
will be responsible for coordinating and supervising intelligence
activities related to the national security so as to ensure that
policies are properly implemented and objectives are successfully
accomplished. Such coordination and supervision is considered a
necessary step in the effective execution of the national intelligence
program. It is therefore recommended that the Director of Central
Intelligence be specifically charged with this responsibility.
Paragraph 4–a: It is considered that the conduct
of all Federal espionage and counterespionage operations for the
collection of foreign intelligence information required for the national
security can be more efficiently accomplished centrally by the Director
of Central Intelligence for the following reasons: Conduct of this type of operation by the executive departments
would almost certainly embarrass these departments in the
conduct of their official overt activities.Such operations must be centrally controlled to ensure that
they serve the national interest rather than the interests of
any single department or agency, and that they do not conflict
with overt intelligence activities.Since such operations require maximum security they should be
performed by a single closely controlled central agency.The danger of competition and confusion between agents of
different agencies necessitates the use of a single agency.
Moreover, the interdependency and interrelationship between
geographical areas and foreign countries makes it imperative
that there be one agency with world coverage. This does not, of
course, preclude the use of specialized departmental personnel
under rigid central control.The difficult and specialized administrative problems involved
in such operations make a single central agency more efficient
and economical.
Paragraph 4–b: It is recommended that the conduct
of all Federal monitoring of press and propaganda broadcasts of foreign
powers required for the collection of intelligence information related
to the national security be centrally operated under the Director of
Central Intelligence for the following reasons: The present organization carrying on this function under War
Department direction should be liquidated because its reports
are circulated too
generally and its personnel have not been adequately screened
for security.This function is of value to the State, War, Navy and other
Government departments. It should therefore be centrally
directed to serve the needs of all these departments.The Department of State appears to have the greatest interest,
but the War Department is the only agency which has included
funds for this function in its 1947 budget. The Department of
State, however, has stated that it is not practicable for that
Department to assume responsibility for this operation. The War
Department considers that under no circumstances should it
engage on a continuing basis in this predominantly nonmilitary
intelligence function. The same viewpoint applies to the Navy
Department. It therefore appears that this function is a service
of common concern which can be accomplished more efficiently
centrally.
Paragraph 5: The primary source of funds,
personnel and facilities required by the Director of Central
Intelligence to discharge the functions proposed in this report, should
be those which can be made available by the State, War and Navy
Departments. Since, however, some of these functions have not been
performed by any department, or have not been performed on the adequate
scale now contemplated, the Director of Central Intelligence should be
authorized to submit for N.I.A. approval
any supplemental budget required pursuant to this directive.
Paragraph 6: This paragraph is intended to ensure
that the transition of any activities from departmental to central
direction or operations be accomplished with a minimum of interruption
in the performance of those functions.
157. Memorandum From C. H. Carson of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Assistant Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (Ladd)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the
Central Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers, FBI Documents. No classification
marking.Washington, June 21, 1946.
SUBJECT
Central Intelligence GroupWorld-Wide Coverage
There is attached a memorandum by the Director of Central Intelligence to the
Intelligence Advisory Board submitting a proposed memorandum to the National Intelligence Authority and a
proposed directive to be issued by the National Intelligence Authority
extending the powers and duties of the Director of Central
Intelligence.See Document 156. In the proposed memorandum to the
National Intelligence Authority it is stated that the attached draft of an
NIA Directive redefining the functions
of the Director of Central Intelligence has the unanimous concurrence of the
Intelligence Advisory Board, including the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Proposed NIA
Directive
The Directive which it is proposed that the NIA issue provides in essence the following additional
functions and powers for the Director of Central Intelligence:The Director of Central Intelligence is authorized to undertake
such basic research and analysis of intelligence and
counterintelligence as may in his opinion be required.The Director of Central Intelligence is “to act as the executive
agent of this authority (NIA) in
coordinating and in supervising all federal foreign intelligence
activities.”The Director of Central Intelligence is directed to perform the
following services of common concern:Conduct all federal espionage and counterespionage
operations for the collection of foreign
intelligence.Conduct all federal monitoring of press and propaganda
broadcasts of foreign powers for the collection of
intelligence information.
Finances
The Directive provides that to the extent of available appropriations and
within the limits of their capabilities, State, War and Navy Departments
will make available the necessary funds, personnel, and facilities required
for the performance of the new functions authorized. The Director of Central
Intelligence is to submit for the approval of the NIA any supplemental budget required to perform these functions
in addition to the appropriations available from State, War, and Navy.
Discussion
There is attached to the Directive an Appendix labeled “Discussion.”See Appendix B to Document
156. According to this Appendix, the purpose in giving
the Director of Central Intelligence authority for research and analysis was
to prevent his being required to rely solely upon the evaluated information
from the various departments and to provide means by which he could do basic
research and analysis of
original and unevaluated intelligence and counterintelligence. With
reference to the provision for giving the Director of Central Intelligence
power to coordinate and supervise all federal intelligence, it is pointed
out that there was no provision in the original Directive for an executive
agent of the National Intelligence Authority to be responsible for these
duties in order “to insure that the policies are properly implemented and
objectives successfully accomplished.”
With reference to the provision that the Central Intelligence Authority shall
conduct all federal espionage and counterespionage for the collection of
foreign intelligence, it is pointed out that the conduct of this type of
operation by executive departments would embarrass them in their regular
work; central control would insure that these operations are not conducted
solely in the interests of a single department or agency; performance by a
single, closely-controlled central agency would secure maximum security; the
specialized and difficult administrative problems can better be handled by a
central agency; and the use of a single agency is necessary because interdependency and inter-relationship between
geographical areas and foreign countries makes it imperative that one
agency handle world coverage. It is stated, however, this would not
preclude the use of specialized departmental personnel under rigid central control.
The discussion seems to indicate that the supplemental budget is to be
presented to Congress after approval by the NIA as it is stated that some of the functions provided for in
the Directive have not previously been performed by any department or have
not been performed on the adequate scale now contemplated and, therefore, a
supplemental budget is required.
Comment
This proposed Directive, of course, is the same super-colossus originally
proposed by General Donovan. It is
not the original plan as proposed by the President or which was envisioned
by the discussions occurring prior to the time the President issued his
Directive. The original plans insofar as the Bureau was advised,
contemplated the setting up of solely a coordinating agency which was given
the power, of course, to perform certain functions which it would determine
could more adequately and economically be performed centrally for the
benefit of all government agencies. This Directive, however, blankets the
field of intelligence operations and puts it under one strong central
control with practically no control by the departments which are interested
in the problems, which is the same as the old Donovan proposal. It is noted in particular that this
Directive omits the stipulation set forth in the Presidential Directive of
January 22, 1946, placed therein at the insistence of the Attorney General
on the advice of the Bureau, which stipulation provided, “Within the scope
of existing law and Presidential Directives, other departments and agencies
of the executive branch of the federal government shall furnish such intelligence information
relative to the national security as is in their possession and as the
Director of Central Intelligence may from time to time request pursuant to
regulations of the National Intelligence Authority.”
This Directive, of course, as is revealed in the discussion, appears directly
aimed at getting the Bureau out of Latin America. In view of the Bureau’s
present policy, we should not, of course, oppose this Directive inasmuch as
the Bureau desires to operate the Special Intelligence Service only until
July, 1947, or until some other agency is ready to take over these duties.
It should be noted, however, that undoubtedly if this Directive is approved
and the Central Intelligence Group is successful in setting up complete
foreign coverage, the Bureau would undoubtedly be pushed into a
“second-rate” position insofar as purely intelligence functions are
concerned in the domestic field. Our law enforcement functions, of course,
could not be touched by the Central Intelligence Group. It is inevitable
that the Central Intelligence Group must enter into the domestic field
picture insofar as intelligence is concerned because of the sources of foreign intelligence existing in that field. Also, it
is impossible to separate entirely foreign intelligence and the domestic
functions performed by the Bureau. In other words, whether we prosecute a
spy in a given case would be intimately bound up in the question of what
would be best from the standpoint of foreign intelligence. We might find
ourselves prosecuting, investigating, and using every means to disband
subversive foreign nationality organizations in the United States, but the
policy with respect to foreign intelligence would be to encourage,
collaborate with, and assist these same groups. The sheer size of the
foreign intelligence set up and its intimate relationship with powerful
departments of the United States Government would probably mean that the
Central Intelligence Group would be in a position to win out in any
controversy as to action to be taken touching on intelligence in the foreign
field. In the past, the State Department, the Army, and the Navy have
incessantly disagreed with respect to intelligence, which has certainly
facilitated the Bureau’s position and our domination of the intelligence
picture. The concentration, however, of all these intelligence functions,
including the research and analysis formerly performed by various agencies,
into one strong, central group would place the Bureau at a great
disadvantage and would probably mean that we would be overshadowed in this
field and that we would be forced to accede to the desires of the Central
Intelligence Group in domestic intelligence problems, if not to give the
field entirely to them.
Suggested Changes
In view of present Bureau policy of not accepting responsibility for foreign
intelligence in the Western Hemisphere beyond July, 1947, we are not, of
course, in a position to oppose the issuance of this proposed Directive. Our main concern naturally would
be to insure as much protection for domestic jurisdiction as is possible. In
line with this, the following suggestions are made: In Paragraph 3 of the Directive it states, “The Director of
Central Intelligence is hereby directed to act as the executive
agent of this Authority in coordinating and in supervising all
federal foreign intelligence activities …”. This could mean, of
course, that the Director of CIG
would supervise federal foreign intelligence even though performed
in the United States, although I believe the sense is intended that
he will supervise foreign intelligence performed outside of the
United States. It is suggested that this be clarified by making the
sentence read: “The Director of Central Intelligence is hereby
directed to act as executive agent of this Authority in coordinating
and supervising of federal intelligence activities performed outside
the United States and its possessions ….”In Paragraph 4, Section A it is provided that the Director of
Central Intelligence is to perform services of common concern as
follows: “Conduct all federal espionage and counterespionage
operations for the collection of foreign intelligence information
required for the national security.” For the reason set forth above,
it is suggested this read: “Conduct all federal espionage and
counterespionage operations outside the United States and its
possessions for the collection of foreign intelligence information
required for the national security.”
Although I do not believe that we can eventually oppose the Central
Intelligence Group entering into the domestic picture on the basis that it
is essential to foreign operations, the above suggested changes would insure
some grounds on which the Bureau could frame a protest.
Recommendation:
There is attached a letter to General
Vandenberg advising him that the proposed directive is
approved with the above suggested changes.Not
attached and not found. In this letter the statement in the
“Discussion” set forth under Appendix “B” of the proposed Directive to the
effect that personnel of other agencies can be used subject to rigid control
is apparently an erroneous interpretation of the original Presidential
Directive. This action is recommended, of course, in light of the Bureau’s
decision to withdraw from all foreign intelligence operations by July, 1947,
or as soon as another agency is ready to take over these functions.
Addendum
Assistants to the FBI Director
Tolson and Tamm added the following addendum to this
memorandum.
Hoover added the following
handwritten comment: “I am not as optimistic as are
Tolson & Tamm. I think it is inevitable that there will be a
collision with C.I.G. over our
domestic jurisdiction or rather their expansion into our
intelligence matters. It ought not occur but this new memo of C.I.G. shows how greedy it is. It is
the Donovan plan almost in
toto & is being slyly put over. It means we must zealously guard
our domestic jurisdiction & not yield an inch & be ever
alert to resist any encroachment. H.”
Mr. Tolson and Mr. Tamm do not concur with the conclusion expressed in this
memorandum that “It is inevitable that the Central Intelligence Group must
enter into the domestic field picture insofar as intelligence is concerned
because of the sources of foreign intelligence existing in that field.” They
feel that a coordinated program for the exchange of information between the
Central Intelligence Authority and the FBI,
permitting a free and comprehensive exchange of information in matters of
mutual interest, will enable the Bureau to work in the domestic field
without interference from the Central Intelligence Authority in the same
manner that the Bureau works, for example, with local police departments or
other governmental agencies within defined jurisdictional lines. We believe
that the attached letter to General
Vandenberg is satisfactory.
Edw C.A. TolsonTolson’s typed signature appears
on the source text; apparently Edward Tamm signed for them both.
158. Memorandum for the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Langer)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/6–2846. Top Secret.
Drafted by W. Park Armstrong of
Langer’s staff. Attached to
this document was a 7-page chronology dated January 1946 and entitled
“History of the National Intelligence Authority.” See the
Supplement.Washington, June 28, 1946.
AIDE-MÉMOIRE TO SA–L:The
designator or routing symbol for the Special Assistant to the Secretary
of State for Research and Intelligence.CIG 10Document
156.
General. a. The Department has been a consistent
and enthusiastic supporter of the concept of centralized intelligence.
It is anxious to contribute in
every way possible to the successful and efficient operation of CIG. It believes, however, that a great
deal of constructive accomplishment remains to be undertaken within the
framework of the present functions and duties of the Director of Central
Intelligence (DCI).b. The Department believes that the President’s letter of January 22,
1946 expressed the mutually agreed upon conception of centralized
intelligence and that the basic theory there established is that the
NIA, the DCI and CIG should be at
the managerial, not the operational, level, except with respect to “services of common concern” performed “for the
benefit of said intelligence agencies” [i.e., State, War and Navy].Brackets in the source text. The
provisions of CIG 10 would radically
affect the original concept.Paragraph 2 of CIG
10. The powers and duties conferred upon the DCI by this paragraph extend his functions
and responsibilities into operational intelligence activities. The
language of paragraph 2 permits a number of differing interpretations of
its intent and the phraseology lacks clarity with respect to the
functions and the powers granted the DCI. Numerous questions arise, some of which are: The DCI is authorized to
undertake “basic research and analysis” supplemental to that of
the State, War and Navy Departments when “in his opinion and
that of the appropriate member of the IAB it is required by the national security.”
Should it devolve upon the DCI
in the first instance to determine “the appropriate member” of
the IAB and the “fields of
primary interest” for each of the Departments?What are “fields of primary interest”? Is “political”
intelligence the only field of primary interest for State? Can
political intelligence be separated from economic, geographic,
biographic or sociological intelligence, or, for that matter,
from order-of-battle or maritime intelligence at certain times
and under certain circumstances?The DCI is authorized to
perform research and analysis activities in the fields of
“common but secondary interest to more than one of those
Departments,” provided centralization increases efficiency or
effectiveness. What is a “secondary interest” to the State
Department? Here again the DCI
is charged with determining which of the members of the IAB are “the appropriate members”
with respect to the activities of common but secondary
interest.It has been rumored that the DCI may take over some of the branches of MIS, such as the Pol-Ec Branch, the
Who’s Who Branch and the Scientific Branch. How, specifically,
would the provisions of paragraph 2 cover the determination by
the DCI of his right or duty to
conduct the activities now performed by those branches of MIS?It is possible that the exercise of the duties and functions
of the DCI under paragraph 2 may
come into direct conflict with certain provisions of the
President’s letter (to which the redefinitions are subject) and
thus prove abortive. For example, paragraph 6 of the President’s
letter makes it obligatory for State, War and Navy to continue
“to collect, evaluate, correlate and disseminate departmental
intelligence.” Do not questions arise as to what constitutes
“departmental intelligence” and whether the departments can turn
over even secondary activities if they are
“departmental”?Is not the effect of paragraph 2 to diminish the authority and
function of the IAB to a marked
degree?Legality. a. Entirely apart from the substantive
questions involved in the redefinition of the functions of the DCI, there is some doubt whether the NIA, under the provisions of the
President’s letter of January 22, has the authority to redefine the
functions of the DCI so as to empower
him to undertake activities not specifically delineated in the
President’s letter. Paragraph 3–d of the President’s letter directs the
DCI to perform “such other functions
and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as
the President and the National Intelligence
Authority may from time to time direct.” It is not clear from the
language whether the requirement is imposed that both the President and the NIA
are to direct the DCI to perform other
functions, but the more logical, and possibly the legal, interpretation
would be that such a requirement was established. In that case, the
NIA would have no authority to
direct the DCI to perform functions
other than those enumerated in the President’s letter unless and until
the President so directs.b. The foregoing does not, apparently, apply to the assumption by the
DCI of the duties specified in
paragraph 4 of CIG 10, for it would seem
likely that those activities fall within the provisions of paragraph 3–c
of the President’s letter which directs the DCI to “perform, for the benefit of said intelligence
agencies, such services of common concern as the
National Intelligence Authority determines can be more efficiently
performed centrally.”
159. Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Top Secret; Limited Distribution. The
meeting was held at the War Department building.Washington, June 28, 1946, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Lt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairRear Admiral Sidney W.
Souers, former Director of Central IntelligenceMembers PresentDr. William L. Langer, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMaj. General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Director of Intelligence, W.D.G.S.Commodore Charles J. Rend, USN (Representing Rear
Admiral Thomas B. Inglis, Chief
of Naval Intelligence)Colonel E. P. Mussett (Representing Brig. General
George C. McDonald,
Assistant Chief of Air Staff–2)Also PresentMr. Park Armstrong, Department
of StateCaptain R. K. Davis, USN, ONIColonel Joseph A. Michela, G–2SecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, National Intelligence Authority
1. Functions of the Director of Central
Intelligence (C.I.G. 10)Document 156.
General Vandenberg expressed regret
that the original version had caused such turmoil. He explained that his
primary purpose was to get the people necessary to do the job of assisting
the three departments. He wants these people to try to find out where,
because of lack of people or money, the departments have to stop their
intelligence activities short of national requirements. General Vandenberg explained that he was
not trying to unsurp any departmental prerogatives. He realized that C.I.G. cannot do its job unless there is an
intelligence system within State, War and Navy which is as strong as
possible. He wants to find out where the departments have to stop and thus
where there are deficiencies or holes in our intelligence organization.
General Vandenberg stated that
he had talked with the Secretaries of War and the Navy, and with Fleet
Admiral Leahy, and they were all
in agreement with his concept. He would, however, welcome any comments or
criticism on the subject paper.
Dr. Langer explained that he was very
interested in making C.I.G. a real going
concern, including provision of the necessary money and people. His chief
objection to the paper was that it was rather loose in places and would subsequently give rise to
suspicions. The State Department had no objection to a large part of the
paper. It did object, however, to paragraph 2 of Appendix “A”. Dr. Langer felt that this paragraph went beyond
the provisions in the President’s letter. He doubted that it was necessary
for C.I.G. to undertake extensive research
and analysis. He felt that if the departments showed themselves unable to do
the job for C.I.G., specific authorization
for C.I.G. to perform such functions could
be given at that time. Dr. Langer
also felt that it would be extremely difficult to define what fields were of
primary or secondary interest to the departments.
General Vandenberg felt that point
would be covered, since he was required to obtain the concurrence of
appropriate members of the Board in any given case.
Dr. Langer noted that the decision as
to which member was appropriate in any case was left to the discretion of
the Director. He felt that setting up the proposition of negotiating with
individual members would cause the Board to pass into eclipse. He would be
very sorry to see that happen, since solidarity of the Board gave necessary
moral support to the Director. Dr. Langer explained that it was only because of the interest of
State in C.I.G. that he would like to avoid
unnecessary debate, acrimony, or any suggestion that would break down the
solidarity of the Board. He thought that paragraph 2 should be more
specific, and therefore circulated an alternative paragraph 2.
General Vandenberg thought the
alternative paragraph would tie his hands unnecessarily. If he is to produce
national intelligence he must fill the holes as rapidly as possible. If he
has to obtain approval by the entire Board in each case, it will become a
debating society and no action will be taken.
Dr. Langer pointed out that the
departments have definite functions and responsibilities which must be
recognized. He noted that the Secretary of State has the responsibility of
informing the President regarding the foreign situation and advising him of
what should be done in that field.
General Vandenberg stated that one
of the main purposes of this paper was to enable C.I.G. to define precisely the fields of primary interest to
the departments.
General Chamberlin expressed his
regret that he had to leave the meeting at this point, but stated that
Colonel Michela could vote for him unless there were
particularly controversial issues involved. General Chamberlin then left the meeting.
General Vandenberg said that he must
prepare a supplementary budget within the next few days or C.I.G. would be without necessary funds during
the fiscal year 1947. He was therefore anxious to obtain N.I.A. approval of the concept of this paper to
enable him to secure the necessary
funds. He felt that C.I.G. would be unable
to find the gaps in the intelligence situation unless it was able to perform
the research and analysis operation.
Dr. Langer expressed the understanding
that the Central Planning Staff was designed to find the gaps.
General Vandenberg thought, and
Admiral Souers agreed, that
this was a problem for research and not for planning. Unless C.I.G. actually performed research functions,
it would not know where the gaps were.
Dr. Langer asked whether C.I.G. intended to have so large a staff that
it would be able to take care of any conceivable emergency.
General Vandenberg explained that he
wanted only enough experts to find the holes. It would then be necessary to
determine whether those holes could be filled by one of the departments or
whether, in each particular field, the research and analysis should be
centralized in C.I.G. In other words, he did
not want to do the work now being done in the departments, but rather to
find out what the departments cannot do.
Dr. Langer agreed with this concept,
but felt that a revision of the wording of paragraph 2 was necessary.
After further discussion, a revision of paragraph 2 was accepted by the
Board.
Commodore Rend was concerned about the wording of paragraph 3 of Appendix
“A”, since it seemed to infringe upon the responsibility of each Board
member to execute approved N.I.A.
recommendations within his department.
The Board agreed to a re-wording of paragraph 3.
Commodore Rend suggested that paragraph 4–a make it clear that C.I.G. would conduct such operations only
outside the limits of the continental United States.
General Vandenberg noted that the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had suggested a similar
revision of paragraph 4–a, and this revision was accepted by the Board.
Colonel Michela suggested re-wording the last two lines
of paragraph 5 of Appendix “A”, and a revision was subsequently agreed upon
by the Board.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Concurred in C.I.G. 10 subject to the
following amendments to Appendix “A” thereto and appropriate changes
in Appendix “B”: Revise paragraph 2 to read:
“2. In performing the functions specified in
paragraph 3–a of the President’s letter, the
Director of Central Intelligence is hereby
authorized to undertake such research and analysis
as may be necessary to determine what functions in the
fields of national security intelligence are not
being presently performed or are not being
adequately performed. Based upon these
determinations, the Director of Central Intelligence
may centralize such research and analysis activities
as may, in his opinion and that of the appropriate
member or members of the Intelligence Advisory
Board, be more efficiently or effectively
accomplished centrally.”
Revise paragraph 3 to read:
“3. In addition to the functions specified in
paragraph 3–b of the President’s letter and in
accordance with paragraph 4 of N.I.A. Directive No. 1,
the Director of Central Intelligence is hereby
directed to act as the agent of this Authority in
coordinating all Federal foreign intelligence
activities related to the national security to
ensure that the over-all policies and objectives
established by this Authority are properly
implemented and executed.”
Revise paragraph 4–a to read:
“a. Conduct of all organized Federal espionage and
counter-espionage operations outside the United
States and its possessions for the collection of
foreign intelligence information required for the
national security.”
Revise the last two lines of paragraph 5 to read:
“herein, in addition to the appropriations which can
be made available for this purpose by the State, War
and Navy Departments.”
(Enclosure to C.I.G. 10 as
amended subsequently submitted for N.I.A.
consideration as N.I.A. 4.)The NIA apparently did
not meet as a body to discuss the draft directive. On July 8 the
Secretaries of State, War, and the Navy approved Enclosure A to NIA 4 without change. Admiral Leahy, however, objected to
the use of the word “agent” in paragraph 3 of Enclosure A because it
might imply unwarranted freedom of the Director of Central Intelligence
to act for the NIA. Vandenberg agreed that the language
was subject to such an interpretation and stated that he had only
intended that the Director of Central Intelligence would implement
NIA policies. (NIA 4/1, Memorandum from Lay to NIA, July 8; National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132) The paragraph
as revised is printed as paragraph 3 of NIA Directive No. 5, Document
160.
160. National Intelligence Authority Directive No. 5Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132. Top Secret;
Limited Distribution.Washington, July 8, 1946.
FUNCTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
REFERENCES
President’s letter of 22 January 1946N.I.A. Directive No. 1
Pursuant to the President’s letter of 22 January 1946 designating this
Authority as responsible for planning, developing and coordinating all
Federal foreign intelligence activities so as to ensure the most effective
accomplishment of the intelligence mission related to the national security,
the functions of the Director of Central Intelligence are hereby redefined
as follows, subject to the provisions of said letter: Paragraph 3 of the President’s letter of 22 January 1946 defined
the functions of the Director of Central Intelligence as follows:
“3. Subject to the existing law, and to the direction and
control of the National Intelligence Authority, the Director
of Central Intelligence shall: “a. Accomplish the correlation and evaluation of
intelligence relating to the national security, and
the appropriate dissemination within the Government
of the resulting strategic and national policy
intelligence. In so doing, full use shall be made of
the staff and facilities of the intelligence
agencies of your departments.“b. Plan for the coordination of such of the
activities of the Intelligence agencies of your
departments as relate to the national security and
recommend to the National Intelligence Authority the
establishment of such over-all policies and
objectives as will assure the most effective
accomplishment of the national intelligence
mission.“c. Perform, for the benefit of said intelligence
agencies, such services of common concern as the
National Intelligence Authority determines can be
more efficiently accomplished centrally.“d. Perform such other functions and duties
related to intelligence affecting the national
security as the President and the National
Intelligence Authority may from time to time
direct.”
In performing the functions specified in paragraph 3–a of the
President’s letter, the Director of Central Intelligence is hereby
authorized to undertake such research and analysis as may be
necessary to determine what functions in the fields of national
security intelligence are
not being presently performed or are not being adequately performed.
Based upon these determinations, the Director of Central
Intelligence may centralize such research and analysis activities as
may, in his opinion and that of the appropriate member or members of
the Intelligence Advisory Board, be more efficiently or effectively
accomplished centrally.In addition to the functions specified in paragraph 3–b of the
President’s letter and in accordance with paragraph 4 of N.I.A. Directive No. 1, the Director of
Central Intelligence is hereby authorized and directed to act for
this Authority in coordinating all Federal foreign intelligence
activities related to the national security to ensure that the
over-all policies and objectives established by this Authority are
properly implemented and executed.Pursuant to paragraph 3–c of the President’s letter, the Director
of Central Intelligence is hereby directed to perform the following
services of common concern which this Authority has determined can
be more efficiently accomplished centrally: Conduct of all organized Federal espionage and
counter-espionage operations outside of United States and
its possessions for the collection of foreign intelligence
information required for the national security.Conduct of all Federal monitoring of press and propaganda
broadcasts of foreign powers required for the collection of
intelligence information related to the national
security.To the extent of available appropriations and within the limits of
their capabilities, as determined by the respective Departments, the
State, War and Navy Departments will make available to the Director
of Central Intelligence, upon his request, the funds, personnel,
facilities and other assistance required for the performance of the
functions authorized herein. At the earliest practicable date, the
Director of Central Intelligence will submit for approval by this
Authority any supplemental budget required to perform the functions
authorized herein, in addition to the appropriations which can be
made available for this purpose by the State, War and Navy
Departments.Where the performance of functions authorized herein requires the
liquidation, transfer or integration of funds, personnel or
facilities for existing activities of the State, War and Navy
Departments, the liquidation, transfer or integration will be
accomplished at the earliest practicable date as agreed to by the
Director of Central Intelligence and the official responsible for
such activities so as to involve a minimum of interruption in the
performance of these functions.
161. Central Intelligence Group Directive No. 14Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–275. Confidential.Washington, July 19, 1946.
REORGANIZATION OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE GROUP
REFERENCE
N.I.A. Directive No. 5Document
160.
Memorandum by the Director of Central Intelligence
In order to perform the functions assigned to the Director of Central
Intelligence by N.I.A. Directive No. 5,
the Central Intelligence Group is hereby reorganized as shown in the
attached chart, effective 20 July 1946.See
the Supplement. Budgetary requirements for the attached
organization will be submitted to the National Intelligence Authority
for approval pursuant to paragraph 5 of N.I.A. Directive No. 5. All previous directives and orders
regarding the organization of the Central Intelligence Group are hereby
rescinded.The detailed organization and activation of the various elements of
the Central Intelligence Group will be announced by subsequent C.I.G. Administrative Orders, while
personnel will be assigned by C.I.G.
Personnel Orders.Hoyt S. VandenbergPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Lieutenant General, USA
162. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg) to the National Intelligence Authority
Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal
File 1945–49, 101.5/8–1546. Top Secret. The source text is covered
by an August 15 note from Acting Secretary of State Acheson to his Special Assistant,
Herbert S. Marks, which reads as
follows:”
“The President feels strongly that this action
should not be taken. He approves of my stalling and using the
authority he has given me in any way to prevent it from
happening.”
“He is concerned about paragraph 2 saying that
General Groves has already transferred his
people and thinks I should tell somebody that the transfer should
not take place.”
Some of the Department of War background is
in memoranda for the record by the Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence, General Wright, dated August 1 and August 5. (Both in Central
Intelligence Agency Records, Wright Office Diaries, Job 80–01731R, Box 32, Folder
1)
Washington, August 13, 1946.
NIA 6
COORDINATION OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO FOREIGN
ATOMIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS AND POTENTIALITIES
Memorandum by the Director of Central Intelligence With
the Unanimous Concurrence of the Intelligence Advisory Board
Foreign atomic energy developments and potentialities constitute a paramount
field of intelligence related to the national security. As such, the
National Intelligence Authority is responsible for planning, developing, and
coordinating Federal foreign intelligence activities in this field.
To date, the Foreign Intelligence Branch of the office of Major General
Leslie R. Groves, the Commanding General of the
Manhattan Engineer District, has been the agency performing functions of
collecting and evaluating intelligence related to foreign atomic energy
developments and potentialities. This Branch has operated under the personal
direction of General Groves, who is in turn
responsible, by Presidential directive, to the Secretary of War.
The newly created Atomic Energy Commission will be concerned with the entire
field of atomic energy in the United States, including commercial as well as
military aspects. The Commission will, upon Presidential directive, take
over the responsibilities of the Manhattan Engineer District. It is
considered appropriate at this time that the National Intelligence Authority
should authorize and direct the Director of Central Intelligence to
coordinate the collection by agencies subject to N.I.A. coordination of all intelligence information related to
foreign atomic energy developments and potentialities affecting the national
security and to accomplish the correlation, evaluation and appropriate
dissemination within the
Government of the resulting intelligence. To accomplish this function, the
personnel and working files of the Foreign Intelligence Branch operated by
General Groves should be transferred to the Central
Intelligence Group.
The enclosed draft N.I.A. DirectiveNot printed. For text as adopted by the NIA, see Document
164. is designed to carry out the conclusions contained
in the above paragraph. This Directive has been unanimously concurred in by
the Director of Central Intelligence and the Intelligence Advisory Board,
which in this case included the Commanding General of the Manhattan Engineer
District.
It is recommended that the National Intelligence Authority approve the draft
directive in the Enclosure.
Hoyt S. VandenbergPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Lieutenant General, USA
163. Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the National Intelligence
AuthoritySource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132.
Top Secret. This meeting was called at the request of Acting Secretary
of State Acheson; see
Darling, The Central
Intelligence Agency, p. 162 and p. 455, note 156. The meeting
was held at the Department of State.Washington, August 21, 1946, 11
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentActing Secretary of State Dean
Acheson, in the ChairSecretary of War Robert P.
PattersonSecretary of the Navy James
ForrestalFleet Admiral William D.
Leahy, Personal Representative of the PresidentGeneral Hoyt S. Vandenberg,
Director of Central IntelligenceAlso PresentAssistant Secretary of State William
BentonColonel William A. Eddy,
Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and
IntelligenceMr. John D. Hickerson, Department of StateColonel Charles W. McCarthy, USACaptain Robert L. Dennison, USNSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, N.I.A.
1. Coordination of Intelligence Activities
Related to Foreign Atomic Energy Developments and Potentialities
(N.I.A. 6)Document 162.
Secretary Patterson stated that the
present position is that, despite the President’s directive establishing
N.I.A. and its implementation, the
Manhattan Engineer District under General Grove has a
small division collecting information on foreign activities in the field of
atomic energy. It seemed to Secretary Patterson senseless to have this division isolated without
any connection with or relationship to C.I.G. He stated that he had talked with General
Groves about this problem. Secretary Patterson believes that the N.I.A. will be carrying out the President’s
directive only if this division is transferred. He is not concerned
particularly as to where it is transferred, although he approves the
proposed transfer to C.I.G. This
intelligence division has nothing to do with the Manhattan Engineer District
proper and therefore has nothing to do with the Atomic Energy Commission.
Even if it did, it would still come under the terms of the President’s
directive to N.I.A. At the present time the
intelligence on this subject is lost and is not available to the agencies
represented on N.I.A.
Secretary Forrestal questioned whether
it is intended to deny the use of this information to the Atomic Energy
Commission.
Secretary Patterson felt that the
information involved has nothing to do with ideas for improving our own
atomic energy program since we are already so far ahead of other
nations.
Secretary Acheson said that he was
troubled by this paper and had spoken about it to the President who was not
familiar with it.No record of Acheson’s conversation with the
President has been found. Secretary Acheson said that he had been informed that the Atomic
Energy Commission would be almost entirely dependent on foreign sources of
uranium ore. He understood that it was one function of General
Groves’ intelligence group to find out where
uranium ore is and how to get it to this country or to deny it to others.
The President expressed the opinion that this paper might be all right but
that, if it is carried out before the Commission is established, it may take
away from them an important part of their activities. The President felt
that it would be wiser to let the matter rest until the Commission is
established.
Secretary Patterson pointed out that
the transfer of only a few people here and abroad is involved. Their sole
job is to watch what is going on
in foreign countries in the development of atomic energy. The present
position is hard to defend and Secretary Patterson believed that the N.I.A. should have taken this action before this. He noted that
this was an Army unit under General Groves, about which
General Vandenberg knows
nothing. Secretary Patterson
expressed the belief that it has nothing to do with the statutory authority
of the Atomic Energy Commission since it involves what he considers to be a
military intelligence unit.
Admiral Leahy stated that he was
favorably impressed with the paper but had not wanted to act on it in a
hurry. He found no fault with it on the assumptions expressed by Secretary
Patterson.
Secretary Forrestal felt that it was
urgent that something be done. He stressed the fact that there was no intent
to deny the information involved to the Atomic Energy Commission.
Secretary Patterson agreed on the
urgency. He felt that the Commission will have a big job to do, of which
this is only a small segment. He believed that the Army and Navy would be
open to serious criticism if they did not act on this matter. He felt that
they could not go on treating this new field of intelligence concerning
atomic energy as if it didn’t exist because they knew nothing about it.
General Vandenberg stated that he
would hate to have anyone think that C.I.G.
withheld material from any governmental agency that needed it, since the
furnishing of such information is basically the mission of C.I.G. If the N.I.A. authorizes C.I.G. to
furnish this information to the Atomic Energy Commission, he will certainly
do it. He feels that C.I.G. can perform this
function more efficiently since it can use all collecting facilities,
whereas neither General Groves nor the Commission are
or will be able to do this. At the present time the intelligence agencies
are not cooperating with the Manhattan Engineer District because it is a
one-way street. The best source of this information, according to General
Groves, has been SSU, which will be replaced by C.I.G.’s Special Operations. If this nation is to know about
foreign developments in this field, it must use all sources. If the N.I.A. approves this paper, the entire
intelligence organization of the government will be utilized.
Secretary Patterson pointed out that
if General Groves had information that the Russians
were prepared to use atomic bombs, the members of N.I.A. would not know about it.
Secretary Acheson stated that he was
not clear about the facts. He agreed that insofar as this involves finding
out what other countries are doing, it should be under General Vandenberg. If, however, it
involves finding out where uranium ore is, this is of vital interest to the
Atomic Energy Commission.
Secretary Patterson stated that
General Groves is performing this function in complete
isolation. Mr. Patterson feels this
is hostile to the spirit and
probably the letter of the President’s directive establishing N.I.A.
Admiral Leahy believed it was
conceivable that the Commission might find it necessary to build up an
intelligence organization of its own. He felt that this organization,
however, should coordinate with C.I.G.
Secretary Acheson thought it would be a
mistake to do anything in the week or ten days before the Commission is
appointed. He also understands that this is the President’s wish.
Secretary Forrestal could see no great
harm that would be done by acting now and was very reluctant to delay action
on this matter.
Secretary Patterson pointed out that
this could not be accomplished after the Commission is appointed because
then the personnel involved would be under the Commission. If he was a
member of the Commission, he would ask for all that General
Groves has, would take up the important problems
first, and in the meantime freeze all personnel. It would, therefore,
involve serious delay to ask the permission of the Commission.
Secretary Acheson felt that these
points were the strongest reasons for not acting at this time.
Secretary Forrestal stated that it was
the intent of N.I.A. to draw together all
intelligence activities of this type. He felt that there should not be one
unit separate and isolated. If this principle were sound, he believed the
N.I.A. should approve this paper.
Secretary Patterson reiterated that
this involved only military information. The whole subject involved is
military and will be unless the United Nations is perfected and
international controls are effected. He considered that it would be
extremely derelict to frame major policies without considering what other
countries are doing in this field.
Admiral Leahy believed that the
Commission could get better information from C.I.G. than from any organization that might be set up for some
time to come. He pointed out that the N.I.A.
has the authority to direct C.I.G. to
furnish this information to the Commission.
Secretary Acheson observed that
naturally all N.I.A. members would do
whatever the President desires. He suggested that Admiral Leahy might clear this paper with
the President.
Secretary Patterson stated that he of
course had no objection to taking it up with the President but questioned
the need since the matter falls so clearly within the directive to N.I.A.
Admiral Leahy stated that he agreed
with Secretary Patterson and
Secretary Forrestal. He thought it
would be possible to reverse the decision, if necessary, after the
Commission is established.
Secretary Acheson was concerned about
acting too hurriedly. He said that the wording sounded all right to him but
that this was a very complex subject. He thought that if similar wording
were used regarding a matter of finance, the N.I.A. wouldn’t act because they would be familiar with the
fact that the Treasury Department would be deeply concerned. He agreed that
it might be necessary to coerce the Commission on this matter, but in any
case he felt that they should have an opportunity to express their
views.
General Vandenberg stated that
C.I.G. was interested primarily in
obtaining the existing organization since C.I.G. is not now getting the necessary information. He
suggested that the unit might be transferred to C.I.G.; then if the Commission asks N.I.A. to reconsider, the unit will be intact for any future
disposition decided upon.
Secretary Patterson noted that he had
taken the view regarding other units of the Manhattan Engineer District,
that they should be kept intact for the Commission. This unit, however,
dealt with military intelligence and fell within the terms of the
President’s directive to N.I.A. He,
therefore, felt that the proposed action could be taken immediately.
Admiral Leahy asked why it would not
be possible for C.I.G. to go ahead and do
this type of intelligence in addition to Groves’
people.
General Vandenberg said that this
might result in having two agents in the field on the same mission, which
always results in one exposing the other.
Admiral Leahy then suggested that the
N.I.A. direct C.I.G. to collect and evaluate the information, without
transferring the unit at this time.
General Vandenberg noted that the
individuals are a part of General Groves’ personal
staff and they have been brought to the point where they know generally all
that General Groves knows. They are, therefore, in a
position to tell other agencies to collect certain information without
divulging their background knowledge on atomic energy. If, however, C.I.G. sets up a new unit it must inform
additional people of the basic atomic energy secreta, which might further
jeopardize their security.
Secretary Forrestal believed that
N.I.A. would be doing a dangerous thing
to mark time on this matter.
Secretary Patterson stated that he
already has the power to send the intelligence personnel involved to G–2 right away. He can not, however, transfer
them to C.I.G. without N.I.A. agreement.
Secretary Forrestal stated that he
wanted the record to show that, if the Atomic Energy Commission is created,
he does not want the military people who are charged with national defense
to be denied this vital information regarding foreign atomic energy
developments.
General Vandenberg noted that that
was exactly the position to date.
Mr. Lay suggested that, since the
Atomic Energy Commission was not mentioned in the directive, an additional
paragraph might be added to the effect that intelligence produced as a
result of this directive should be made available as required to the
Commission.
General Vandenberg suggested
amending this to indicate that C.I.G. would
make the intelligence available “as directed by N.I.A.”
Mr. Benton suggested an additional
paragraph to the effect that this directive would be reviewed with the
Atomic Energy Commission when established.
Admiral Leahy proposed certain
editorial amendments. He then suggested that the proposed directive be
rephrased either with or without the proposed amendments, and sent by
telegram to the President with a notation to the effect that the N.I.A. recommends approval without prejudice to
any future change that may be desired by the Atomic Energy Commission.
The National Intelligence Authority:Agreed to recommend that the President approve the directive in
the Enclosure to N.I.A. 6,For text of the directive as approved by
the NIA, see Document 164. amended as follows, with an
understanding that any action taken by the N.I.A. will be without prejudice to future change that
may be desired by the Atomic Energy Commission: Page 3, paragraph 1, line 4, change “N.I.A. coordination” to read
“coordinationa by N.I.A.”Page 3, paragraph 1, line 5, change “affecting” to read
“which may affect.”Noted that Admiral Leahy
would transmit the above agreement to the President by telegram.
(The President subsequently replied that he wished to defer taking
action until he returned to Washington.)See footnote 1, Document
164.
164. Telegram From the President’s Chief of Staff (Leahy) to President TrumanSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 131. Top Secret. The
time of transmission is taken from Truman’s reply (see footnote
1 below). Also reproduced in CIA Cold War
Records: The CIA under Harry
Truman, pp. 79–80.Washington, August 21, 1946, 8 p.m.
(Z).
White 26. The National Intelligence Authority today approved the following
quoted directive to be issued by the Authority to General Vandenberg. General
Groves approves.
Secretaries Patterson and Forrestal consider it very important that
the directive be issued without delay. Secretary Acheson stated that your approval should be obtained.
The members of the Authority recommend your approval with an understanding
that any action taken by the Authority will be without prejudice to future
change that may be desired by the Atomic Energy Committee. I recommend
approval.According to telegram Blue #44,
August 22, Truman wished to defer
action on the directive until he returned to Washington. (National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 131)
See the Supplement. The matter was not resolved until the following year
with the issuance of National Intelligence Directive No. 9 on April 18,
1947 (Document 194), and the subsequent
agreement that the Atomic Energy Commission would become a member of the
IAB. Regarding AEC membership on the IAB, see Hillenkoetter’s August 12, 1947, memorandum to Leahy and others in the Supplement.
(National Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy
Papers, No. 131)
“Pursuant to the President’s letter of 22 January 1946, designating this
Authority as responsible for planning, developing, and coordinating all
Federal foreign intelligence activities so as to assure the most effective
accomplishment of the intelligence mission related to the national security,
the following policies and procedures relating to Federal intelligence
activities in the field of foreign atomic energy developments and
potentialities affecting the national security are announced: The Director of Central Intelligence, subject to the direction and
control of this Authority, is hereby authorized and directed to
coordinate the collection by agencies subject to coordination by
N.I.A. of all intelligence
information related to foreign atomic energy developments and
potentialities which may affect the national security, and to
accomplish the correlation, evaluation, and appropriate
dissemination within the Government of the resulting intelligence.
The Director of Central Intelligence is further authorized to
arrange with other intelligence agencies of the Government to
utilize their collection facilities in this field.To accomplish the function assigned in paragraph 1, the Secretary
of War and the Commanding General of the Manhattan Engineer District have authorized
the transfer to the Central Intelligence Group of the personnel and
working files of the Foreign Intelligence Branch operated by the
Commanding General of the Manhattan Engineer District, effective at
the earliest practicable date.”
165. Letter From the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(Hoover) to the
President’s Chief of Staff (Leahy)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy
Papers, No. 132. Personal and Confidential.Washington, August 23, 1946.
Dear Admiral
Leahy: I am sure you will recall your recent
conversation with Mr. Tamm of my
office, on August 12th,See Document 124. last, concerning the Central
Intelligence Group. With further reference to the matters discussed at that
time I thought I should call to your attention the proposed CIG Directive No. 15The number 12 has been crossed out, and 15 has been
inserted by hand. which recently has been referred to me for
approval and/or comment.Hoover presumably was referring to a
paper designated as CIG 12/1,
“Exploitation of American Business Concerns, Non-Governmental Groups and
Individuals with Connections Abroad as Sources of Foreign Intelligence
Information,” which was circulated to the IAB on August 21. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical
Files, HS/HC–276) See the Supplement. It replaced an earlier paper on
the same subject that carried the designator CIG 12. For the paper as finally approved, see CIG Directive No. 15, Document 171. There is an account of the debate over this
paper in Darling, The Central
Intelligence Agency, pp. 122–127.
Some of the provisions incorporated in this Directive have caused me
considerable concern. Briefly, they provide for CIG operations within the United States and its Territories in
a fashion which I regard to be an invasion of domestic intelligence coverage
which, according to our laws, is the sole responsibility of this Bureau. I
am attaching a copy of my letter of reply to General Vandenberg, in which I outlined my objections in
detail. This letter should be self-explanatory.
We are sure you will agree that it is imperative that the present arrangement
for domestic intelligence coverage should not be tampered with at this
critical period. If the proposed Directive should be placed into effect, it is our feeling that it
definitely would create considerable difficulty and would inevitably lead to
confusion, duplication of effort and intolerable conditions to the detriment
of the national well-being.
Sincerely yours,
J. Edgar Hoover
AttachmentStrictly Confidential; By
Special Messenger.Washington, August 23, 1946.
Letter From the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (Hoover) to the
Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg)
Dear General
Vandenberg: I refer to your memorandum of August
21, 1946, concerning the exploitation of American business concerns,
non-governmental groups, and individuals with connections abroad as
sources of foreign intelligence information.See footnote 3 above. I must
advise that the proposed directive which was attached does not
incorporate the changes suggested in my letter of August 6, 1946,Not found. and I, therefore, cannot
approve it. This new directive also includes provisions and statements
in which I cannot concur and, in fact, must oppose.
In the discussion attached to this new proposed directive it is stated:
“Foreign intelligence information related to the national security,
although it may be collected from sources whose headquarters are within
the limits of the United States and its possessions, is definitely part
of the national intelligence mission, the coordination of which is
specifically a function of the National Intelligence Authority under the
provisions of the President’s letter of 22 January, 1946.” This
statement is not in agreement with Section 9 of the President’s letter
of January 22 which states: “Nothing herein shall be construed to
authorize the making of investigations inside the continental limits of
the United States and its possessions except as provided by law and
Presidential Directives.”
I note that in the proposed directive it is stated that field agents of
the Central Intelligence Group will establish and maintain liaison with
the intelligence officers of
local Army and Navy headquarters and Air Force headquarters. If this
means that the CIG will establish
offices in the United States or will operate field agents within the
United States or its possessions, I am of the opinion that this is not
within the provisions of the President’s original directive. I did not
understand that the President’s original directive contemplated the
Central Intelligence Group engaging in any such activities within the
United States and its possessions.
In connection with the proposed directive, as previously advised, I will
approve a directive providing for the Director of Central Intelligence
establishing uniform procedures for securing the cooperation of American
business concerns in supplying foreign intelligence information required
for the national security. As set forth in my letter of August 6
concerning the original proposed directive, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation should be exempt from provisions requiring clearance from
the Central Contact Register inasmuch as it is necessary for us to
contact such various firms on a daily basis in matters involving the
discharge of our domestic responsibilities. I desire also to reiterate
my suggestion that the Central Contact Register advise the FBI with reference to each American
business firm with which arrangements are made to secure foreign
intelligence in order to prevent duplication of effort and possible
embarrassment to both the FBI and the
CIG.
I shall, of course, be most anxious to promptly transmit to the Central
Intelligence Group any information gathered through our domestic
operations involving foreign intelligence information relating to the
national security.
With best wishes and kind regards,
Sincerely yours,Printed from an unsigned
copy.
166. Minutes of the Seventh Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory
BoardSource: Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Secret; Limited
Distribution. The meeting was held at the New War Department
Building.Washington, August 26, 1946, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Lt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairMembers PresentColonel William A. Eddy,
Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and
IntelligenceMaj. General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Director of Intelligence, W.D.G.S.Rear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceBrig. General George C.
McDonald, Assistant Chief of Air Staff–2Mr. C. H. Carson (representing Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation)Also PresentBrig. General John A. Samford, U.S.A.Dr. Kingman Douglass, Central Intelligence
GroupMr. A. S. Buford, State DepartmentCaptain Ransom K. Davis, U.S.N.Colonel Charles E. Taylor, U.S.A.Colonel Robert Taylor III, U.S.A.Colonel E. J. Treacy, U.S.A.Lt. Colonel E. G. Edwards, U.S.A.Commander George McManus, Central Intelligence
GroupSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, National Intelligence Authority
1. [3–1/2 lines of source text not
declassified] (C.I.G. 12/1)[text not declassified]
(Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See the
Supplement.
General Vandenberg explained that
the need for coordination in this field is to assure that all agencies’
views and requirements are given the same weight. It is also necessary to
avoid the experiences during the war when as many as twelve agencies called
on a single firm for the same information. It is considered that only C.I.G. could properly perform this coordinating
function. In addition, C.I.G. will be able
to place more people on the job than any other single agency. General Vandenberg then requested
comments on the paper.
General Samford stated that A–2 had no objection. They
would like to see the paper approved as it stands if it is considered to be
strong enough.
Admiral Inglis said that his comments
were primarily to clear up the wording. He questioned whether this paper
referred to exploitation only in the United States and suggested that this
point be cleared up.
General Vandenberg confirmed the
fact that the exploitation would occur only in the United States, and an
amendment to that effect was agreed upon.
Commander McManus also noted that the briefing would be
done only with individuals who were going abroad on short trips, and an
amendment to that effect was agreed upon.
Mr. Carson stated that the F.B.I. felt the directive was too broad since it might or could
conflict with F.B.I.’s operations in the
United States. Specifically the F.B.I.
objected to including in this directive the exploitation of “non-government
groups and individuals with connections abroad.” He suggested that such
groups and individuals be specifically defined or that this directive be
confined to American business concerns.
General Vandenberg stated that it
was impossible to define specifically the groups and individuals which
C.I.G. wished to exploit since they
included any groups or individuals who might be sources of foreign
intelligence information related to the national security. He thought that,
in view of the President’s directive, it might be necessary to put this
paper before the N.I.A. if the F.B.I. objected to it. General Vandenberg noted that the term
“investigations,” which C.I.G. was precluded
from making by paragraph 9 of the President’s directive establishing the
N.I.A., was an entirely different matter
from the type of activities to be covered by C.I.G. 12/1. Under this proposed directive the C.I.G. would not be making investigations in
the United States for internal security, criminal or counter intelligence
purposes as the F.B.I. uses this term, but
rather would be collecting foreign positive intelligence required for the
national security.
Mr. Carson pointed out that the information in many
cases would nevertheless include what the F.B.I. is seeking.
General Vandenberg stated that
whenever that was the case the information would be turned over to the
F.B.I.
Mr. Carson noted that his concern was to avoid conflict
in this borderline region between C.I.G. and
F.B.I.
General Vandenberg questioned how
there could be a conflict if the F.B.I.
received any information of interest to it.
Mr. Carson thought that C.I.G. activities might conflict with similar F.B.I. activities and contacts.
General Vandenberg quoted the
following paragraphs from a letter from the Director of the F.B.ISee the
attachment to Document 165. concerning
C.I.G. 12/1:
“In the discussion attached to this new proposed directive it is stated:
‘Foreign intelligence information related to the national security, although
it may be collected from sources whose headquarters are within the limits of
the United States and its possessions, is definitely part of the national
intelligence mission, the coordination of which is specifically a function
of the National Intelligence Authority under the provisions of the
President’s letter of 22 January, 1946.’ This statement is not in agreement
with Section 9 of the President’s letter of January 22 which states:
‘Nothing herein shall be construed to authorize the making of investigations
inside the continental limits of the United States and its possessions
except as provided by law and Presidential Directives.’
“I note that in the proposed directive it is stated that field agents of the
Central Intelligence Group will establish and maintain liaison with the
intelligence officers of local Army and Navy headquarters and Air Force
headquarters. If this means that the CIG
will establish offices in the United States or will operate field agents
within the United States or its possessions, I am of the opinion that this
is not within the provisions of the President’s original directive. I did
not understand that the President’s original directive contemplated the
Central Intelligence Group engaging in any such activities within the United
States and its possessions.”
Admiral Inglis said that he gathered
from this letter that the F.B.I feels that
it has the exclusive right to collect any information within the continental
limits of the United States. He pointed out that the Navy Department, and he
understood the War Department, has always collected foreign intelligence
information within the United States.
General Vandenberg stated that he
failed to see how the C.I.G. could contact
business firms without establishing field offices for this purpose.
General Chamberlin asked whether it
was planned to assign specific groups to be contacted by the various
agencies. He thought it might be possible to specify which groups would be
contacted by F.B.I and which by other
agencies.
General Vandenberg explained that it
is difficult to draw a line in that manner since, for example, shipping
firms normally contacted by the Navy might have information of direct
interest to the Army.
General Samford said that he understood the purpose of
this directive was primarily to coordinate recognized activities.
General Chamberlin suggested that the
paper be amended to require consultation with the F.B.I on the advisability of contacts of other than American
business concerns. With that change he suggested that the meeting consider
any further amendments and then submit the paper as amended to the N.I.A.
Mr. Lay quoted paragraph 3 of N.I.A. Directive No. 1 as follows:
“Any recommendation which you and the Intelligence Advisory Board approve
unanimously and have the existing authority to execute may be put into
effect without action by this Authority.”
He pointed out that, if this directive were confined to
activities of the State, War and Navy Departments and C.I.G., and the I.A.B. members representing those Departments concurred, the
directive could be issued forthwith.
Admiral Inglis recommended, and
General Chamberlin concurred, that
the F.B.I be given an opportunity to study
the amended version of C.I.G. 12/1.
General Vandenberg suggested that
Mr. Carson consult with the Director of F.B.I as to whether the amended paper would be
acceptable. If the F.B.I concurred, the
directive could be issued forthwith. If the F.B.I did not concur, a split paper should then be submitted to
the N.I.A.
The Board concurred with General
Vandenberg’s suggestions, subject to the understanding that
if the F.B.I did not concur, the Board would
have another meeting prior to submitting the paper to the N.I.A.
Admiral Inglis suggested a footnote on
page 6 defining the terms “central register” and “contact register.” He also
suggested an amendment of paragraph 3 g of the directive since, for example,
Naval Reserve officers would prefer briefing by O.N.I., which therefore would obtain more information from
them.
After further discussion of this paragraph an amendment was agreed upon.
Admiral Inglis stated that he wished
the minutes to show an agreed interpretation of the meaning of paragraph 3
of the directive. For example, if O.N.I.
makes a contact, the contact should be told that his name will be placed in
the contact register. If the contact does not agree, Admiral Inglis wondered whether that meant that
O.N.I. could not use this contact.
General Vandenberg thought that the
contact would be willing to agree if he knew that it would save him from
interrogation by another agency for the same purpose.
General Samford questioned why the contact needed to
know that his name would be placed in the register.
Admiral Inglis felt that this was
necessary in order to play fair and square.
General Vandenberg suggested that
the contact be asked as diplomatically as possible whether he objected to
having his name in the contact register. If the contact would object, then
ask him if he would mind having a representative of C.I.G. participate in the briefing and debriefing. If the
contact still objected, the briefing agency should check with the C.I.G. as to what information other agencies
might want.
General Samford questioned whether the existence of the
contact register should not be kept highly secret.
General Vandenberg agreed that if
possible the contact register should not be mentioned.
Admiral Inglis pointed out that
individuals frequently volunteer their assistance. These contacts may state
that their financial security, continued employment and possibly life itself
depends on the assurance that the discussion will not go beyond the
immediate participants. In such cases Admiral Inglis considered that it is not fair to give their names to
the contact register without permission.
General Vandenberg suggested that
contacts be told that, to prevent their being approached by other agencies,
a highly secure central point has been established where all contacts are
cleared.
General Samford felt, and it was agreed, that the names
of contacts should be given to the contact register unless they insisted
upon secrecy.
Colonel Eddy suggested, and it was
agreed upon, that certain changes be made in paragraphs 3 g and 5 of the
proposed directive and that paragraph 4 thereof be deleted since the terms
of that paragraph were already covered by previous directives.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:Concurred in Appendix “A” to C.I.G. 12/1 as amended at the meeting, except for the
representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who undertook
to present the amended directive to the Director of F.B.I for further consideration
(amended directive subsequently circulated as the Enclosure to
C.I.G. 12/2).[text not declassified]
(Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See
the Supplement.Agreed with the Director of Central Intelligence that: If the Director of the F.B.I concurred in the Enclosure, it would be
issued forthwith as a directive.If the Director of the F.B.I did not concur in the Enclosure, the
Intelligence Advisory Board would meet again to discuss
submitting this matter to the National Intelligence
Authority for decision.Noted the interpretation of the procedures to be followed under
the proposed directive as developed in discussion at the
meeting.
167. Letter From the President’s Chief of Staff (Leahy) to the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (Hoover)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the
Central Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers, FBI Documents. No classification
marking.Washington, September 4, 1946.
Dear Mr. Hoover: Because of an absence from Washington I have
been unable to make an earlier reply to your letter of 23 August in regard
to Instructions No. 12 proposed by the Director of Central Intelligence for
issue to his Central Intelligence Group.See
Document 165 and footnote 3
thereto.
A careful reading of the proposed Instructions No. 12 fails to find wherein
it invades the domestic intelligence coverage that is the responsibility of
your Bureau.
It occurs to me that if you should send to my office an officer of your
Bureau who is qualified to explain your objections, it would be of great
assistance to me in an endeavor to correctly inform members of the National
Intelligence Authority when they meet to pass upon the proposal of the
Director to instruct his Central Intelligence Group in the matter covered by
his Directive No. 12.
I shall be very pleased to talk with one of your officers at any time that an
appointment is made by telephone.
Most sincerely,
William D. Leahy
168. Letter From the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(Hoover) to the
President’s Chief of Staff (Leahy)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the
Central Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers, FBI Documents. Personal and
Confidential.Washington, September 6, 1946.
Dear Admiral
Leahy: Reference is made to your letter of September
4, 1946, which was in reply to my letter of August 23Documents 164 and 165. concerning the proposed CIG Directive No. 12,CIG No. 12 is not
printed; the revised version, CIG 12/1,
August 21, is in the Supplement. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical
Files, HS/HC–276) covering the exploitation of American business
concerns, non-governmental groups and individuals with connections abroad as
sources of foreign intelligence information. Since my letter of August 23, a
meeting has been held of the Intelligence Advisory Board,See Document
166.CIG, and a number of
minor changes have been made in the proposed directive which has been
reissued as proposed CIG Directive No.
12/2.Circulated August 27 (Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See the
Supplement. In answer to the objections which had been previously
made by me, the changed directive provides, “The Director of Central
Intelligence will establish standards for security clearance of contacts by
participating agencies, which shall include consultation with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation on the advisability of contacts of other than
American business concerns.”
I thought you would be interested in my observations concerning the last
version of the proposed CIG Directive No.
12/2, which are incorporated in a letter to General Vandenberg dated September 5, 1946,Not found. a copy of which is attached.
I am advising General Vandenberg
that the suggestions I had previously made were put forward solely for the
purpose of preventing duplication or confusion in contacts with
representatives of foreign language groups and non-governmental groups and
individuals in whom the Federal Bureau of Investigation is primarily
interested because of its responsibility in covering Communist activities
within the United States. I informed General
Vandenberg that I do not believe it necessary for
representatives of CIG to check with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with contacts made with
American business concerns doing business abroad, as normally this Bureau
would have no interest in such contacts made by them. In order to avoid
duplication and confusion, as well
as conflict which may arise in connection with the CIG and the Federal Bureau of Investigation maintaining
coverage of foreign language groups or other groups and individuals, I
proposed that this Directive be confined at this time to contacts with
American business concerns doing business abroad. I suggested that further
study be given to an alternate directive of delimitation agreement which
would codify a procedure mutually acceptable in contacts with foreign
language groups and other persons presently included within the phrase
“other non-governmental groups and individuals with connections abroad”.
I feel that under terms of the current directive, the CIG would be authorized to contact and to “exploit” foreign
language groups and other individuals with similar connections or
background, which “exploitation” would be in addition to the similar
utilization of these channels by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and I
fear that there would be inevitable duplication, confusion, misunderstanding
and perhaps conflict which would operate to the disadvantage of both the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Group.
If, after examining my comments to General
Vandenberg concerning proposed CIG Directive 12/2, you desire further clarification, I shall
be most happy to have one of my assistants contact you in the matter.
With best wishes and kind regards,
Sincerely,
J. Edgar Hoover
169. Minutes of the Seventh Meeting of the National Intelligence
AuthoritySource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132.
Secret; Limited Distribution. The meeting was held at the Department of
State.Washington, September 25, 1946, 11:15
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentActing Secretary of State William L.
Clayton, in the ChairSecretary of War Robert P.
PattersonSecretary of the Navy James
ForrestalFleet Admiral William D.
Leahy, Personal Representative of the PresidentLieut. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Director of Central IntelligenceAlso PresentUnder Secretary of the Navy John L.
SullivanMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceAssistant Secretary of War Howard C.
PetersenMr. John D. Hickerson, Department of StateCaptain Robert L. Dennison, USNSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, N.I.A.
1. Report by the Director of Central Intelligence
General Vandenberg, using a series
of charts, presented a report on the activities of the Central Intelligence
Group.
General Vandenberg first noted the
objectives of the C.I.G. as expressed in the
President’s letter of 22 January 1946 and N.I.A. Directives Nos. 1 and 5.Documents 71, 141, and 142. He then
presented a definition of “intelligence related to the national security” as
interpreted by the C.I.G. He enumerated the
following steps as essential to the production of such intelligence: Anticipating needs.Determining most effective means.Ensuring collection.Receiving all available intelligence information.Checking each item against all others.Correlating political, military, economic and other
implications.Reporting in useful form to appropriate officials.
General Vandenberg showed the
initial organization of the C.I.G. which was
designed primarily for planning, except for a small staff preparing the
daily factual summary of incoming cables and dispatches. He noted that the
question of central intelligence services was left for subsequent
decision.
General Vandenberg submitted a list
of 31 projects which had been referred to C.I.G for study by one or more intelligence agencies. In the
light of the study of these projects and the experience gained up to that
time, C.I.G. was reorganized on 22 July
along lines explained by General
Vandenberg. He noted that the need for such a reorganization
was noted in Admiral Souers’ final
reportDocument
154. to the National Intelligence Authority. General Vandenberg analyzed the personnel
allocations for this organization at the present time and as estimated for
31 December 1946.
General Vandenberg then listed over
20 accomplishments of the C.I.G. to date,
stressing the fact that while many of these were incomplete and continuing projects, an agreement as to
the proper line of action in each case had already been reached.
Secretary Forrestal stated that he was
dubious about the destruction of the F.B.I
operation in Latin America. He considered these peripheral areas, such as
Mexico, Cuba, etc., to be extremely important to our national security, and
thought that the F.B.I had conducted a very
effective intelligence activity there. He asked General Vandenberg whether he was
satisfied with the present arrangement.
General Vandenberg agreed that the
F.B.I had conducted a very effective
intelligence operation. He explained, however, that the F.B.I had agreed to turn over to C.I.G. the contacts it had developed in Latin
America. This turnover, of course, would take time to accomplish, but if it
is carried out as agreed at present, there should not be any serious
interruption in the operation.
In answer to a question by Mr. Hickerson, Admiral Leahy stated that, at the
insistence of Mr. Hoover, the C.I.G. was precluded from hiring former F.B.I men in Latin America.
General Vandenberg said that he was
recruiting personnel for this activity by personal contact. He also stated
that C.I.G. was now prepared to utilize, to
the extent security permits, all American business concerns with connections
abroad as valuable sources of foreign intelligence.
General Vandenberg then listed 19
problems in the coordination of intelligence activities that are in process
in C.I.G. for which solutions have not yet
been devised.
Admiral Leahy commented that the
problems enumerated were very far-reaching, and it was not hard to
understand why solutions had not yet been found.
General Vandenberg explained certain
general plans for C.I.G. intelligence
operations overseas and for the F.B.I.S.
activity.
General Vandenberg then presented
some of the difficulties faced by C.I.G. of
which he felt the N.I.A. should be apprised.
First of all, he stressed the fact that C.I.G. could not produce national intelligence without all the
intelligence information available to the Government. In this regard he felt
strongly that only trained C.I.G. personnel
could determine whether a given piece of information contained important
intelligence implications. He noted that to the best of his knowledge the
State and Navy Departments were furnishing complete coverage of their
information. Some of the main sources of information to which C.I.G. did not have access were the President’s
messages, General Marshall’s
messages, and War Department OPD “eyes only”
messages. He felt that the best solution was to have a trained C.I.G. officer who was acceptable to each
department stationed in the message center of each department where he could review the messages
and transmit to C.I.G. subject to any
necessary restrictions, those messages having intelligence value.
Secretary Patterson expressed the
belief that such an arrangement could be made.
General Vandenberg then noted the
difficult problem of the relationship between C.I.G. and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.Reference is to CIG 15,
September 18, 1946. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–276) See the Supplement. He pointed out that the Joint
Intelligence Committee duplicates the work of C.I.G. Also, J.I.C.
intelligence coordination activities may conflict with similar C.I.G. activities. He said that J.I.C. studies generally receive priority in
the War and Navy intelligence agencies since the J.C.S. were the immediate superiors of the heads of those
agencies. The possibility of combining C.I.G. and the Joint Intelligence Staff (JIS) had been considered, but raised
difficulties since C.I.G. might then be
serving two masters. He said that the solution was a difficult one, but that
it was being carefully studied.
Secretary Patterson said that he did
not see why the J.I.S. should not be
disbanded.
Admiral Leahy agreed that this
appeared to be the proper solution, and said that he had so stated to the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. He observed that this was not an easy problem to
solve, but he thought that a workable solution would be found.
General Vandenberg noted that a
third difficulty which was under active consideration was the relationship
of C.I.G. to the State–War–Navy Coordinating
Committee.
A fourth and most serious difficulty enumerated by General Vandenberg was the relationship
of N.I.A. to the Atomic Energy Commission.
He pointed out that the Atomic Energy Act created an independent agency
which had the authority to engage in extremely important intelligence
activities without coordination by the N.I.A. Furthermore, it was rumored that the Commission would
conduct a foreign intelligence operation which would involve a grave danger
of conflict with similar C.I.G.
operations.
Admiral Leahy stated that he thought
the President would do the best he can to turn atomic energy intelligence
activities over to the N.I.A. The President,
however, does not want to act until the Atomic Energy Commission is
appointed. Admiral Leahy thinks that
this matter will be arranged, but cannot say definitely at this time.
General Vandenberg stated that a
fifth difficulty was the procurement of key Army and Naval personnel for
C.I.G. He said that the present C.I.G. ceiling for Naval officers was 13, and
that a request for an increase to 65 was under consideration in the Navy
Department but had not been
confirmed. He stated that any assistance in this matter which Secretary
Forrestal might render would be
extremely helpful.
Secretary Forrestal agreed to look
into the present status of this request.
General Vandenberg then explained
that Army and Naval officers assigned to C.I.G. were fearful that they might lose their normal
opportunities for promotion. He felt that a few key promotions in C.I.G. at this time would be of the greatest
value in improving morale. He therefore requested that the Secretaries of
War and the Navy press for the promotion of certain C.I.G. personnel.
General Vandenberg then presented a
chart showing the time required for processing a typical C.I.G. field officer to be from four to six
months. He explained that this was intended to indicate one of the reasons
for what might seem to be delay in establishing field operations such as in
Latin America. He assured the N.I.A. that
every attempt was being made to reduce the length of time involved in this
processing.
Secretary Forrestal stated that he
would prefer to see this work done carefully rather than too hurriedly.
The National Intelligence Authority:
Noted the report of C.I.G. activities by
General Vandenberg.
170. Minutes of the Eighth Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Secret: Limited Distribution. No drafting
information appears on the source text. The meeting was held at the New
War Department.Washington, October 1, 1946, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Lt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairMembers PresentMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMaj. General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Director of Intelligence, W.D.G.S.Rear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceBrig. General John A. Samford, Deputy Assistant
Chief of Air Staff–2Also PresentMr. A. Sidney Buford, Department of StateColonel E. J. Treacy, U.S.A.Captain R. K. Davis, U.S.N.Colonel E. P. Mussett, U.S.A.Mr. George B. McManus, Central Intelligence Group
(for Item 1 only)Mr. Donald Edgar, Central
Intelligence GroupSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, N.I.A.Mr. John S. Earman, Assistant
Secretary, N.I.A.
1. [3 lines of source text not
declassified][text
not declassified] (Central Intelligence Agency Histroical
Files, HS/HC–276) See the Supplement.
General Vandenberg stated that
subsequent to the last I.A.B. meeting he had
conferred with Mr. Hoover of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. After discussing C.I.G. 12/2, Mr. Hoover
agreed with the paper provided some changes were made. It appeared that Mr.
Hoover’s chief objection to
C.I.G. 12/2 was exploitation by C.I.G. of subversive groups which the F.B.I might be contacting or investigating.
Admiral Inglis asked specifically what
changes had been made in C.I.G. 12/2.
General Vandenberg explained the
changes and stated that he was willing to go along with the paper, as
amended, since he was fully in accord with Mr. Hoover’s viewpoint.
Admiral Inglis questioned the phrasing
of paragraph 2 of C.I.G. 12/2,Inglis
apparently was referring to the changes in CIG 12/2 that Vandenberg had mentioned (no written version of which
has been found) [text not declassified].
and particularly that part thereof which reads “and American residents
travelling abroad”. He suggested that consideration be given to clarifying
that phrase.
Admiral Inglis then brought up the
question of whether or not the changes in this paper would preclude O.N.I. from contacting “hyphenated” groups and
individuals.
General Vandenberg replied that it
would not, since such individuals and groups were not mentioned in the paper
at all and there was no effect whatsoever.
Admiral Inglis suggested, and it was
agreed, that an understanding to that effect appear in the minutes.
Mr. Lay read an interpretation of the
intent of paragraph 3–b, which was accepted.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:Concurred in the revision of C.I.G. 12/2 (subsequently issued as C.I.G. Directive No. 15).[text not declassified]
(Central Intellegence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See
the Supplement.Noted that the revision of C.I.G.
12/2 eliminated provisions for coordination of the exploitation of
other non-governmental groups and individuals not specifically
mentioned therein.
[6 paragraphs (22 lines of source text) not
declassified]
2. Policy on Clearance of Personnel for
Duties With Central Intelligence Group (C.I.G. Directive No. 8)Not
printed. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–275)
General Vandenberg stated that
C.I.G. Directive No. 8 was based upon
the arrangement existing at that time under which departments assigned
personnel to C.I.G. The departments,
therefore, assumed the responsibility for conducting necessary security
investigations. He further stated that two developments had made this
Directive out of date. First, it is clear that in the future the majority of
C.I.G. personnel must be recruited from
sources other than the departments. Second, the War Department finds it
impossible to carry out the necessary investigations because of reduced
personnel ceiling. As a result of these facts it will be necessary for
C.I.G. to assume responsibility for all
future security investigations required to clear its personnel. In
conducting these security investigations, C.I.G. will adhere to the same security standards as
established in this Directive and will, of course, check with the
departments in each case. General
Vandenberg assumed that when the departments nominate
individuals in the future for C.I.G., the
nominating department has at least made a preliminary check on its own files
to determine that the individual meets C.I.G.’s security standards. General Vandenberg also assumed that the departments will
complete all investigations initiated up to this time.
General Chamberlin stated that the War
Department could check records on any new personnel nominations to C.I.G. and also that those checks they have
started can be completed. However, that was about as far as he could go, in
view of the greatly restricted personnel ceiling and tremendous backlog of
requested checks now on hand.
Admiral Inglis stated that the Navy
Department could also give a quick check on any personnel nominations they
might make to C.I.G., but that the Navy
Department too was suffering from reduced personnel and also had a large
number of requested checks on hand. Admiral Inglis further stated that he believed that C.I.G. should in some way be covered to take care of the type of
individual who did not pass a full security check but whose services would
be of value to the Central Intelligence Group.
General Chamberlin suggested that
exemption in these cases should be made by the Director of Central
Intelligence.
General Vandenberg agreed that
provision for such exemptions would be made.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
a. Concurred in the proposal by General
Vandenberg that C.I.G.
undertake responsibility for all future security investigations required to
clear its personnel, subject to the same security standards as established
in C.I.G. Directive No. 8 except for
exemptions authorized by the Director of Central Intelligence. (Recision of
C.I.G. Directive No. 8 subsequently
circulated.)
3. Assignment of Functions in the Field of
Static Intelligence to the Central Intelligence Group (C.I.G. 13)Dated
September 17. (Ibid., HS/HC–276) See the Supplement.
General Vandenberg noted that the
C.I.G. has already given consideration
to this problem and its broad implications. Inter-departmental discussions
on coordination, allocation, and centralization are being held under C.I.G. auspices. However, these discussions
have indicated the need for an early I.A.B.
or N.I.A. decision regarding the broad basis
on which the assignment of primary responsibilities should be considered,
and how each agency of secondary interest will have its needs for finished
intelligence met.
Mr. Eddy asked what was meant by the
term “statis intelligence”.
Admiral Inglis explained that it
involved roughly the field covered by JANIS studies.The Joint Army–Navy
Intelligence Studies (JANIS) were
basic country handbooks intended to provide essential information for
military planners.
General Vandenberg considered that
it involved gathering a large mass of data and then preparing a basic study
which would be of use to many agencies. He explained that political matters
of a more or less permanent nature were included, such as the constitution
of the country and the form of government if this was fairly stable.
Mr. Eddy felt that political and
economic matters were at the present time in a state of change throughout a
large part of the world. He said that the State Department did not object to
coordination of these fields, but was not willing to turn over to C.I.G. the responsibility for getting this
intelligence. That responsibility must remain in the State Department.
Admiral Inglis explained that O.N.I. must retain an interest in political and
economic matters as they affect naval affairs. He did not think that naval
and military attachés should be blind to political and economic
developments. The subject paper, however, was not concerned with the problem
of collection. Admiral Inglis
explained that the War and Navy Departments had been studying what functions
and activities could be performed jointly. It was useless, however, for
these departments to make any joint arrangement if C.I.G. proposed to take over various functions and activities.
The purpose of the subject paper was to initiate a study to find out what
C.I.G. planned to do. He explained that
the JANIS studies were used only as an
example of the fields involved, but not as an example of the procedures to
be used. The subject paper contemplated the possibility of turning over to
C.I.G. people in the various agencies
working on geographical desks who prepared material which is edited by the
JANIS Board. Admiral Inglis stated that the paper was not
confined to the subject of JANIS
studies.
Mr. Edgar stated that the question
raised by C.I.G. could be explained as
follows: If political intelligence, in which O.N.I has an interest, is allocated to the agency of primary
interest, would O.N.I. expect to receive
this intelligence directly from the primary agency in proper form, or would
O.N.I. have a group to put it into form,
or would O.N.I. expect C.I.G. to do that?
General Vandenberg said that C.I.G. desired an expression of opinion from
the I.A.B. as to whether they would like
C.I.G. to operate as a middleman between
departments, or if they would like direct contact between departments with
C.I.G. in a coordinating role. He
explained that if C.I.G. was to take over
the preparation of static or strategic intelligence studies, C.I.G. would either have to receive the
intelligence from the departments as JANIS
now does, or would have to take over the people in the agencies who are now
preparing this intelligence.
General Chamberlin felt that it was
clear that certain departments were responsible for certain elements of
intelligence, although this had never been put in the form of a written
statement, to his knowledge. He wondered if it wasn’t possible for C.I.G. and the departments to parcel out
functions on the basis of primary responsibility. Then each department would
furnish finished intelligence to other departments who could rework it to
meet their particular needs.
General Vandenberg said that the
question involved in such a plan was whether C.I.G. should operate in the middle between departments or on
the side.
General Samford stated that he voted for C.I.G. in the middle position.
Mr. Edgar said that a further question
was whether the required intelligence should be written in proper form by
the agency of primary responsibility, or by C.I.G.
General Chamberlin felt that another
solution was preferable. This was that the proper function of C.I.G. should be to obtain intelligence from
all departments and put it in the best form for the use of all
departments.
General Vandenberg said that it was
hard to have the intelligence put in the form required by any single
department. For example, it would be difficult to get people in State to put
intelligence in final form for use by the War Department.
Captain Davis said that the subject paper suggested a
study of the possibility of placing C.I.G.
in the middle role.
Mr. Eddy said that the problems facing
the various departments were different. He thought that most of the
intelligence now produced in the War and Navy Departments was for potential
use in case of active operations. Political operations, however, are going
on day by day, and the State Department has to produce intelligence for
those current operations. He said that he would be glad to have State’s
product sent to C.I.G. and integrated with
similar intelligence from the War and Navy Departments.
General Vandenberg pointed out that
the economic intelligence produced by State did not cover all of the needs
in that field of the War and Navy Departments.
General Samford said that what each intelligence agency
does stems from what its chief wants done. He felt that with C.I.G. in the middle role, the agencies would
find that C.I.G. could do completely many of
the things they required, and would eventually find that it was best to rely
on C.I.G.
Mr. Eddy said that he would like to
feel that C.I.G. would send to State the
military and naval intelligence required by the diplomats.
General Chamberlin stated that if
G–2 had an insight into State’s needs,
G–2 could incorporate those needs into
its documents. If all agencies sat down with C.I.G. to find each other’s needs, each agency could produce
documents containing all the essential elements in its field of primary
responsibility that any other agency needed to extract and pass to its
operating officials.
Mr. Edgar felt that would mean that
C.I.G. would devise a format of a
national intelligence handbook to meet the individual requirements of each
of the agencies.
General Chamberlin said that was not
quite what he intended. Rather, if C.I.G.
would find out what military intelligence State needs, then C.I.G. could arrange that G–2 include these needs in its documents.
General Vandenberg felt that a
further step was involved. He thought that General Chamberlin was talking about weekly and
daily reports, whereas the subject paper was concerned with the preparation
of basic handbooks for use by all agencies. The question was whether C.I.G. should produce these handbooks, or ask
each agency to produce appropriate sections of them.
General Chamberlin said that he
preferred the latter arrangement. He noted, however, that the present JANIS covers only a part of the basic
intelligence required.
Admiral Inglis enumerated the
following fields which he felt should be studied by the committee proposed
in the basic paper: Establishment of elements which are susceptible of operation by
C.I.G.Proposed organization for the operation of such elements by C.I.G.Space requirements.A time schedule for the steps involved in taking over by C.I.G.Standard filing system and central library, standard report form,
and form for intelligence directives.Method for responding to urgent requests.
General Samford felt that each agency should retain its
own group to prepare reports, but that the basic material would be easier to
work on if it were integrated by C.I.G.
Admiral Inglis thought that each
agency should retain responsibility for operational intelligence and for
collection and dissemination. He felt the place that C.I.G. could be of most help would be in the processing
required between collection and dissemination. He felt that each agency must
retain a staff to disseminate and to put material into the final form
desired by its customers. He thought that each agency should assist in
obtaining the basic intelligence information for C.I.G.
Mr. Eddy and General
Samford said that they were in favor of the
proposal as described by Admiral Inglis.
General Chamberlin felt that one other
element must be retained in the departments, namely, that the intelligence
officers must always be able to give their commanders an independent
judgment.
General Vandenberg said that this
was possible if the intelligence produced by departments was based on the
same source but differently oriented.
General Chamberlin stated that each
agency should not be excluded from getting information through their field
representatives on subjects outside of the field of its primary
interest.
General Samford agreed that each agency should be able
to exploit all sources available to it.
General Chamberlin reiterated that it
was necessary for each agency to retain independence of judgment.
Admiral Inglis said that this should
be satisfied by each agency having its own people in C.I.G. He felt strongly that when naval officers were assigned
to C.I.G. they were still naval officers and
responsible for seeing that C.I.G. gets all
necessary naval information and that the Navy gets all C.I.G. intelligence of interest to it.
General Vandenberg added that naval
officers in C.I.G. should also ensure that
C.I.G. estimates have the proper naval
slant.
Admiral Inglis felt that if this was
understood, the concern of each intelligence head regarding responsibility
to his chief, was largely obviated.
Mr. Eddy said that State would be
willing to cooperate if C.I.G. produced
documents the use of which was permissible but not mandatory. If the subject
proposal, however, lead to referring State Department requests to C.I.G. for preparation, he felt this would be a
dangerous practice.
Admiral Inglis said that one of the
problems is that, if personnel are turned over to C.I.G. and the departmental agencies accept this reduction of
their force, they must be assured of the quick service required by their
departments.
Mr. Edgar noted a further step in that,
if the primary responsibility is allocated to another agency, C.I.G. will have to arrange that the latter
agency meets requirements on time.
Mr. Eddy reiterated that each agency
must retain responsibility for intelligence of primary interest. What is
passed to C.I.G. will involve material of
secondary interest to the various agencies.
General Samford agreed that all agencies must still
concentrate on intelligence of primary interest.
General Chamberlin said that G–2 does not handle operational intelligence,
but is concerned solely with strategic intelligence.
Admiral Inglis agreed that this was
also true of O.N.I., except that it must
retain a skeleton force for mobilization in case of active operations.
General Chamberlin felt that the
solution lies along both lines suggested. Certain activities must be
performed in the departments and other activities should be done centrally
when they are of common interest and can be more efficiently handled
centrally. He did not think that the I.A.B.
could give definite guidance one way or the other. He felt that each case
must be studied separately.
Admiral Inglis agreed that the problem
could not be solved at this time, but that a committee must be formed to
break the problem down into its various elements.
General Vandenberg said that he
would ask for nominations for such a committee in the next few days. He
explained that the purpose of this discussion was to have Mr. Edgar hear the viewpoints of the I.A.B. members so that he could guide the
committee’s discussions.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Noted that the Director of Central Intelligence would ask for nominations for
a committee to conduct the study proposed in C.I.G. 13.The committee appointed
to make the study reported on November 4, 1946. The report, CIG 13/1, concluded that fundamental
differences precluded a study. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical
Files, HS/HC–276) See the Supplement.
4. War Plans for Central Intelligence
Group (C.I.G. 14)Dated September 19. (Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See the Supplement.
General Vandenberg noted the
recommendations in C.I.G. 14 and stated that
as a general principle he firmly believed that the personnel requirements of
the C.I.G. should be as fully mobilized in
peace as in war. On that basis he stated that he would furnish the War and
Navy Departments with an estimate of C.I.G.
personnel requirements based on present planning, taking into account the
probable number of Reserve officers assigned to C.I.G. He stated, however, that at C.I.G.’s present stage of organization any such estimates
should be considered tentative and subject to substantial revision as the
organization develops.
Admiral Inglis agreed that all C.I.G. personnel figures to be submitted at the
present time could only be estimates. However, he wanted to be sure that all
Regular Line officers assigned to C.I.G.
would not be frozen in case of an emergency. He stated that he felt that the
Navy Department should have some assurance that the Regular and Reserve Line
officers assigned to C.I.G. would either be
retained in toto or that a certain number of them would be released to the
Navy for sea duty.
General Vandenberg agreed to give
the Navy this information, and that such information would be based on the
best possible estimation.
General Chamberlin stated that the War
Department would like to have the same estimate on both Regular and Reserve
Army officers assigned to C.I.G.
Mr. Lay stated that C.I.G. had already received such a request and
that a reply was being prepared.
Mr. Eddy asked if C.I.G. would try to protect civilians assigned
to C.I.G. in case of an emergency, in order
that their services would not be lost.
General Vandenberg stated that these
civilians would be protected unless they would be of more service to the
Government elsewhere.
Mr. Eddy brought out the point that he
believed that the civilians in C.I.G. would
generally feel that they should be in uniform. He suggested that provision
be made for retaining C.I.G. civilian
personnel in time of war.
General Vandenberg stated that this
involved a much longer range problem and should, in his opinion, be
considered at a later date.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Noted that the Director of Central Intelligence would furnish to the War and
Navy Departments estimates of C.I.G.
military and naval personnel requirements in case of mobilization.
5. Establishment of a Channel Between the
Central Intelligence Group and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (C.I.G. 15)Dated
September 18. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276)
See the Supplement.
General Vandenberg stated that
Admiral Inglis had raised the
question of the relationship between C.I.G.
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As a result of this, C.I.G. has prepared a proposed directive on the subject, which
he believed had been seen by all I.A.B.
members. General Vandenberg further
stated that it was his understanding, as a result of informal discussions in
the departments by members of the Interdepartmental Coordinating and
Planning Staff, that this proposed directive was generally acceptable to the
I.A.B., and he therefore recommended
concurrence in its submittal to the N.I.A.
and the J.C.S.
Admiral Inglis and General Chamberlin stated that this paper as
written was not entirely acceptable.
Mr. Lay stated that it was his
understanding that members of ICAPS had
coordinated this paper with representatives of the intelligence agencies of
the State, War, and Navy Departments.
Admiral Inglis said that he was afraid
the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be embarrassed if N.I.A. approved this proposal prior to the J.C.S. having a chance to comment.
Mr. Lay said that this was merely an
attempt to find an appropriate recommendation for a solution to the problem.
He also said that this paper, if acceptable to the J.I.C., could be submitted by them to the J.C.S. prior to N.I.A.’s consideration.
Admiral Inglis explained that this
problem had been brought up by a J.I.S.
request for information on nuclear energy, which had been prepared without
knowledge of the fact that C.I.G. was also
working on this problem. His original proposal, that J.I.S. serve as a staff for the I.A.B., was intended to offer an immediate interim means for
coordinating C.I.G. and J.I.C. activities.
General Vandenberg felt that we
should go the whole way if an acceptable final solution could be found. He
felt that it might even be desirable for him as an intelligence
representative to sit in on J.C.S. meetings
as a non-voting member in order to learn what areas of the world were being
worked on.
Admiral Inglis stated that he had the
following changes to suggest in the C.I.G.
paper: He had no objection to having the Director of Central Intelligence as
a member of the J.I.C., but he did not think
that any one individual should be designated as chief intelligence adviser
to the J.C.S.
General Vandenberg stated that for
his protection he wanted some assurance that, if he served both the N.I.A. and the J.C.S., it was clear that only one of them was his master.
General Chamberlin pointed out that
the difficulty was that the Joint Chiefs of Staff must be assured that their
priorities are met. He thought that they would therefore wish to retain an
intelligence organization under their control.
Mr. Eddy suggested a modification of
Admiral Inglis’ proposal whereby the
J.I.S. would formulate J.C.S. requirements for intelligence and would
transmit them to C.I.G. for compilation. In
this way the J.I.S. would serve more as a
secretariat, and the intelligence would be produced by C.I.G.
General Samford noted that this would retain the J.I.S., who could then fulfill J.C.S. requirements if C.I.G. was unable to give them the necessary priority.
General Chamberlin questioned whether
this would be acceptable to the planners, since he wondered whether they
would be willing to let an outside agency in on their plans. He stated that
the J.I.C. even now was still working on the
problem of persuading the planners to let the intelligence people in on
their plans.
General Vandenberg suggested that
this problem be deferred pending further study.
General Chamberlin agreed, and said
that he would like to discuss it with General
Eisenhower.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Deferred action on C.I.G. 15.
171. Central Intelligence Group Directive No. 15
Washington, October 1, 1946.[Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–275. Secret. 3 pages of source text not
declassified.]
172. Minutes of the Eighth Meeting of the National Intelligence
AuthoritySource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132.
Secret; Special Distribution. No drafting information appears on the
source text. The meeting was held at the Department of
State.Washington, October 16, 1946, 11:15
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentActing Secretary of State Dean
Acheson, in the ChairSecretary of War Robert P.
PattersonSecretary of the Navy James
ForrestalFleet Admiral William D.
Leahy, Personal Representative of the PresidentGeneral Hoyt S. Vandenberg,
Director of Central IntelligenceAlso PresentUnder Secretary of the Navy John L.
SullivanMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceAssistant Secretary of State Donald
RussellMr. John D. Hickerson, Department of StateMr. Dean Rusk, War DepartmentCaptain Robert L. Dennison, USNColonel William H. Harris, CIGMr. Edward R. Saunders, CIGSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, N.I.A.
1. Central Intelligence Group Budget for Fiscal Year
1948
Secretary Acheson said that he had
received a recommendation by the CIG Budget
Review Board that the NIA approve and sign
an authorization to the Director
of Central Intelligence to submit a budget of specified amount for the
fiscal year 1948.
According to the minutes of
the meeting of the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy held on
October 9, there was a discussion of the CIG budget, which was recorded as follows:
“Mr. Acheson said that
there had come to him for signature a memorandum approving a
budget of 40 million dollars for the Central Intelligence
Group of which 25 million is unvouchered. The memorandum
points out that the comparable expenditures by OSS were 165 million dollars
but beyond this there is very little information on which to
base a judgment. Mr. Acheson said that this proposed budget
figure was probably all right but that he felt that it would
be useful if it could be explained to the members of the
N.I.A. in order that
they could understand better what they were doing. It was
agreed that Mr. Hickerson would ask
that arrangements be made for a meeting of the N.I.A. next week and that if
there were urgent reasons why an earlier meeting was
necessary arrangements should be made for a special meeting
before the end of this week. (After the meeting arrangements
were made for a meeting of the N.I.A. at 11:15, October 16).” (Ibid., RG 59,
Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49,
101.61/10–946)
He said that General Vandenberg had been asked to talk
to the NIA about this recommendation.
General Vandenberg explained that he
did not think the NIA wanted a detailed
discussion of this proposed budget, but he had brought men along who could
explain any point the NIA questioned.
Secretary Forrestal asked how much
money the CIG planned to spend during the
current fiscal year.
General Vandenberg stated the amount
now available to CIG for the conduct of
present operations. He explained that many of the CIG personnel were now being paid by the participating
departments rather than by CIG. In 1948 it
was proposed that CIG would reimburse the
departments for any personnel assigned to CIG. He felt that this was proper since CIG would be submitting a separate budget for 1948.
Secretary Acheson asked whether this
meant that the proposed budget was not based upon the present Presidential
directive establishing NIA and CIG.
General Vandenberg stated that the
proposed budget was based on the present Presidential directive. He said
that it was designed to cover CIG activities
which would grow out of existing NIA
directives. He explained that it was visualized that this budget would
necessarily be larger than normal during the period of training and
establishment of overseas operations. Once personnel had been established in
overseas posts, expenses would only be required to take care of normal
turnover of personnel. It was contemplated, therefore, that this might be
the highest budget CIG would have to
submit.
Secretary Patterson asked for an
explanation of the breakdown of vouchered and unvouchered funds.
General Vandenberg explained that
this contemplated using vouchered funds for domestic activities and
unvouchered funds for all foreign
activities. He said they used this basis for vouchered funds in an effort to
approximate the basis used by other Government departments. He said that he
would like to keep unvouchered funds to a minimum necessary to safeguard
security.
Secretary Acheson asked what the
proposed budget would be if personnel were not assigned from departments on
a reimbursable basis.
General Vandenberg said that he was
unable to estimate such a figure since he did not know how many CIG personnel would be service personnel or
others assigned from departments. He explained that this budget was based on
the total personnel required, including any service personnel at their
comparable civilian grades and salaries. He said that if NIA so desired, he would attempt to make
another guess, but explained that it would be very difficult to arrive at a
more accurate estimate at this time.
Admiral Leahy agreed that this budget
was bound to be nothing more than a guess.
Secretary Acheson believed that the
budget people would raise the point that the reimbursable feature in this
budget would undoubtedly create some duplication between CIG and the departmental budgets.
General Vandenberg stated that this
point had already been discussed with the Bureau of the Budget.
Admiral Leahy questioned the size of
the estimate for Personnel and Administration.
Colonel Harris granted that this figure might look
large, but explained that it was designed to furnish support for all CIG activities at home and abroad. He said that
CIG had used the experience of the Joint
Logistics Plans Committee and the Army Service Forces, which indicated that
25% for support was the best planning figure. This proposed budget was based
on the assumption that CIG would not depend
on the departments for any supplies or support. Therefore, the CIG figure was actually less than the normal
25% planning figure. Of this, a large proportion would be engaged in
communications work alone. In addition, all supplies and services for all
CIG offices are included in the figures
shown for Personnel and Administration.
Admiral Leahy expressed the belief
that many of the functions enumerated were now being performed by existing
agencies who might be able to handle CIG
requirements more economically.
Colonel Harris said that this procedure would be
questionable since it would jeopardize security in the purchase and shipment
of supplies. He also noted that the actual number of personnel engaged in
normal procurement, supplies, personnel, and medical activities was actually
very small for the size of the organization.
Admiral Leahy then expressed the
feeling that the budget for Research and Evaluation looked rather large.
Secretary Forrestal asked how many
people OSS had engaged in similar
activities.
Mr. Russell said that OSS had at one time about 1,400 engaged in
research. He explained, however, that the State Department had taken over
the remainder of that organization and, therefore, State’s research
personnel should be added to the CIG figure
if they were to be compared with OSS.
Colonel Harris noted that OSS had not attempted to cover Latin America or General
MacArthur’s theater, as CIG would do. He also explained that the departments had asked
CIG to investigate taking over the
Washington Document Center. CIG had also
been asked to establish an information center. He said that the Research and
Analysis Branch of OSS had been used only
because it was considered the best norm for estimating purposes, except that
CIG would cover much more territory in
their activities.
Admiral Leahy asked what the
Washington Document Center was.
General Vandenberg explained that
this unit was exploiting documents from Japan for certain intelligence
purposes. He explained that it was not a permanent unit, but will probably
complete its work in about a year and a half.
Mr. Russell noted that if the CIG budget was based on the former OSS Research and Analysis Branch, this would
create complications, since the State Department has already asked for funds
for the successor to that Branch.
General Vandenberg explained that
CIG had not used OSS as a basis in order to establish a similar or duplicative
unit. CIG had only used OSS as an example of the research personnel
required to cover certain areas of the world. He explained that CIG required this research personnel to put
together the finished intelligence from the departments plus information
collected by CIG itself, and to give all
this material a national slant. He noted that even when CIG receives finished intelligence from the
departments, CIG still has to analyze it and
find out whether it is pointed up from a national point of view. Each agency
normally prepared intelligence from its own departmental viewpoint. There
must, therefore, always be in CIG a research
unit which looks at the intelligence from the viewpoint of all departments
rather than any one. He assured NIA that
CIG was not going to do the same
research done by the departments, but rather would cover marginal areas and
fill gaps not covered by any department.
Mr. Eddy stated that originally the
figure for CIG Research and Evaluation had
struck him as being rather large. Further examination indicated that CIG was being asked to do research on large
areas which no department can do.
He thought that CIG might well have to build
up its research organization to the size indicated in the budget.
General Vandenberg assured the
NIA that CIG had no intent to infringe upon the fields of primary
interest to the departments. He noted that both he and the members of the
Intelligence Advisory Board were watching that point very carefully.
Mr. Russell asked if CIG could not call its office something other
than Research and Evaluation. He explained that this name was so similar to
that used by the State Department that it might cause difficulty in
obtaining appropriations since it would appear to involve duplication.
General Vandenberg agreed that he
would change the name of the CIG office.
Admiral Leahy asked what objection
the NIA would have to authorizing the
Director of Central Intelligence to proceed to attempt to obtain the
proposed budget. He thought that if this amount could be obtained it could
certainly be used judiciously in furnishing intelligence services. If there
was a possibility of obtaining this amount, he thought General Vandenberg should at least try to
get it. If the budget should be cut, it would then be necessary to cut the
cloth to fit the reduced amount.
Secretary Forrestal asked what
Congressional committee General
Vandenberg had appeared before.
General Vandenberg said that he had
always appeared before the Appropriations Committee.
Colonel Harris explained that the plan was to hide the
CIG budget in the various departmental
budgets. Then at an agreed time, as arranged by the Bureau of the Budget,
General Vandenberg would appear
before the Appropriations Committees to justify the CIG budget as a unit.
Colonel Harris, in answer to a question by Secretary
Forrestal, said that only two
individuals in the Bureau of the Budget saw the integrated CIG budget.
General Vandenberg explained that
both of these men have been investigated for security by CIG.
Secretary Patterson asked what the
final form of the CIG budget would be. He
wondered whether it would appear anywhere as so many dollars for CIG activities.
General Vandenberg said that it
would appear nowhere in that form.
Secretary Forrestal said it was his
understanding that it would be buried in the budgets of the various
departments.
General Vandenberg confirmed that
this was the arrangement which had been worked out with the concurrence of
the Bureau of the Budget.
Secretary Acheson, in answer to a
question by Admiral Leahy, said that
this meeting had been called at his request. He had thought it would be
wise, before approving a budget of this size, to have a clear idea as to why
this action had been taken. He thought that the discussion had been very
helpful in that regard.
Secretary Forrestal stated that the
important thing, as he was sure General
Vandenberg realized, was that CIG should screen the use of its money, particularly its
personnel, so that there would be no revulsion in the next Congress.
Mr. Russell then made a helpful
suggestion as to the basis for estimating the proportion of vouchered and
unvouchered funds.
The National Intelligence Authority:
Approved and signed a memorandum authorizing the Director of Central
Intelligence to submit a budget of specified amount for the fiscal year
1948.
173. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Eddy) and the Assistant Secretary of State for
Administration (Russell) to Secretary
of State ByrnesSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 101.5/10–2446. Secret. The source text bears the handwritten
annotation: “I approve. James F.
Byrnes.”Washington, October 30, 1946.
SUBJECT
Request from the Director of the Central Intelligence for State
Department Policy Statements
In the attached letter dated October 24, 1946,Not printed. See the Supplement. to Mr. Eddy, General
Vandenberg, Director of Central Intelligence, has requested
that CIG be furnished with the Department’s
Quarterly Policy and Information Statements.
The reasons given by General
Vandenberg for desiring to receive the Policy and Information
Statements are that CIG feels intelligence
requirements cannot be developed without full knowledge of pertinent
national policy and that he considers the Department’s policy statements to
come within the category of material included in the phrase “necessary
facilities, intelligence, and information in the possession of our
respective departments” as used in paragraph 7 of NIA Directive No. 1, copy attached, to describe the material
which CIG is authorized to receive in the
performance of its mission. General
Vandenberg appears to desire the Department’s policy
statements for the purpose of including them in Part I of documents on
“National Intelligence Requirements,” pertaining to various countries, to be
distributed by CIG.
We, therefore, recommend that General
Vandenberg’s request be denied. Objective foreign intelligence is critically essential in the
formulation of our foreign policy. The procural of this intelligence, its
correlation and coordination is the function of CIG as the operating arm of the National Intelligence
Authority. This process cannot be unbiased and objective if it is colored or
affected by policy pronouncements which are based on intelligence derived
from sources with which CIG is unfamiliar
and which it is in no position to evaluate. It is believed that General Vandenberg’s requirements in the
field of policy orientation can be met by specific directives furnished him
by the State Department’s representative on the Intelligence Advisory Board
after such directives have been considered and cleared by the Department’s
Advisory Committee on Intelligence (ACI).
Incidentally, the policy statements requested by General Vandenberg would appear not to be
covered in the phrase “strategic and national policy intelligence” which
paragraph 2 of NIA Directive No. 1 charges
CIG with responsibility for furnishing
to the President, the State, War, and Navy Departments, and to others.
William EddyDonald Russell
174. Minutes of the Ninth Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Top Secret; Limited Distribution. No
drafting information appears on the source text. The meeting was held at
the Department of State.Washington, October 31, 1946, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Lt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairMembers PresentMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMaj. General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Director of Intelligence, W.D.G.S.Rear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceBrig. General John A. Samford, Deputy Assistant
Chief of Air Staff–2Also PresentMr. A. Sidney Buford, Department of StateMr. James Heck, Department of StateColonel E. K. Wright, Central
Intelligence Group (for Item 1 only)Colonel E. J. Treacy, U.S.A.Captain R. K. Davis, U.S.N.Colonel E. P. Mussett, U.S.A.Mr. Donald Edgar, Central
Intelligence GroupSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, N.I.A.Mr. John S. Earman, Assistant
Secretary, N.I.A.
1. Agenda and Weekly Date for I.A.B. Meeting
General Vandenberg asked Mr.
Lay to explain why there were
three items left off the agenda of today’s meeting.
Mr. Lay stated that some of the
I.A.B. members were not ready to discuss
C.I.G. 13 and 15,See Document 170. and
ICAPS was still working on C.I.G. 18.In
CIG 18, “Responsibility of the
Department of State for Reporting and Collection of Information and
Intelligence,” October 25, the Department of State recommended that in
order to avoid duplication of effort it should assume complete
responsibility for the overt procurement of information and intelligence
in foreign areas on all political, economic, social, and cultural
matters and such scientific information and intelligence which did not
fall within the military and naval fields. (Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See the Supplement. See also the minutes of
the sixth meeting of the Advisory Committee on Intelligence, October 8.
(National Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Lot
File No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47, Box
94) See the Supplement.
Mr. Lay then asked if it was
agreeable with the Board to establish a standard time each week for I.A.B. meetings. He explained that in the event there was nothing to come
before the Board, the members would be notified in advance and the meeting
would be cancelled for that week.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Agreed to set aside 1430 each Thursday as the normal time for I.A.B. meetings, with the understanding that
the Secretary would advise each member early in the week whether a meeting
was to be held.
2. Intelligence Estimates Prepared by the
Central Intelligence Group (C.I.G.
16 and C.I.G. 16/1)CIG 16, October 14,
which sought to establish a procedure for intelligence estimates, was a
proposal by Rear Admiral Inglis,
the Chief of Naval Intelligence. CIG
16/1 (October 26) was a counterproposal by the Director of Central
Intelligence. (Both in Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–276) See the Supplement for both.
General Vandenberg asked Mr.
Lay to give a brief explanation
as to how ORE–1ORE–1, “Soviet Foreign and Military
Policy,” July 23, the first intelligence estimate produced by CIG’s newly established Office of Research
and Evaluation is reproduced in CIA Cold War Records:
The CIA under Harry
Truman, pp. 65–76. was prepared and
coordinated with the departments.
Mr. Lay stated that C.I.G. was asked to prepare this estimate on
Friday to be ready the following Tuesday. He also brought out the fact that
the estimate was based on an existing J.I.S.
study together with cables received from Moscow, and that it was coordinated
with specialized representatives of the I.A.B. before going forward.
General Vandenberg stated that he
believed C.I.G. would have difficulty in
meeting deadlines if the concurrence of each I.A.B. member had to be obtained by a voting system prior to
the forwarding of the estimates.
Admiral Inglis stated that it was his
idea to separate concurrences of estimates into three parts, i.e., the Daily
Summary, the Weekly Summary, and formal O.R.E. estimates. He further stated that the Naval members of
O.R.E. are perfectly competent to
represent and concur for the Director of Naval Intelligence in the
preparation of daily and Weekly summaries. However, in the case of formal
O.R.E. estimates, Admiral Inglis stated that he was in favor of using
the J.I.C. vote method, time permitting, and
that he would like to have two to three days to consider each paper. If time
does not permit, he felt that the paper could be put through with a
statement that the estimate does not bear the concurrence of the dissenting
department but that such concurrence or comments would follow. Admiral
Inglis further stated that while
the relationship of J.I.S. to C.I.G. is not up for consideration at this time
and is the subject of another paper, he believed its solution would go a
long way in solving this present problem.
General Samford stated that A–2 would like the
opportunity to comment on all estimates. He said that he realized that this
procedure would be time-consuming, and believed possibly that an A–2 member
of ICAPS could be designated to concur for
A–2 on the estimates in question.
General Vandenberg stated that an
A–2 member of ICAPS could not be the
person to be used by A–2 in concurring on these estimates, since ICAPS is concerned with coordination problems
rather than the preparation or content of intelligence estimates.
Admiral Inglis said that the Naval
members of O.R.E. working on estimates would
at all times be in collaboration with people in O.N.I., hence both O.N.I. and
the Naval members of O.R.E. would be kept
abreast of developments and the latter would know the Navy Department’s
views.
Admiral Inglis stated that the
question regarding concurrence in the Daily Summary involves possible
omissions which can distort the picture. He said that omissions had not
happened lately, but he felt that General
Vandenberg would be willing to let Naval members of O.R.E. complain to Admiral Inglis if they felt that omissions had
occurred.
General Vandenberg expressed the
belief that the whole situation would be clarified when the I.A.B. considered C.I.G. 15.
Mr. Eddy said that in the meantime he
favored appointing an aide or a staff member as a representative in O.R.E. to check estimates as proposed in C.I.G. 16/1. His reason for favoring this
solution, rather than C.I.G. 16, was that,
although Army and Naval officers remain in uniform and loyal to their
service, civilian employees are now becoming employees of C.I.G. rather than State. Former State
Department employees in C.I.G. will
therefore have no direct loyalties to State.
General Chamberlin said that he was
fundamentally opposed to considering a man assigned to C.I.G. as partially responsible to him. He felt
that such a man owes his whole loyalty to C.I.G., and that it is impossible to divide his loyalties.
General Samford thought that this was true except in
ICAPS, where he felt there was a
residual representation of departmental interests.
Admiral Inglis said that he understood
General Chamberlin’s point of view,
but he also understood that C.I.G. was to be
a cooperative interdepartmental venture. He could see the difference in the
situation regarding the State Department. However, in the case of Naval
officers, while they were working in C.I.G.
he felt they had an additional duty representing the Navy. If they felt that
Navy’s interests were not properly represented in C.I.G., then they should express this feeling to Admiral
Inglis as their contact with the
Navy Department. He reiterated that he understood General Chamberlin’s viewpoint and granted that
this situation may cause trouble
in the future, but felt that there had been no difficulty so far.
Mr. Eddy said that he thought Admiral
Inglis’ viewpoint would
definitely cause trouble in the future, especially for the State
Department.
Admiral Inglis expressed the
understanding that there would always be a few people in C.I.G. who continued to be State Department
employees, such as Mr. Huddle.
Mr. Eddy agreed that there would be a
few key State Department positions in C.I.G., but these would carry on liaison with the State Department
rather than be State Department representatives. He thought that this would
encourage a closer relation with State, but expressed the belief that if one
of these State Department people assigned to C.I.G. felt that State’s interests were not properly
represented, he would appeal not to the State Department, but to General Vandenberg.
General Chamberlin compared this to
the situation on the General Staff, where personnel are expected to solve
problems as they see it in the General Staff rather than from the viewpoint
of the basic arm or service from which they come. He thought that if Admiral
Inglis’ interpretation prevailed,
it would destroy C.I.G.
General Vandenberg thought that the
discussion led back to the solution proposed in C.I.G. 16/1.
General Chamberlin felt that General Vandenberg was appointed to head
C.I.G. and that the I.A.B. were only advisers. He felt that
General Vandenberg was placed
here by the N.I.A. to perform functions
assigned by that Authority. He did not feel that the I.A.B. should concern itself with the detailed performance of
those functions. He said that General
Vandenberg was responsible solely to the N.I.A. and was expected to consult with the
departments only sufficiently to ensure coordination.
Admiral Inglis said that the way the
directive was written, the I.A.B. was more
than an adviser. It is a two-way street and a link between C.I.G. and the departmental agencies. He felt
that the I.A.B. had a responsibility for the
operations of C.I.G.
General Vandenberg felt that he has
the right to put out what C.I.G. thinks is
correct. However, to fulfill its obligation as an interdepartmental agency,
C.I.G. must have the views of the four
departmental agencies. He felt it was best that C.I.G. have not only the agencies’ views, but the reasons for
these views. He agreed with Admiral Inglis that the I.A.B. has a
responsibility to see, not whether C.I.G. is
doing the wrong thing but that it is doing the right thing. In other words,
General Vandenberg felt that
the solution lay somewhere between the views of Admiral Inglis and of General Chamberlin.
General Chamberlin said that his
viewpoint was that a person of General
Vandenberg’s caliber should be entrusted to find his own method for determining
departmental views. If General
Vandenberg sees a difference of opinion, it would be assumed
that he would check it with the departments concerned. This should be easy,
since C.I.G. will always have close liaison
with the departments.
Admiral Inglis felt that it was a
fundamental question whether the I.A.B. has
a responsibility for C.I.G. operations. He
thought that if General Chamberlin’s
philosophy were followed to its ultimate conclusion, it would mean that ten
years from now O.N.I. would still have to
have its same basic organization, since it would not be able to entrust
C.I.G. to perform functions for it. If,
however, O.N.I. has responsible Naval people
within C.I.G., O.N.I. would then feel that the Navy’s views were being
represented. He felt that C.I.G. could not
go off by itself. If the departmental agencies are represented, C.I.G. could then perform many duties which are
now being performed by each departmental agency.
Mr. Eddy felt that the new budget
plans for C.I.G. indicated a shift, since
C.I.G. may now employ its own people. He
did not feel, however, that this eliminated the possibility of having C.I.G. serve the departments. If each
department concentrates on its primary interests, then C.I.G. can perform functions of secondary
interest and special jobs which no departmental agency can perform. Then, so
long as the I.A.B. is a two-way street,
C.I.G. and the departmental agencies can
make available the best service each to the other.
Admiral Inglis felt that this would
not work unless the departments were represented in C.I.G.
General Chamberlin said that if he
were called upon to submit a Naval estimate he would go to the Navy. He felt
General Vandenberg would do the
same. He thought, however, that if General
Vandenberg felt the data on hand in C.I.G. corresponded to the opinions of the departments,
General Vandenberg should be
authorized to send that data forward as an intelligence estimate.
General Vandenberg said that he was
afraid that if people in C.I.G. fail to
represent the departmental viewpoint, C.I.G.
would get off the track. He thought that C.I.G. personnel should be in close contact with the
departments in order to obtain departmental views. He said that he was
encouraging all C.I.G. personnel to get the
views of all three departments.
General Chamberlin said that he was
confident C.I.G. would do that, especially
since Army officers in C.I.G. are always
subject to detail and rotation. He thought that the War Department’s
viewpoint would be represented because of the years of Army training each
Army officer in C.I.G. would have. He
thought that C.I.G. personnel should express
their own views and not pattern them after the opinion of someone in an
outside agency.
Admiral Inglis thought that the idea
was to assign people to C.I.G. in order to
form a link with the departments, to utilize the sources therein, and have
the benefit of the combined thinking of all departments.
General Vandenberg thought that
Admiral Inglis’ objective could be
gained by having representatives detailed to O.R.E.
Mr. Lay pointed out that the
procedure to be followed by each representative in clearing papers was a
matter for decision by each I.A.B. member.
Admiral Inglis could instruct his
representative not to vote until Admiral Inglis had approved each estimate.
Admiral Inglis said that he was
willing to appoint a representative part-time, but that this representative
would act only as a messenger.
Mr. Eddy said that he would like to
see this system tried. He thought that each I.A.B. member might designate a deputy who was well trained and
could bring papers to the respective I.A.B.
members for clearance when necessary.
General Chamberlin said that he would
give his representative the responsibility for deciding whether to act on an
estimate or to clear it with General Chamberlin. General Chamberlin felt, however, that this arrangement should not
prevent C.I.G. research personnel from
working closely with G–2 research
sections.
General Chamberlin then expressed the
belief that C.I.G. estimates sent to the
President should not show a dissenting opinion.
Admiral Inglis thought that the
President should know of any dissenting opinions, although he hoped that any
differences could be reconciled before the estimates were issued. He felt,
however, that estimates should not be held up unduly in an effort to
reconcile divergent views.
General Chamberlin said that if each
paper were handled in detail it would defeat the purpose of C.I.G., since every word or shade of meaning
would be questioned.
Admiral Inglis noted that this was the
procedure used in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Although it had not worked
perfectly, he felt that for every example where this procedure had failed to
work there were ten examples where it had worked.
General Chamberlin noted, however,
that the Joint Chiefs of Staff has no head or commander, as is the case in
C.I.G.
Mr. Lay pointed out that the wording
of N.I.A. Directive No. 1 requires only that
“substantial dissent” should be noted in C.I.G. estimates, which was intended to preclude discussion of
every word or shade of meaning.
Admiral Inglis said that the concept
of N.I.A. was that all departments would be
represented in all matters. The Director of Central Intelligence is the
executive responsible for carrying out the policies of the N.I.A. The I.A.B. is more than merely an adviser. All through the N.I.A. and C.I.G. structure it was intended that there be equal
representation of all departments.
General Vandenberg pointed out that
it is a matter of record in N.I.A. minutes
that the N.I.A. is the agency responsible to
the President, and not the Director of Central Intelligence.
General Chamberlin noted that the
Director of Central Intelligence is not responsible to the I.A.B., but rather to the N.I.A.
General Vandenberg pointed out,
however, that the N.I.A. has delegated to
the I.A.B. the right to concur for the
N.I.A. members. Therefore, in the final
analysis the I.A.B., by this delegation, has
a measure of responsibility for the success of C.I.G. activities.
General Chamberlin questioned how this
would work, since many other agencies of the Government were involved.
Admiral Inglis noted that this was
covered by the fact that other agencies sat as members of the I.A.B. on matters of interest to those
agencies.
After further discussion of detailed amendments to the Enclosure to C.I.G. 16/1,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Concurred in the issuance of the Enclosure to C.I.G. 16/1 subject to amendment to read as follows: “1. To implement the provisions of Paragraph 6 of N.I.A. Directive No. 1, each member
of the Intelligence Advisory Board will designate a personal
representative to remain assigned to his office and detailed as
liaison to the Projects Division of the Intelligence Staff of
the Office of Reports and Estimates of the Central Intelligence
Group.“2. These representatives will, as their chiefs direct, either
concur in C.I.G. intelligence
estimates or present dissenting opinions.“3. Each intelligence estimate issued by C.I.G. will either have the
concurrence of all I.A.B.
members or will have any substantial dissent appended as a part
of the estimate or follow as provided in 4 below.“4. This procedure will not be permitted to prevent the
presentation of any estimate on the required date. If
concurrence or dissenting opinions cannot be obtained in time to
meet deadlines for completion and submission of estimates, such
estimates will be submitted together with a statement that only
limited coordination has been attained and substantial dissent,
if any, will be submitted at a later date.“5. C.I.G. will afford
designated representatives complete opportunity to participate
in all phases of the development of estimates.”
(Subsequently issued as C.I.G. Administrative Order No. 32.)
3. Plan for Coordination of Biographic
Intelligence (C.I.G. 17)CIG 17, October 25,
proposed to establish within CIG a
central biographic reference file that would contain basic factual data
on all foreign personalities on whom supporting files were maintained by
the departmental intelligence agencies. (Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See the Supplement.
General Vandenberg gave a brief
description of the plan recommended in C.I.G. 17.
General Chamberlin raised the question
as to whether paragraph 2–c of the proposed C.I.G. Directive would authorize biographic intelligence data
of one department to be made available to another department.
General Vandenberg stated that if
the biographic intelligence data of one department was not available to
other departments, such a system would cause a great deal of
duplication.
Mr. Eddy stated that he believed the
word “responsibility” should be left out of the first sentence of paragraph
2–c.
General Vandenberg said that he was
agreeable to this omission.
Admiral Inglis said that he objected
to the last sentence in paragraph 2 of the covering memorandum by the
Director of Central Intelligence, since O.N.I. does have a good index system and it is maintained up to
date.
Mr. Edgar stated that at the time the
covering memorandum was written he did not know that the Navy’s index system
had been completed.
Admiral Inglis questioned whether this
proposed Directive would govern domestic coverage and, if so, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation should have a chance to express its views on the
matter under consideration.
General Vandenberg replied that the
paper did not govern domestic coverage, and was for foreign biographic
intelligence only.
Admiral Inglis stated that the
majority of inquiries made to O.N.I. were in
the domestic field and he felt that this paper was too elaborate a plan for
the coordination of foreign biographic intelligence.
General Vandenberg stated that if
the plan in this paper did not work, it could be recalled.
Mr. Edgar stated that it was desirable
to get approval on this paper in order to gain proper coordination in the
field.
General Vandenberg stated that he
should have central machine records in order to point out biographic
intelligence information contained in other agencies.
Admiral Inglis agreed.
Mr. Eddy stated that the provisions of
paragraph 3–b of the covering memorandum would cause too much work for the
State Department to undertake at this time, since the State Department had a
mass of biographic information that dated back to 1790, and that to
reproduce this information would be a staggering job.
Mr. Edgar explained that it was not the
intent of this paper to reproduce all biographic information presently on
file in the departments, but rather C.I.G.
would start a new from a given date, and the information contained in the
central file would be only enough to indicate the type of personality whose
name appeared on each card. This would make it possible to decide whether it
was desirable to obtain further details from the department having the basic
file on a given individual.
Mr. Heck stated that the State Department drew from a
wider scope than would be reported on standard forms, and that only one or
two per cent of the names in State Department file would be covered by
standard report forms. He suggested that each agency concentrate on an
assigned area of responsibility.
General Chamberlin said that he was
heartily in favor of a central file which could be consulted rather than
having to contact all of the agencies in each case on which information
might be desired.
General Vandenberg said that to have
to go to the files of each agency on each case would take a lot of
unnecessary time.
Mr. Heck reiterated that such a central file would show
only a small per cent of the names presently on file in the State
Department.
General Vandenberg stated that the
central file proposed would be starting a new, and, while he realized it
would be slow in building up, eventually it would be of benefit to all
concerned.
Mr. Heck stated that he believed that if the information
contained on these cards got much beyond a name stage, it would involve too
much duplication.
General Vandenberg said that there
would naturally have to be some duplication. However, at the present time,
with the volume of files in the agencies and no central index system, no one
knows exactly what we do have.
Mr. Heck felt that this proposal would put a heavy
burden on the departmental agencies, since it would require additional
people to extract the information and put it on standard cards.
General Chamberlin suggested that each
time an agency made a summary for its own index, it send a copy to C.I.G.
Admiral Inglis suggested that to
eliminate workload, cards for C.I.G. be
prepared on each new report from the field or whenever departmental agencies
took action to prepare a summary—as, for example, in answer to a request. He thought that on this basis the
C.I.G. file would be very useful five
years from now.
General Vandenberg said that was all
C.I.G. asked the agencies to do.
Mr. Edgar said that C.I.G. would be willing to receive the standard
form on new field reports, and copies of completed summary reports which are
prepared by the agencies in answer to a request. He said that in the latter
case C.I.G. would be willing to make up the
central file card.
Mr. Heck pointed out that this would mean that C.I.G. had a very incomplete file, representing
only about five per cent of the State Department’s files.
Mr. Edgar expressed the belief that, if
C.I.G. received all completed summary
reports, it would have information at least on personalities in which there
is an active interest.
Admiral Inglis agreed that would be
true in many cases, but pointed out that it would be a long time before any
reliance could be felt that C.I.G.’s list
was complete.
Mr. Eddy stated that he believed this
file should be called the central index.
Mr. Edgar stated that he believed the
name of the file should indicate that it contained more than just names.
Mr. Eddy suggested that the file be
called a “reference index file”.
Admiral Inglis recommended that the
phrase “nor does any department keep a master index of their own biographic
files”, in paragraph 2 of the covering memorandum by the Director of Central
Intelligence, be omitted.
The Enclosure to C.I.G. 17 was then discussed
and amendments thereto agreed upon by the Board.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:Agreed that the phrase “nor does any department keep a master
index of their own biographic files”, at the end of paragraph 2 of
the covering memorandum of C.I.G.
17, should be deleted.Concurred in the recommendation in paragraph 3–b of the covering
memorandum of C.I.G. 17, subject to
insertion of the word “index” between “reference” and “file” on the
second line thereof.Concurred in the Enclosure to C.I.G. 17, subject to the following amendments: Delete the word “responsible” from the second line of
paragraph 2–c.Reword the first sentence of paragraph 3–a to read as
follows: “The chief of mission of each embassy, legation or
foreign post has the over-all responsibility, in accordance with the
principles of this Directive, for coordinating the
collection of biographic intelligence in his geographical
area.”Delete paragraph 3–b–(7).Delete paragraph 5–b.
(Subsequently issued as C.I.G. Directive No. 16.)Dated
November 1. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 218,
Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 130) See the Supplement.
4. National Intelligence
Requirements—China (C.I.G. 19)CIG 19 as amended
became NIA Directive No. 8, February 12,
1947. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy
Papers, No. 132)
Mr. Eddy suggested that this item be
postponed until the next I.A.B. meeting.
General Chamberlin agreed, since he
had not had sufficient time to study this paper. He expressed the belief,
however, that the titles of Parts I and II of the proposed N.I.A. directive were reversed.
Mr. Edgar asked if, since the proposed
directive had the concurrence of representatives of the I.A.B., the Board would authorize use of the
directive, pending final approval, as a basis for the preparation by an
interdepartmental group of a collection directive.
General Chamberlin said that he would
like to know what collection responsibilities are involved before deciding
what information should be collected.
Mr. Edgar explained that it was felt
that the collection people must know what information the researchers want
before they can decide on the assignment of collection responsibilities.
Admiral Inglis said that although he
felt the wording could be improved, he was prepared to approve the directive
as it stands.
After further discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:Agreed to defer consideration of C.I.G. 19 until a meeting next Thursday, 7 November
1946.Pending final approval, authorized the use of the Enclosure to
C.I.G. 19 as a basis for the
preparation by an interdepartmental group of a collection
directive.
5. Status of N.I.A.
6See Documents
163 and 164.
Admiral Inglis asked what was being
done on N.I.A. 6, in view of the appointment
of the Atomic Energy Commission.
Mr. Lay explained that N.I.A. 6 was presently awaiting approval by the
President, and that General
Vandenberg was taking steps to get a decision on this
matter.
175. Letter From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Research
and Intelligence (Eddy)
to the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49,
101.5/10–2446. Secret.Washington, November 4, 1946.
My Dear General
Vandenberg: I am writing in reply to your letter of
October 24, 1946, in which you request that the Department of State
reconsider its position of not releasing Policy Statements to serve as a
basis for intelligence requirements. Our desire to cooperate fully with the
Central Intelligence Group has led to a very thorough study of your request.
The problem has been taken up on the highest level where the position of the
Department has been reaffirmed, namely that it would be unwise for the
Department to furnish its Policy Statements to serve as a basis for either
Departmental or national intelligence.
Briefly, the Department’s position with regard to its own Policy Statements
is that intelligence information should be available to influence Department
policy, but that current Department Policy Statements should not be made
available to influence intelligence information. For this reason the Policy
Statements are not furnished to our own planners and researchers in this
office.
The problem is not one of security of the documents, which it is quite clear
would be fully protected in CIG. It is the
conviction of the Department, however, that the security of the essential
information in the Policy Statements would not be insured merely by
protection of the documents. If, as stated in paragraph 2 of your letter, a
CIG draft of national intelligence
requirements for China were to consist of three parts, the first part of
which would be “U.S. policy towards China,” it would follow that the
mobilization of intelligence resources would be made to fit that current
policy. With the possible reorientation of that policy, whether in China or
in any other country, there would follow presumably a reorientation of the directives for collecting,
reporting and processing intelligence. Intelligence based upon, and shifted
with, current political foreign policy would, therefore, be a clear
indication to a great many workers, and to their contacts, of the evolution
of our foreign policy in its most delicate and crucial areas.
The Department would deplore any such development for the very good reason
that the Department’s occasional Policy and Information Statements are
off-the-cuff guides to policy officers, subject to constant revision, not
considered by the Department as documents either to be quoted or filed for
future reference. The same, of course, is not true of basic U.S. foreign
policy valid throughout the world, a knowledge of which should be available
to all Departments of the Government, such as the open door in economics,
the self-determination of sovereign states, the five freedoms of the air,
etc.
Although it has been my duty to report that the Department does not feel that
it can change its decision not to release Policy Statements, I am instructed
to assure you of our desire to cooperate fully in transmitting to you
personally and less formally any information on the Department’s foreign
policy which you may require from time to time. Such information can be
readily made available, upon your request, in personal conference with one
of your representatives, or in IAB meetings,
where I would, as instructed by the Department, furnish policy information
required.This decision was modified by the
Department of State Advisory Committee on Intelligence at its seventh
meeting on November 12. The committee decided to “make free to the
Director personally or his deputy any policy statements he might wish to
have, with the clear understanding that the documents should be seen by
no other persons in CIG.” (Ibid., RG
353, Records of Interdepartmental and Interdepartmental Committees—State
Department, Lot File No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee
1944–47, Box 94)
Sincerely yours,
William A. EddyPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
176. Minutes of the Tenth Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Top Secret; Limited Distribution. The
meeting was held at the New War Department Building.Washington, November 7, 1946, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Lt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairMembers PresentMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMaj. General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Director of Intelligence, W.D.G.S.Rear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceBrig. General John A. Samford, Deputy Assistant
Chief of Air Staff–2Also PresentMr. A. Sidney Buford, Department of StateColonel E. J. Treacy, U.S.A.Captain R. K. Davis, U.S.N.Colonel E. P. Mussett, U.S.A.Mr. Donald Edgar, Central
Intelligence GroupSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, N.I.A.
1. National Intelligence
Requirements—China (C.I.G. 19)CIG 19 as amended
became NIA Directive No. 8, February 12,
1947. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy
Papers, No. 132) See the Supplement.
General Chamberlin said that he had
difficulty understanding the purpose of this paper. If it was intended to
cover over-all long-range intelligence requirements, he felt that it was
incomplete. If, however, it covered only some intermediate objective, he did
not have much to say except to suggest a few minor changes.
Mr. Edgar explained that this paper did
not cover departmental requirements, which it was assumed would be drawn up
by the various agencies. He pointed out, however, that uncoordinated and
uncorrelated sets of instructions were going out to the field which did not
completely fill national requirements. Therefore, the only requirements put
in this paper were those which are most important from a national viewpoint.
This paper covered only China as a trial area. It did not attempt, however,
to define the ultimate requirements for national policy intelligence.
General Chamberlin noted that only
three subjects were covered, whereas there are many others of interest to
the War Department.
General Vandenberg said that the War
Department was expected to send those out, except in those cases where
C.I.G. might specifically ask for
additional information.
Mr. Edgar explained that at the first
interdepartmental meeting on coordination of the intelligence effort, it was
agreed that the first step should be to develop a coordinated collection of
intelligence requirements area by area throughout the world. Each agency
representative was asked to turn in the requirements it considered most
important. These were then synthesized by the Office of Reports and
Estimates in C.I.G. Some of the information
required was of interest to more than one department, and when the
departments agreed, these requirements were put in the paper. If this paper
is approved, the collection representatives from all agencies will look over
Part II in order to decide which field representatives are best located to
obtain the desired information and to attempt to allocate these requirements
to the various field agencies.
General Chamberlin did not see how
coordination could be accomplished in this way unless the whole problem was
solved.
Mr. Eddy pointed out that this was
merely a test case, and that this paper might look radically different a
year from now.
Mr. Edgar noted that these requirements
would be reviewed quarterly.
General Chamberlin asked why other
items of importance, such as topographic data, were not included.
Mr. Edgar explained that no attempt had
been made to include static or basic intelligence. Also, no scientific
intelligence requirements were included because it was felt there was
nothing of interest in this area.
Admiral Inglis noted that these
requirements covered only those that are currently essential.
General Chamberlin expressed the
belief that this was intended to be an attempt to coordinate the whole
collection effort in China.
General Vandenberg said that it was
impossible to do this until the agencies had agreed on more basic issues,
such as assignment of primary responsibilities. Meanwhile, this was an
attempt to move forward as far as possible.
Admiral Inglis said that he was
willing to approve the paper as it stands, but that he was also baffled by
the wording “Essential Elements of National Intelligence”. He thought they
were all right, however, as targets for the next three months and as a trial
case.
Mr. Eddy said that he was willing to
approve the paper as it stands.
General Vandenberg said that the
value of this paper would depend upon the effort which all agencies put
behind it.
General Chamberlin said that if the
three items mentioned were considered the most important, the War Department
would fulfill its part of the effort as a matter of priority.
General Samford understood that this was an experiment
in stating current emphasis. He considered the paper all right as it is.
General Chamberlin expressed the
belief that the terminology was twisted.
Mr. Edgar explained that the first step
had been to study national policy toward China, on the theory that
intelligence should operate for the policy-makers, to show them whether the
policy was a success or needed change. It was felt that the essential
elements were stated too broadly and were therefore broken down into
collection requirements which could be turned over to the collection
representatives to draft a collection directive. He realized that the terms
used were somewhat different from military usage, but that the four agency
representatives had agreed upon the present terminology. C.I.G., however, did not feel strongly about
making a change in the terminology. Mr. Edgar suggested, and it was agreed, that “Essential Elements
of National Intelligence” should be changed to read “Current Essentials of
National Intelligence.”
General Chamberlin said that he would
prefer not to approve the paper until he had seen the collection directive
based thereon. He did agree tentatively that the paper was all right as a
basis for preparation of a further collection directive.
Admiral Inglis suggested that the
meeting of collection representatives be held to break down the requirements
into allocations to each agency. These could then be checked with the I.A.B., and when approved each agency would
issue directives to accomplish its part of the mission.
General Vandenberg asked if a
further I.A.B. meeting would be necessary if
the representatives of the agencies agreed on the collection directive.
Admiral Inglis did not think it would
be necessary to put the paper on the agenda for another meeting, but felt
that it could be checked informally with the I.A.B. members and issued as another C.I.G. paper.
Mr. Eddy suggested approval of the
paper with the understanding that distribution would be withheld until
assignment of collection responsibilities was agreed upon.
In answer to Mr. Eddy, Mr. Edgar said that the directives would be
distributed to ambassadors and theater commanders through the appropriate
departments.
After further discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:Agreed upon the following amendments to the Enclosure to C.I.G. 19:Change “Essential Elements of National Intelligence” to
read “Current Essentials of National Intelligence”
throughout the paper.In paragraph 1, line 4, change “requirements” to read
“objectives”.Approved the Enclosure to C.I.G.
19, as amended, tentatively as a basis for the preparation of a
subsequent collection directive, with the understanding that
distribution would be withheld until the collection directive had
been agreed upon.
2. Establishment of a Channel Between the
Central Intelligence Group and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (C.I.G. 15)Dated
September 18. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276)
See the Supplement. For a summary of this long-running issue during
Vandenberg’s tenure as
Director of Central Intelligence, see Darling, The Central Intelligence Agency: An Instrument of
Government, to 1950, pp. 154–160.
General Vandenberg explained that
consideration of this problem had been deferred at a previous I.A.B. meeting, and requested any further
comments.
Admiral Inglis said that the matter
had been discussed in the J.I.C. It was a
complicated problem, and it was hard to decide whether J.I.C. or I.A.B. should discuss it further. He said that the Navy
Department feels that one solution is General
Vandenberg’s original proposal, which goes much farther then
Admiral Inglis’ proposal in C.I.G. 15. Admiral Inglis circulated a sketch showing how the Navy thought
General Vandenberg’s proposal
might be put into effect. This involved moving the J.I.C. and the J.I.S. into the
structure of the C.I.G. It also formed a
link between the J.C.S. and the Director of
Central Intelligence and between J.C.S.
subcommittees and the C.I.G. It proposed a
change in the membership of J.I.C. to
service members only, plus the addition of the Director of Central
Intelligence as a member in the same manner as on the I.A.B. With the change in membership it was
suggested that the name be changed to Joint Intelligence Board (J.I.B.).
Admiral Inglis thought that in
peacetime the Director of Central Intelligence is responsible to the N.I.A., but that this might be reversed in
wartime to make him responsible to the J.C.S. He felt that this proposal provided a necessary security
wall around the military activities of J.I.C. The J.I.S. membership
would stay the same except for the elimination of the State Department
member. Liaison with the State Department, however, would be continued, but
through the I.A.B. rather than the J.I.C.
Admiral Inglis explained that for the
preparation of intelligence estimates the proposed J.I.S. would go both to O.R.E.
and, for departmental intelligence, to the other departments. J.I.S. would belong to the J.I.B., with lateral
communications with C.I.G.
Mr. Eddy thought that might be an
ultimate solution, but suggested as an interim stop that the J.I.S. serve as an intelligence advisory staff
to the I.A.B.
General Chamberlin said that he had
not figured out a solution to the problem yet, but that he did have some
fundamental principles which he felt should be considered. First of all, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff must remain an essentially military agency. General
Chamberlin felt, however, that
General Eisenhower would be hesitant to change any
existing arrangements for coordination with the State Department.
Admiral Inglis said that he would like
to make it perfectly clear that the Navy Department wants a link with the
State Department and considers it absolutely essential. There is no intent,
in the proposal he just outlined, to stop such coordination. It was felt,
however, that coordination with the State Department would be adequately
assured through the I.A.B.
General Chamberlin noted that the
mission of the Director of Central Intelligence goes far beyond the scope of
the J.C.S. Therefore, nothing should be done
to circumscribe C.I.G. into a lesser
mission. This is a second fundamental which General
Eisenhower feels should be observed. Third, it
would be bad to circumscribe free and direct contact, especially in wartime,
from the J.C.S. to the President. Fourth,
there should be nothing in the arrangement, as far as the making of war
plans is concerned, which interpolates a civilian agency between planning
agencies of the J.C.S., but, as General Vandenberg noted, these J.C.S. agencies should not be denied any
intelligence necessary to enable them to perform their mission. Fifth, no
agencies other than strictly military should have access to military plans.
This should be a matter of right on the part of military agencies, for
security reasons. General Chamberlin
said that he was unable to figure out an organization which observed all of
those fundamental principles. He felt, however, that there was great
advantage in Admiral Inglis’ original
suggestion in C.I.G. 15, since it would at
least provide a piecemeal approach to the problem.
General Vandenberg said that the
principles enunciated by General Chamberlin were also the objectives for which the C.I.G. was striving. He pointed out that the
C.I.G. proposal provided a watertight
compartment for the military. He observed, however, that allied to that
consideration is the fact that the war planners must have the best
intelligence and that it must be constantly supplied to them. The
intelligence agency, therefore, should work right along with the planners.
Specifically, General Vandenberg
noted that Admiral Inglis’ new
proposal established a watertight
military compartment, but placed it next to the C.I.G., where it could draw on all available intelligence.
General Chamberlin noted that there
were some subjects covered by J.I.C.
subcommittees which C.I.G. should not
have.
Admiral Inglis said that some could be
put under the J.I.B. and others, such as the Joint Intelligence Study
Publishing Board and the Publications Review Subcommittee, could be
integrated into C.I.G.
Mr. Eddy said that he was willing to
accept Admiral Inglis’ new proposal
as an ultimate objective. He thought, however, that it would be possible to
proceed immediately to liquidate the J.I.C.
subcommittees and then follow that with Admiral Inglis’ proposal.
General Vandenberg felt that it
would be difficult to justify the initial step proposed in C.I.G. 15 until a broad plan had been presented
for approval. He thought that the broad plan should first be approved in
principle and then the initial step approved for immediate implementation.
He noted that if the process stopped after the initial step had been taken,
C.I.G. would be accountable but not
responsible.
Admiral Inglis said that one
difficulty which had been discovered in his proposal in C.I.G. 15 was that personnel assigned to J.C.S. subcommittees may not be assigned
additional duties without the approval of the J.C.S. He agreed with General
Vandenberg that the ultimate objective should be presented at
the same time that the initial step is submitted for approval.
Mr. Eddy felt that the question of the
ultimate objective involved very broad considerations. He pointed out that
there were three policy-forming groups—namely, the State Department in the
political field, the J.C.S. in the military
field, and the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee in politico-military
matters. He thought that the relationship of those groups should be
carefully considered and presented in any ultimate solution. He felt that it
might be premature to attempt to outline the ultimate objective.
General Vandenberg thought that it
might be possible to show the end objective in broad terms, how far it was
now possible to go, and why the initial step was being taken.
Mr. Eddy felt that this would require
considerable time-consuming staff work to prepare. Therefore, he would like
to see the first step taken as soon as possible.
General Vandenberg suggested that if
there was general agreement, Admiral Inglis’ new proposal could be used as the ultimate objective
and the proposal in C.I.G. 15 as the initial
step. He suggested that people from ICAPS
and the agencies be designated to write up such a proposal for consideration
by the N.I.A. and the J.C.S.
General Chamberlin stated that he
could not say at this time that he approved the end result suggested by
Admiral Inglis. He thought a way
should be found to get the intelligence from C.I.G. without interpolating C.I.G. into the J.C.S. He
explained that he was not opposed to General
Vandenberg personally, but was in general doubtful of the
wisdom of mixing up in the J.C.S. the head
of an agency who reported to civilian authority.
Admiral Inglis asked if, in case of
war, it would not be desirable to have the Director of Central Intelligence
and the Central Intelligence Group under the command of the J.C.S.
General Chamberlin said that in case
of war he thought that the C.I.G. should be
brought into the J.C.S. organization and
made responsible for the whole intelligence effort. He granted that this
would involve abolishing the J.I.C.
Admiral Inglis expressed the belief
that the J.C.S. would not agree to abolish
the J.I.C. any more than they would to the
abolition of the Joint War Plans Committee. He noted that at present the
Director of Central Intelligence reported to the N.I.A. His proposal was that the Director of Central
Intelligence be assigned additional duties to serve the J.C.S. If at any time the Director of Central
Intelligence was not agreeable to the J.C.S., the J.C.S. could easily
cancel the agreement.
Mr. Eddy said that he agreed with this
proposal, but noted that it must be submitted to the N.I.A. and the J.C.S.
General Vandenberg agreed because he
felt that they would want to know what lay behind the initial step.
Mr. Eddy thought that would be
desirable, but felt that if they could not agree on the ultimate objective,
the initial step should be recommended as improving liaison between C.I.G. and J.I.C.
General Vandenberg said that he
would like to wait a week or so to see if staff members could not write
something which would be agreeable to the
I.A.B.
General Chamberlin said that he could
not see what progress would be made, because he was fundamentally opposed to
the principles involved in Admiral Inglis’ new proposal.
General Vandenberg said that he felt
it was the responsibility of the I.A.B. to
recommend approval of some plan. He suggested, therefore, that if there was
disagreement within the I.A.B., both a
majority and a minority report be submitted to the N.I.A. He noted that nothing was being done about this
situation at the present time. He wanted to stop unnecessary duplication,
and felt that the solution of this problem was one of the best ways to avoid
it.
General Chamberlin believed that the
Director of Central Intelligence should not be on the J.I.B.
Admiral Inglis felt that if the
Director of Central Intelligence is made responsible for furnishing
intelligence, he must know the purpose which the intelligence is to
serve.
General Chamberlin felt there was some
way to provide for a lateral communication with the Director of Central
Intelligence in order to obtain intelligence which would then go up through
the J.I.B. He thought that the initial stop proposed in C.I.G. 15 was worth trying.
General Vandenberg said that this
would put either the Director of Central Intelligence or the J.I.C. in an untenable position if it lasted
for long. He said that he would agree to that arrangement for a short
period, but that there must be a limit placed on its duration.
Admiral Inglis felt that the proposal
in C.I.G. 15 was all right as a first step,
but that it would not solve the problem. It would not tie C.I.G. in close enough with the J.I.C., and it would not eliminate all of the
duplication.
General Chamberlin said that he could
understand General Vandenberg’s
objections. He thought, therefore, that General Vandenberg’s suggestion for preparation of a staff
paper was best. It would then be possible to see what points could be agreed
on, and to put up a minority report on those points that are not agreed. He
said that he thought it was a responsibility of the J.I.C. to get intelligence from the C.I.G. He hoped to see a solution. He thought that the J.I.S. should work with the C.I.G. to get intelligence, provided security
of military information was not jeopardized.
General Vandenberg felt that this
would lead to the same difficulty that the J.I.C. is now encountering with the Joint War Plans Committee,
in not knowing what is wanted. He felt strongly that if C.I.G. was asked for intelligence without being
familiar with what was involved, it would put out intelligence without
giving it proper weight or considering the ramifications or including all of
the intelligence that might be available.
General Chamberlin did not think that
C.I.G. should be taken into military
planning.
General Vandenberg pointed out that
Admiral Inglis’ new proposal would
provide a watertight military compartment within C.I.G.
Admiral Inglis said that there must be
a watertight compartment somewhere. The question is just where it should be
established.
After further discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Designated the following individuals as representatives to work with the
Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff of C.I.G. in drafting proposed recommendations to the N.I.A. and the J.C.S. on the relationship between C.I.G. and the J.C.S.,
including, if necessary, a majority and minority report:
For Mr. Eddy:Mr. Merritt B. BoothMr. A. Sidney BufordFor General Chamberlin:Colonel E. J. Treacy, Jr.Colonel L. L. WilliamsColonel J. K. DickeyFor Admiral Inglis:Captain R. K. DavisCaptain F. S. HabeckerFor General McDonald:Colonel E. P. MussettColonel L. C. ShermanFor Secretariat, J.I.C.:Captain R. U. Hyde
3. Assignment of Functions in the Field of
Static Intelligence to the Central Intelligence Group (C.I.G. 13Dated
September 17. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276)
See the Supplement. and C.I.G.
13/1See footnote 7,
Document 170.)
General Vandenberg said that ICAPS was now trying to solve the basic
issues in the subject papers. Therefore, even if this specific study were
cancelled as proposed in C.I.G. 13/1, this
would not mean that further action on the subject would not be taken.
Admiral Inglis said that he was
willing to concur in C.I.G. 13/1, but that
he wanted the record to show that the Navy will go just as far as other
participating departments in collaborative efforts in this field.
General Chamberlin said that he would
like to state some principles which he felt should govern the solution of
this problem. First of all, he felt that each department should be supreme
in its field of primary responsibility. For example, in its field of primary
responsibility he did not think that the War Department could assign its
functions to another agency because the War Department is charged by law
with performing them. General Chamberlin thought, therefore, that the first thing to do
was to assign areas of primary responsibility to each department. Then
matters which are not in the field of these primary responsibilities should
be assigned to C.I.G. He thought that those
assignments should carry into the field of collection, but that they should
not draw a narrow corridor which would prevent any field representative from
getting useful information.
General Vandenberg said that he
thought everyone agreed to these principles, but he questioned whether they
had been transmitted to the agency representatives who were working with
ICAPS.
General Chamberlin said that the
implementation of those principles should be carefully timed to cause a
minimum of interruption in the performance of necessary functions. He
expressed the belief that the War Department now had the best balanced
intelligence agency, and was fully
engaged in the preparation of Strategic Intelligence Digests (S.I.D.). He hoped to obtain permission to
complete these S.I.D.’s as a basis for
assignment of responsibilities. Even after responsibilities had been
assigned, he felt that each department must have a unit which is capable of
presenting the whole picture to the officials of that department. He
therefore would like to see the War Department preserve a strong Military
Intelligence Service to fulfill the requirements of the Chief of Staff. For
example, the War Department was working on war potential, which covers a
very wide field. On this matter, the War Department was getting advice from
other departments, but nevertheless was ultimately responsible for that
field. He hoped that this statement of fundamentals would indicate the
reason why he was voting as he had.
Admiral Inglis agreed that the
principles were fine, but required definition. For example, what is military
intelligence? He felt that while it was granted that the War Department was
responsible for military intelligence, it should also be granted that the
War Department must get intelligence elsewhere in order to complete the
picture. This meant looking to other departments over which the War
Department had no authority.
General Chamberlin said that he was
perfectly willing to trust the State Department, Navy Department, and Air
Forces for the intelligence in their fields of primary responsibility.
Admiral Inglis thought, then, that if
it was granted that the War Department must obtain intelligence from
agencies other than those under its command, it then became a question of
which agency or agencies were best qualified and most efficient to produce
the intelligence required. That was the principle Admiral Inglis had in mind in C.I.G. 13. He thought it would be possible to
pool items of common interest in C.I.G. Then
each agency would make available all that it received in those fields, and
would draw off from C.I.G. what it needed.
Admiral Inglis noted that General
Eisenhower and Admiral
Nimitz had directed General
Craig and Admiral Inglis to join M.I.D. and
O.N.I. in all possible fields. He said
that an effort had been made to accomplish this, but that nothing had
happened. Now with C.I.G. formed, he thought
it might be possible to turn over some of these functions of common interest
to C.I.G.
General Chamberlin did not recall
having seen the directive to which Admiral Inglis referred, but said that he was nevertheless willing
to follow the principles which he had enunciated.
Mr. Eddy said that he was in sympathy
with the committee report, C.I.G. 13/1. He
would like, however, to see the responsibility and functions of the Joint
Intelligence Study Publishing Board transferred to C.I.G. He said that if that recommendation were made, he would
vote for it.
General Vandenberg expressed
appreciation for Mr. Eddy’s
suggestion, but felt that it was first necessary to settle the broader
questions involved. If action was
blocked after such piecemeal steps had been taken, it would not help the
over-all intelligence picture.
General Samford thought that the guiding principle was
that the functions required by each agency staff must be performed in that
staff. Everything else he was willing to centralize.
General Chamberlin said that an
example was the question of war potential in Russia. He noted that the War
Department was now engaged in a comprehensive study of that subject, and he
wondered whether it was intended that this project should be stopped.
Admiral Inglis thought that was an
excellent example, since it involved intelligence of interest to all three
departments. While G–2 was responsible for
furnishing that data to the Chief of Staff, Military Attaches and other War
Department sources were not adequate to get what was needed. The same thing
is true in the Navy and State Departments. No one agency is competent to get
all that information; each must rely on the other. Each now has a collecting
agency feeding in that type of material. Admiral Inglis said that his idea was that when this information was
received, instead of each agency having about a hundred people picking the
brains of other agencies, fifty from each department could be transferred
into C.I.G., where, with half the people,
they would receive all departmental source material and do a better job.
General Chamberlin agreed that this
was all right in theory, but that it would cause delay. For example, the War
Department has already written hundreds of pages on all countries, and he
did not think that work should be interrupted.
Admiral Inglis said that his example
was something that could be worked up to. He did not think that any project
should be interrupted until it could be taken over efficiently by C.I.G.
General Chamberlin agreed, and said
that he thought that 30 June 1947 would be a date on which his projects
could be turned over to some other agency.
Admiral Inglis recommended that the
procedure be worked out step by step and extend over a period of time.
General Vandenberg felt that each
agency, when it transferred a function to C.I.G., should still have a feeling of responsibility and an
interest in seeing that the people who were working on the project were also
transferred, in order to ensure the best possible product.
Admiral Inglis said that 30 June 1947
was an agreeable date for turning over to C.I.G.
General Chamberlin said that he would
be willing to furnish surplus personnel available on that date. He pointed
out, however, that G–2 had already let out
some 700 individuals and was about down to its minimum requirements for
military intelligence. In fact, there were fields of military intelligence which G–2 is not now covering. Therefore, when the S.I.D.’s are completed, G–2 would have to turn those people to the performance of some
other G–2 function.
Admiral Inglis felt that there were
two additional principles that should be recognized: First, each agency, in
fulfilling its responsibilities, must collaborate with other agencies to
complete the picture. Second, each agency has a responsibility for the
successful performance of C.I.G.
General Chamberlin said that he felt a
responsibility, as a member of the I.A.B.,
for the manner in which C.I.G. grows. On the
other hand, he felt that one responsibility of C.I.G. was to build strong organizations in the departments to
fulfill their primary functions.
General Vandenberg agreed, but noted
that C.I.G. has no control over that matter
at the present time.
After further discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Approved the recommendation in the Enclosure to C.I.G. 13/1, with the understanding that the basic issues
involved are under continuing study by ICAPS and agency representatives.
177. Memorandum From the Commanding General of the Manhattan Engineer
District, Department of War (Groves) to the
Atomic Energy CommissionSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–208. Secret. The source text is a copy
transcribed for the CIA Historical Staff on January 14,
1954.Washington, November 21, 1946.
SUBJECT
Foreign Intelligence Set-upIn accordance with General
Marshall’s instructions, I established a special
organization to collect information on the capabilities of enemy powers
to use atomic energy for military purposes. The reason for these
instructions, I believe, was a feeling that existing intelligence
agencies had proven themselves unable to function satisfactorily. At first, personnel from other
existing sections of my office were used part time on this foreign
intelligence work; in 1944–45 some special overseas operations were
fostered, field commanders and staffs were briefed and selected officers
were assigned to duty with overseas theaters. By 1945 a full time
Foreign Intelligence Section was required; late that year the Section
was organized in substantially its present form.It is vital to the security of the United States that foreign
intelligence in the field of atomic energy be maintained and
strengthened. The Central Intelligence Group which was organized in 1946
is the operating agency of the National Intelligence Authority and is
now responsible for the coordination and direction of all foreign
intelligence activities of the government. The CIG must be able to evaluate the capabilities of other
nations to use atomic energy in the military field, and the best nucleus
upon which to build the organization is unquestionably this Foreign
Intelligence Section.To continue the functions of the Foreign Intelligence Section in any
other way except under the control of CIG would be very difficult. This Section has never had
complete facilities or personnel to do its own collection; it has
assembled intelligence material collected by other agencies, and
correlated data from the Manhattan District. Its primary purpose is to
secure a maximum of information and to interpret that information as to
what is going on in the atomic energy field in foreign nations, with
particular emphasis on the rate of progress of other nations in catching
up with the United States’ position and on determining estimates of
resources of uranium where such information cannot be accurately
obtained through the normal channels of Manhattan District. As a
dissemination agency this Section has been prepared to act only as it
was deemed necessary to supply information to other agencies. In the
event it should find any indication of a foreign nation being in advance
of us technically, it would of course promptly convey such information
to those portions of the Manhattan Project to whom it would be of
interest. Overseas its mission has been limited to liaison with Military
Attaches, with Headquarters, United States Forces, European Theater
(USFET) and with British
Intelligence. Through the Intelligence link, and only through that link,
can the very productive cooperation with British Intelligence continue.
I have long thought that the C.I.G. has
the best resources for this intelligence collection and dissemination
and for procuring and retaining personnel capable of serving the Atomic
Energy Program in the future. It would be a mistake to use the present
limited Manhattan resources based upon informal liaison with the State,
War and Navy Departments or any organization set up with the A.E.C. This is especially true since the
C.I.G. already controls the
Strategic Services Unit and is assured of cooperation with British
Intelligence.The experience of my Foreign Intelligence Section and the mission and
operation of the C.I.G. logically place
them together, but future cooperation between C.I.G. and the A.E.C. will
be absolutely necessary in the best interests of the country. The
specialized Foreign Intelligence Section would be the best instrument to
provide this coordinated effort. Continued access to the Commission
sites and discussions between individuals already recognized on the
working level are important in order to avoid an inordinate number of
middle men and inefficient delays. Security demands that the liaison
have the appropriate authority and control.I feel that: The Foreign Intelligence Section should be an integral part of
the C.I.G.The Foreign Intelligence Section should be the routine channel
of liaison between the C.I.G.
and the A.E.C.The C.I.G. should collect and
furnish all available information with respect to ore deposits
and discoveries, mining activities, scientific development or
other subjects from foreign countries needed in the work of the
A.E.C. as desired by that
latter body.Representatives of the Foreign Intelligence Section in the
C.I.G. should be permitted
to visit sites in the United States, to consult with individuals
and to receive technical papers of the A.E.C. as may be arranged. L. R. GrovesPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Major General, U.S.A.
178. Minutes of the 11th Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Secret. No drafting information appears on
the source text. The meeting was held at the New War Department
Building.Washington, November 26, 1946, 10
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Lt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairMembers PresentMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMaj. General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Director of Intelligence, W.D.G.S.Rear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceBrig. General George C.
McDonald, Assistant Chief of Air Staff–2Also PresentBrig. General John A. Samford, Deputy Assistant
Chief of Air Staff–2Mr. A. Sidney Buford, Department of StateMr. George R. Fearing, Department of StateColonel E. J. Treacy, U.S.A.Captain R. K. Davis, U.S.N.Colonel E. P. Mussett, U.S.A.Mr. Donald Edgar, Central
Intelligence GroupSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, N.I.A.Mr. J. S. Earman, Assistant
Secretary, N.I.A.
1. Coordination of Collection
Activities (C.I.G. 18/2)CIG 18/2, November 21,
was a report of CIG’s Interdepartmental
Coordinating and Planning Staff, submitted for IAB approval, which delineated responsibilities for the
collection of foreign intelligence information. It allocated collection
of political, cultural, sociological, economic, and “international”
information to the Department of State; military information to the War
Department; naval information to the Navy Department; and scientific
information to “each agency in accordance with its respective
interests.” (Ibid., HS/HC–276) See the Supplement. The subject had been
put on the IAB agenda at the request of
the Department of State, which had proposed a “basic delineation of
responsibilities” in the collection field. See CIG 18, October 25, and the enclosed October 18 memorandum
from Eddy to Vandenberg in the Supplement.
(Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276)
General Vandenberg gave a brief
description of the contents of C.I.G. 18/2.
He also stated that at this time he would like to make it a matter of record
in the minutes that certain collection activities assigned to the Central
Intelligence Group, namely, those covered by Special Operations, F.B.I.S. and information gained from business
concerns and individuals who have traveled abroad, would not be governed by
this paper.
General Chamberlin stated that this
was the finest piece of work turned out so far and that as suggested by
General Vandenberg we should get away from detail.
General Chamberlin felt, however,
that the paper should assign fields of primary responsibility for all
activities, rather than being confined only to coordination of collection.
He believed that the general assignment of responsibilities contained in
paragraph 2 a of the proposed C.I.G.
Directive should be taken out and made into a N.I.A. Directive.
Mr. Lay explained that the
preparation of a S.I.D. on the U.S.S.R. is
in fact now an inter-agency operation under C.I.G. coordination.
General Chamberlin suggested that the
word “area” in paragraph 1 b of the proposed N.I.A. Directive be changed to “country.”
Mr. Edgar explained that the word
“area” was used since it was not at all impossible that certain countries by
name would not be covered, hence the responsibility for coverage would
necessarily have to be given to the coordinator covering that area in which
such countries might be located.
General Chamberlin said that we must
realize that Ambassadors are political officers sent out without
intelligence training. He therefore felt that we should define certain broad
principles by which the Ambassadors should be guided.
Admiral Inglis stated that this was a
fine paper. He said, however, that he had not had time enough to study the
paper as thoroughly as he wished, but would agree to it in its broad
principles.
General Vandenberg then asked
Admiral Inglis if it could be
approved for use as a guide.
Admiral Inglis answered that he would
like to request another week to study this paper and suggested that an ad
hoc committee be appointed to consider the paper further, in view of the
fact that he had some changes to recommend.
General Vandenberg stated that he
felt that there should be no further delay and that those parts of the paper
that were highly controversial could be taken out and resubmitted at a later
date for further consideration.
Mr. Eddy agreed with General Vandenberg’s suggestion and
stated that he was in agreement that an ad hoc committee be appointed. He
further stated that ICAPS had prepared a
very fine paper. Mr. Eddy said that
the collection of intelligence in the field presented a separate problem
from that of the over-all policies governing coordination of intelligence
activities. Mr. Eddy went on to say
that the intelligence scene in Washington differed from that in the field in
view of possible reduction in one Department and increases in others.
General Chamberlin stated that he
believed the assignment of basic responsibilities should be the same for
Washington as the field.
Mr. Eddy stated that he did not quite
agree with this and that he felt that there should be an over-all policies
and objectives directive and a separate collection directive for the
field.
Admiral Inglis stated that he believed
that there should first be an N.I.A.
Directive on collection policies.
Mr. Eddy suggested that General
Chamberlin’s over-all written
suggestions,Not found. which were
previously passed to the I.A.B. members, be
turned over to ICAPS for consideration and
that we go ahead on the collection direction.
General Chamberlin stated that he felt
that the broad principles of the paper should cover all contingencies.
Mr. Eddy stated that he felt that the
collection directive should be separate.
General Chamberlin stated that he felt
that the first place to tackle this problem was on the evaluation level here
in Washington rather than in the field.
Mr. Eddy stated that he believed that
collection in the field could be covered separately, particularly since
there may be changes in Washington which in a great many instances would not
affect the collection activities in the field.
Admiral Inglis suggested that the
collection problem be considered now and the over-all problem be considered
at a later date.
General Chamberlin stated that he was
ready to vote on both problems, taking into consideration his
suggestions.
Admiral Inglis stated that he could
not go along with General Chamberlin’s suggestion since he felt that Navy had not had
enough time to study the problem. He suggested that an ad hoc committee be
appointed to work on C.I.G. 18/2 and that
ICAPS undertake another study on the
ultimate responsibilities of the production of intelligence.
General Chamberlin agreed to go along
on getting out the collection directive if agreement could not be reached on
the whole problem.
Mr. Edgar stated that he hoped that
S.I.D. would not be turned over all at
once, in order to give C.I.G. a chance to
build up a staff, since he did not feel it would be right to begin
recruiting a staff at the present time, and have them sit around until June
with nothing to do.
General Chamberlin stated that as they
completed a chapter it would be turned over to C.I.G.
After further discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:Agreed to have ICAPS reconsider
C.I.G. 18/2 in the light of
General Chamberlin’s written
suggestions and the general discussion in the meeting.See Documents 179 and
181.Agreed that ICAPS prepare a
companion document covering the coordination of the production and
dissemination of intelligence.See Document 318 and footnote references
thereto.Agreed that an I.A.B. ad hoc
committee composed of Colonel Fearing, Colonel
Ennis, General Samford
and Captain Davis will review the revision of
C.I.G. 18/2 and subsequently the
directive which will be prepared by ICAPS for the coordination of the production and
dissemination of intelligence.Agreed that the revision of C.I.G.
18/2 be submitted to the I.A.B. and
that the directive for the coordination of the production and
dissemination of intelligence be submitted when prepared to the
I.A.B.
2. Production of Political-Psychological
Study on U.S.S.R. (C.I.G. 20)CIG 20, November
21, was a proposal by the Chief of Naval Intelligence for a
“comprehensive political-psychological study” on the USSR. (Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See the
Supplement.
General Vandenberg briefly explained
the recommendations contained in this paper. He stated that there appeared
to be two courses of action open: A specialist or specialists in this particular field could be
contracted to prepare such a study which would be disseminated as
intelligence information, the contents of which would be the views
of the individuals preparing the study, only.A specialist or specialists in this particular field could be
contracted to prepare such a study under C.I.G. (ORE) guidance.
An ORE evaluation would be placed on
the study prior to dissemination.
He further stated that C.I.G. preferred course a.
Admiral Inglis stated that he did not
quite understand what was meant.
General Vandenberg explained that
the study would be prepared and presented to the interested agencies over
the signature of the person preparing the study and that there would be no
evaluation whatsoever by C.I.G. The study in
short would be presented for “what it was worth.” He also stated that this
study then could be used as a basis on which the agencies could expand their
own thoughts on what was presented.
Mr. Eddy thought it might be better to
have a group work on this study.
Admiral Inglis stated that at the
present time he felt that there were only a limited number of people who
could prepare such a study, and furthermore that such a study, if prepared
by Dr. Ladislas Farago, would be what he thought and
not a result of his being given access to the files of the agencies. He
particularly pointed out that Dr. Farago was a
Hungarian by birth and great care should be exercised relative to the
classified material given to him in the event he was selected to make a
study.
General Vandenberg felt that for the
timely completion of the study it would be better to have one person prepare
it.
Mr. Eddy suggested that possibly one
man could be found to go along with whoever might be selected to make the
study.
General Vandenberg agreed and asked
Mr. Eddy if he could find some
one.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
a. Approved the recommendations in C.I.G. 20
pending the securing of a person and possibly an assistant to conduct this
study.
3. Exploitation of Enemy Document
Repositories (C.I.G. 21)In CIG 21, November 21,
the Chief of Naval Intelligence recommended that CIG “arrange for and coordinate the search of all
repositories of captured enemy documents for the purpose of extracting,
cataloging and abstracting all documents relating to
political-social-psychological warfare.” (Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See the Supplement.
General Vandenberg briefly outlined
the recommendations contained in C.I.G. 21
and stated that in view of the fact that the priority on such a plan is
questionable and that C.I.G. is not prepared
to undertake this program it be held in abeyance until the document
situation is sufficiently clarified for constructive C.I.G. recommendations.
Admiral Inglis stated that this was
just the reason why he had made the recommendations contained in this paper
at the present time since he was afraid that the documents might soon be
lost.
General Vandenberg replied that
C.I.G. is at the present time awaiting a
reply from the Navy relative to the transfer of the Washington Document
Center to C.I.G.
Admiral Inglis stated that he thought
that this reply had been made and that he would take action to see why
C.I.G. had not received an answer from
the Navy.
General McDonald stated that there
were a lot of documents still in Berlin and that he believed that microfilms
of the documents were presently in this country.
General Chamberlin stated that he felt
that quite a few of these documents in Berlin were still there in view of
the War Crimes Trials.
Admiral Inglis stated that there are
literally, not carloads nor tons, but shiploads of captured enemy
documents.
General Chamberlin stated that he was
well aware of this fact and that in view of his personnel situation he could
only contribute a limited amount of help.
General Vandenberg suggested that a
committee be appointed to look into all the problems involving the present
document situation.
General McDonald stated that a
representative of the Library of Congress had looked through some of the
captured documents in the possession of the Air Forces.
General Vandenberg suggested that it
might be well to appoint an inter-agency group to look over the problems
arising from this paper.
General McDonald felt that it was
dangerous to delay too long in considering the document question.
General Vandenberg asked Admiral
Inglis whether he felt we should
wait or appoint a committee to consider the problems which had arisen from
this discussion.
Admiral Inglis stated that he felt
that we should appoint a committee and go ahead.
General Vandenberg questioned
whether it would be well to have a representative of the Library of Congress
as a member of this committee.
Admiral Inglis stated we should be
very careful about the person selected from the Library of Congress and that
we should make certain that the selectee was secure.
General Vandenberg stated that
C.I.G. would select an individual from
the Library of Congress who would be agreeable to all agencies and that we
should make certain that he had been cleared before being put to work.
The Intelligence Advisory Board:Agreed to appoint a committee consisting of Mr.
Kilgour, State Department, Colonel
St. Clair, G–2, Colonel Robert Taylor, A–2,
Captain Murphy, Navy, and a representative from
the Library of Congress to consider the document situation.Agreed to let C.I.G. 21 go over
until a report had been received from the above-appointed
committee.The Committee’s report is
in CIG 21/1, April 10, 1947.
(Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See
the Supplement.
179. Minutes of the 12th Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Confidential. The meeting was held at the
New War Department Building.Washington, December 17, 1946, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Lt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairMembers PresentMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMaj. General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Director of Intelligence, WDGSRear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceBrig. General John A. Samford, Deputy Assistant
Chief of Air Staff–2Also PresentMr. A. Sidney Buford, Department of StateColonel E. J. Treacy, U.S.A.Captain R. K. Davis, U.S.N.Colonel James E. Briggs, Central Intelligence
GroupColonel Wm. M. Adams, Central Intelligence
GroupSecretariatMr. J. S. Earman, Acting
Secretary, N.I.A.
1. Coordination of Collection
ActivitiesNot found. (C.I.G. 18/3)
General Vandenberg stated that he
understood that there was some confusion as to why C.I.G. 18/3, as circulated, only includes the texts of the
proposed N.I.A. Directive and omits the
proposed text of the C.I.G. Directive. He
stated that C.I.G. 18/2, as circulated on
November 21,See footnote
1, Document 178. included both a proposed N.I.A. Directive and a proposed C.I.G. Directive, but the transmitting letter
carefully specified that I.A.B. approval was
requested only for the N.I.A. Directive.
Therefore, in consideration of the State Department’s urgent request for
early consideration of the N.I.A. Directive,
it was circulated in C.I.G. 18/3 with the
amendments proposed by the I.A.B. ad hoc
committee.Appointed by the Board at its
meeting on November 26. He said that at the same time the
completed draft of the C.I.G. Directive was
circulated to the ad hoc committee members since there had not been time to
present this cleaned up text to them; however, the ad hoc committee had
approved this text in pencil form at its last meeting. General Vandenberg pointed out that
C.I.G. 18/2 has only minor changes from
C.I.G. 18/2 in the N.I.A. Directive section and that at the last
I.A.B. meeting general approval of the
N.I.A. Directive had been given and no
specific requests for changes therein had been made. He said that he
believed that the I.A.B. would be able to
approve without extensive discussion the text as presented in C.I.G. 18/3, particularly since his proposals
for implementation, as contained in the ad hoc committee’s final draft,
include all suggestions made by the agencies’ ad hoc representatives and
were concurred in by them at their final meeting. General Vandenberg recommended that in
paragraph 1 c of the proposed N.I.A.
Directive the words “unproductive duplication and uncoordinated overlap
shall be discontinued so …” be allowed to remain.
Mr. Eddy stated that he would like to
recommend that paragraphs 2 a and c of the proposed C.I.G. implementing Directive should be included in the
proposed N.I.A. Directive since paragraph 2
a included allocations by subject and paragraph 2 c reserved the right of
every agency to repeat even on secondary interest to its own agency anything
it desired.
General Vandenberg then asked how
A–2 and O.N.I. felt about the State
Department’s recommendation as indicated above.
General Chamberlin stated that after
some discussion in the Intelligence Division, WDGS, they were not sure whether the meaning of paragraph 2 c
of the proposed C.I.G. Directive was
understood. He went on to state that all G–2
reports were submitted on duplicating pads and questioned whether or not
G–2’s representatives in the field should
merely pass over to the proper agency at the post or the Embassy whatever
information they might have.
Mr. Eddy then stated that this was his
understanding.
General Chamberlin stated that he
would object to any interpretation to indicate that, for example, the State
Department’s representative report directly to him or his representative
(General Chamberlin’s) report
directly to the State Department.
Mr. Eddy then stated that those
reports would be passed on to the representatives in the field and a copy
sent to the State Department.
General Chamberlin then said that he
would like to indicate that all the information passed in from the field,
except radiographic forms, from the MA’s come on a duplicating pad and not
as copies.
General Vandenberg then stated that
there was no intention to have any such interpretation as indicated by
General Chamberlin.
General Chamberlin stated that he had
no desire to make any change in the paragraph but that he wanted to be sure
that somebody would not object to the Intelligence Division following its
usual procedures of sending the duplicating pad to the Intelligence Division
in Washington since the information contained therein was given immediately
to the agency concerned.
Mr. Eddy then stated that in this
paragraph they wanted the men in the field who came across intelligence not
of primary interest to them, but of secondary interest, to pass that
information to the field representative of the agency primarily concerned.
Nothing, however, should prevent a representative from reporting to his own
department chief for staff purposes.
General Vandenberg then stated that
what Mr. Eddy had just said was the
principle that was being enunciated in the directives and he would be the
first to protest if the agencies were to stop sending information that was
not of primary interest to them to C.I.G.
Admiral Inglis then stated that to
clarify this paragraph we should be rather careful of the wording.
General Chamberlin then stated that he
had this comment to make after reading these directives–The C.I.G. and N.I.A. Directives uniformly violate the basic principle that in
assigning a task, the task should be described in sufficiently clear
language for an agency to understand. The agency should be permitted to
instruct its subordinates in its own language and that he did not propose to
send a C.I.G. Directive to his own
people.
General Vandenberg then stated that
the implementation of C.I.G. Directives by
the agencies concerned was “their own business.”
Admiral Inglis then suggested the
following change in the language of the paragraph in question: “That we
delete the word ‘directly’ in the second line of sub-paragraph c and insert
in the third line before the word ‘representative’ the word ‘field’ and then
in the last line instead of ‘copies’ insert ‘information to.’ It would then
read: ‘Intelligence information and material, regardless of the collector,
shall wherever possible be transmitted to the agency most concerned through
the field representative of that agency. However, the collector may also
send information to his own agency.”
Mr. Eddy stated that he did not
believe that he could approve the rewording of paragraph 2 c as indicated by
Admiral Inglis.
General Chamberlin then stated that
the Intelligence Division distributed to no one outside of the War
Department unless a request was received through the Reading Panel and that
no automatic distribution was made to the State Department’s representative
on the Reading Panel unless he (State Department’s representative) requested
it.
Mr. Eddy then stated that he thought
the purpose was to get information to the agency primarily concerned and
most interested.
General Chamberlin then stated
“providing the agency is interested.”
Mr. Eddy then went on to state that he
would not expect reports on military and naval matters to appear in the
State Department’s Reading Panel
which had been collected by a Vice-Consul where there was no military or
naval representative present. Mr. Eddy further stated that he concurred in that a report
prepared by military or naval personnel should have dissemination made in
Washington; however, that political intelligence should be screened by the
State Department, and military and air intelligence, for example, should be
passed to the man in the field who represented that service. When such
reports come to the Department’s Reading Panel concerned that Department can
then send these reports wherever they may deem necessary. The reporting
officer’s obligation is then the same as formerly—“He sends a copy of his
information to his own agency.”
General Samford then asked whether the use of the word
“copy” meant it was identified by being outside the agency’s primary
field.
Mr. Eddy stated that before, when the
State Department had an opportunity to get naval information, the
Vice-Consul would send that information to the Naval Attaché, since he (the
Vice-Consul) couldn’t interpret it and there would be confusion if they were
to send it to the State Department.
Admiral Inglis stated that that was
the very reason why he had recommended the re-wording of paragraph 2 c in
order to avoid describing how a copy of a report was to be sent to G–2 or O.N.I.
Mr. Eddy stated that in Washington it
is recognized as a report that is to be produced or distributed and be
available in the department of primary interest.
Admiral Inglis then stated that he
supposed that this fact would be written across the face of the report; that
it was a naval subject, and that the Military Attaché, for example, had
picked it up and given the information to the Naval Attaché. Admiral
Inglis went on to state that the
Military Attaché could, for example, write across the face of the report “I
have given this information to the Naval Attaché.”
General Chamberlin stated that he did
not want to change his system since his people were accustomed to put in
reports on duplicating pads and as these reports came in they were placed on
a mimeograph machine and the number of copies indicated by the Reading Panel
were run off. Thus copies are available for State, Navy, A–2 and C.I.G.
Mr. Eddy then stated that he foresaw
difficulties in the future if the State Department, for example,
disseminated widely and also had Reading Panels and disseminated reports
from military and naval observers, and some dissemination was made the other
way around. Mr. Eddy went on to state
that he felt that distribution of reports should be made by the Department
having primary interest.
General Chamberlin then stated that
there could be very easily inserted a statement in the report which would
indicate to whom the report had been submitted.
Mr. Eddy suggested that paragraph 2 c
could possibly read “… field representatives of the agency most concerned.
However, the collector may send copies to his own agency.”
General Chamberlin stated that he did
not object to that wording. However, he wanted to be sure that everyone knew
of the kind of copy used by the Intelligence Division, namely, a repeating
pad. He went on to state that the Intelligence Division made distribution
within its own agency and that they could attempt to keep from distributing
to other agencies unless such agencies’ representatives on the Reading Panel
insisted on having the information.
Mr. Eddy questioned whether or not
there were “other people” on the Reading Panel.
General Chamberlin stated that the
only agencies outside of the War Department having representatives on the
Intelligence Division Reading Panel were the State and Navy Departments, and
occasionally C.I.G.
Mr. Eddy then suggested that paragraph
2 c of the proposed C.I.G. Directive read:
“Intelligence information material regardless of the collector shall
wherever possible be transmitted immediately to the field representative of
the agency most concerned. However, the collector may send copies to his own
agency.”
Mr. Eddy then distributed a proposed
change in the wording of the first page of the proposed N.I.A. Directive. Mr. Eddy, after some discussion of this
proposal, stated that political and economic intelligence had been bracketed
in the State Department for a number of years. Furthermore, modern economics
are no more political, as related to political, that we used to study in
school. It now pertains to industrial establishments, in addition to
protection for most of our American trade. The State Department is quite
prepared to have economic intelligence not allocated, but recognized as a
vital interest.
General Chamberlin stated that this
was difficult for him to go along with and that he could say frankly that he
thought it was splitting a field that should never be split. He went on to
say that the field of intelligence covered not only collection but also
production of intelligence, and it was his feeling and had been all along
that the Intelligence Advisory Board should get down to the fundamental
principles and solve the overall responsibilities for those departments for
the whole intelligence field, as suggested at the last meeting of the
Intelligence Advisory Board. General Chamberlin then said that apparently the Intelligence
Advisory Board was not in complete agreement along these lines so he was
willing to go along with this splitting of the collection field, before the
Intelligence Advisory Board
tackled the fundamental principles since he thought that this, perhaps, was
a forward step.
General Vandenberg said that he
agreed with the ultimate objective as stated by General Chamberlin and that this was a forward
step. He went on to say that the Intelligence Advisory Board was going to
have to cooperate and bite this problem off piece by piece. General Vandenberg further said that
there are many things that the Intelligence Advisory Board can not now agree
upon. However, there were some things on which there could be agreement by
one or two of the members giving room.
General Samford stated that he thought it would be
better to keep the allocation by subject, which was a step forward, in the
proposed C.I.G. Directive, instead of
placing it in the proposed N.I.A.
Directive.
General Vandenberg said that he
agreed with General Samford’s statement, but if, as we
go along, we find that we need something else done, amendments could be
made. Further, that he would rather make amendments than make the original
directives too broad.
Mr. Eddy stated that he wished to
propose that paragraph 1 b of the proposed N.I.A. Directive be changed to read as follows: “The American
Ambassador or Minister, or the ranking U.S. Foreign Service Officer of each
Diplomatic Mission or Foreign Service Post shall be responsible for insuring
proper implementation of a coordinated collection program in that area. In
areas where a U.S. Commander has the predominant responsibility, he is the
Senior U.S. Representative responsible for insuring proper implementation of
a coordinated collection program in that area.”
Captain Davis then stated that the Navy had a comment to
make. The 7th Fleet, for instance, operates outside the governing principles
of this entirely. That thought was interchecked in C.I.G. 18/2 and was in line as recommended. He asked if
something similar to the following could not be put back—“Where foreign
service establishments and a senior U.S. military commander both have
jurisdiction in an area, each will be responsible for the activities of the
personnel under his administrative control.”
General Vandenberg then stated that
this could be accomplished by the agencies’ writing their people their
understanding of this Directive in the areas in question. He suggested that
instructions by the home offices of the agencies be coordinated with ICAPS and the representatives of the agencies
in order that the instructions be written in unison. General Vandenberg went on to say that
this coordination could well be centered in ICAPS since that was where the agencies and C.I.G. come together.
Mr. Eddy suggested that there would be
another sentence added to paragraph 1 b of the proposed N.I.A. Directive to read as follows: “This does not apply to the intelligence
personnel directed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Theatre Commanders.”
General Chamberlin stated that he was
somewhat confused about the words “Senior U.S. representative” and said that
he was perfectly agreeable to using the words “Senior Diplomatic
representative.”
General Vandenberg then suggested
that paragraph 1 b of the proposed N.I.A.
Directive read as follows: “The senior U.S. representative in each foreign
area where the United States maintains a foreign service mission shall be
responsible for the coordination of all collection activities within his
area, and for the proper implementation of the requirements and
responsibilities of the respective agencies.”
Mr. Eddy stated that “If you don’t
care about any recognition in the occupied areas, I don’t differ from
that.”
General Vandenberg stated that it
was up to the agencies to send out the proper instructions. However, he
recommended that in any border line cases that the Intelligence Advisory
Board get together on such cases before the instructions were sent to the
field.
Mr. Eddy then stated that this
recommendation was all right with the State Department.
Captain Davis stated that the Navy would like to have it
in the minutes that this would not specifically apply to the operating
forces.
General Chamberlin suggested that
paragraph 1 b of the proposed N.I.A.
Directive be changed to read as follows: “For the coordination of all
collection activities in his area within the spirit of the principles
enunciated herein.” He further stated that he believed that it was a mistake
to charge the Ambassadors with the implementation of someone else’s
directive and authorize them in the line of command of that particular
department since the Ambassadors were charged with coordination.
Mr. Eddy said that he felt that
General Chamberlin’s restriction
should be in the heading and not in any one sub-paragraph since it applies
only to the limits of this Directive within the limits of principle.
General Chamberlin stated that he
would hesitate to give the Ambassadors authority to do anything they might
desire. He further stated that his statement above was binding on them (the
Ambassadors) since the Ambassadors should coordinate collection of
intelligence in accordance with the agreement reached by the Intelligence
Advisory Board.
General Vandenberg repeated his
suggestion that paragraph 1 b of the proposed N.I.A. Directive read as previously indicated.
General Chamberlin then stated that he
wanted it very definitely understood that his agreement with this paragraph
confines the responsibility of the implementation of the coordination
measures, not the implementation of the intelligence collection.
General Vandenberg stated that he
thought that General Chamberlin’s
understanding had to be accepted since he (General Chamberlin) had certain responsibilities as
does the Chief of Naval Intelligence.
General Chamberlin then suggested
another change that he had in mind which might help to clarify paragraph 1 f
of the proposed N.I.A. Directive, which
change reads as follows: “After the words ‘transmission to’ insert
‘respective home offices in Washington.’ Paragraph 1 f would then read: ‘…
abroad are individually responsible for the collection and for the
appropriate transmission to their respective home offices in Washington
…’”
General Chamberlin further stated that
the above change was suggested since he wanted to be sure that Military
Attachés would not transmit information direct to the State and Navy
Departments here in Washington.
General Vandenberg stated that he
did not feel that this change was necessary since the Intelligence
Division’s instructions to its MA’s could prevent any such action.
General Chamberlin stated that the
reason he made this point was because it might violate another Directive
which was on its way for consideration.
Mr. Eddy noted that if General
Chamberlin’s suggested change
above was adopted, it would prevent certain coordination in the field.
After further discussion it was decided to leave paragraph 1 f of the
proposed N.I.A. Directive as originally
written.
General Chamberlin asked if he was
correct in judging that this was authority given by the National
Intelligence Authority to the Ambassadors, not the State Department, as the
senior representative.
Mr. Eddy stated that he thought that
it was broader than that and that it was a matter of the President’s
representative abroad.
General Chamberlin then stated that he
just wanted to be sure that it was authority given to the Ambassadors in
view of their position.
Mr. Eddy went on to state that the
Ambassador’s Chargé d’Affaires represented him just as a Deputy Commander
and that the Chargé d’Affaires had all the Ambassador’s authority in his
absence.
Captain Davis then stated that he wanted to indicate in
the minutes that as far as the Army and Navy are concerned that the
allocations contained in the proposed N.I.A.
Directive were a little broad and that he would like to bring forth
allocations made in the joint letter between the Army and Navy in August,
1945.Not found. Captain
Davis asked whether or not these allocations would
still in fact be in effect.
General Vandenberg stated that the
allocations had purposely been left broad.
General Chamberlin stated that he
thought that the agreement mentioned by Captain Davis
would still stand.
General Vandenberg stated that he
could not say that this agreement was still in effect and that it was
between the Army and Navy. General
Vandenberg commented—“I can not agree or disagree.”
The Intelligence Advisory Board adjourned without approving C.I.G. 18/3.
Note:
Subsequently, the Intelligence Advisory Board, by voting slip, approved
C.I.G. 18/3, (which has been published
as N.I.A. Directive No. 7)Issued January 2, 1947, as NIA Directive No. 7, Document
181. The IAB sometimes used the
“voting slip” procedure—in effect, a “mail ballot—” to decide questions,
especially those already discussed extensively at meetings of the Board.
Before the procedure was used in this instance, however, there appears
to have been another meeting of the IAB
on December 20, see Document 180 and the
minutes of the ninth meeting of the Advisory Committee on Intelligence
in the Supplement. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG
353, Records of Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State
Department, Lot File No. 122, Records of the Secretary’s Staff Committee
1944–47, Box 94) No minutes of the December 20 meeting have been found,
however, and the numbered sequence of IAB meetings does not reflect a session on that date. The
CIG implementing document was issued
as CIG Directive No. 18, Document 183. with the following
changes:
Paragraph 2 c of the proposed C.I.G.
Directive to read “Intelligence information and material regardless of the
collector shall, wherever possible, be transmitted immediately to the field
representative of the agency most concerned. However, the collector may also
send copies to his own agency.” inserted as paragraph 1 b of N.I.A. Directive No. 7.
Insertion of sub-paragraphs 2 a and c, as amended, of the proposed C.I.G. Directive into N.I.A. Directive No. 7, as paragraph 1 a and b,
respectively.
Paragraph 1 b of the proposed N.I.A.
Directive to read as follows: “The Senior U.S. representative in each
foreign area where the United States maintains a foreign service post shall
be responsible for the coordination of all collection activities in his area
and the proper implementation of that coordination within the spirit of the
principles enunciated herein.” inserted in N.I.A. Directive No. 7 as paragraph 1 c.
Paragraph 1 c of the proposed N.I.A.
Directive was amended as follows: “In order to avoid unproductive
duplication and uncoordinated overlap all collection facilities will be
utilized to their maximum within budgetary limitations for the production of
that full flow of intelligence material which is the major need of all
departments.” and inserted in N.I.A.
Directive No. 7 as paragraph 1 d.
180. Memorandum From the Chairman (Eddy) to the Members of the Advisory
Committee on IntelligenceSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 353, Records of Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental
Committees—State Department, Lot File No. 122, Records of the
Secretary’s Staff Committee 1944–47, Box 94. Confidential.Washington, December 24, 1946.
I enclose a copy of the National Intelligence Authority Directive
“Coordination of Collection Activities” as agreed by the Intelligence
Advisory Board at its meeting with the Directive of Central Intelligence
December 20, 1946.Not printed. For the
directive as issued, see Document
181.
So far as the text is concerned, it is identical with the draft submitted to
the ACINot
found. at the special meeting December 20, 1946, with the
following exceptions: Paragraph 1b now reads “shall wherever possible be transmitted
immediately to the field representative” instead of the former
phrase “shall wherever possible be transmitted directly to the
agency most concerned.” This change makes it clearer that the
intelligence is to be handed over in the
field, and eliminates the ambiguity of the earlier reading
which might have been construed to mean that a Military Attaché, for
example, should send a political report to the Department of State,
or that a Vice Consul should send a piece of military intelligence
directly to the War Department.Paragraph 1c has been entirely rewritten. In the draft submitted
to the special ACI meeting it will
be recalled that this paragraph read as follows: “The American
Ambassador or Minister, or the ranking U.S. Foreign Service Officer,
of each Diplomatic Mission or Foreign Service Post shall be
responsible for insuring proper implementation of a coordinated
collection program in that area. In areas where a U.S. Commander has
the predominant responsibility, he is the Senior U.S. Representative
responsible for insuring proper implementation of a coordinated
collection program in that area.” The effort to define the Senior
U.S. Representative abroad as being always either the Senior Foreign
Service Officer or a U.S. Commander of an Occupied Area was objected
to by the intelligence agencies of the armed forces as not covering
the ground. They pointed out that it would leave undefined the
responsibilities of the intelligence personnel of the 7th Fleet or
of other military and naval areas which overlap at points with the
territory of foreign service missions. I pointed out that we were
not concerned with such intelligence personnel who, of course,
performed their duties to the Fleet or Theater Commander, but were only concerned
with coordination of intelligence in areas where there is a foreign
service post. It was agreed, therefore, to restrict the NIA Directive to areas where the United
States maintains a foreign service post, whether Embassy, Legation,
Consulate General, Consulate or Vice Consulate. There was no dissent
from the well known fact that in all such areas the U.S. diplomatic
or consular representative is the Senior U.S. representative for
that area.
It will be recalled that the interest of the Department is largely confined
to 1a, 1b and 1c of the enclosed Directive, around which all of the argument
centered. Paragraphs d to g represent no change from earlier texts of
paragraphs prepared and insisted upon by other intelligence agencies.
As a result of the very controversial and sometimes stormy meeting I should
like to attempt at this point to assess the gains made by this agreement
and, at the same time, to anticipate disappointment which will be
inevitable, in my opinion. The gains are that we have now a clear
recognition by the members of the National Intelligence Authority (including
CIG, G–2,
ONI and A–2) of the fields of primary
responsibility for collecting and reporting of positive intelligence abroad.
This allocation set forth in 1a is further supported in 1b by a clear
recognition of the property right of each Department to receive and transmit
intelligence within its field of responsibility, no matter who first may
have come into possession of such intelligence.
On the other hand, no intelligence agency at the meeting was willing to deny
to its field representatives the right to transmit to his own superiors in
Washington copies of any and all intelligence collected by him, without
regard to what the subject matter might be. While, therefore, the
information and, presumably, the official report, is made by the field
representative of the Department most concerned, copies may continue to go
to other Departments. I inquired closely about this matter and discovered
that in the War Department, for example, all reports from the Attachés are
sent in on “mats” capable of reproduction like our hectographs. It would
appear, therefore, that these “copies” will not differ in material form or
number from original reports within the field of the War Department’s
primary interest. I was advised at the meeting that if the Department of
State does not wish to see these copies, which will be required by the War
Department for internal distribution for staff purposes, the Department of
State has only to instruct its representatives at the Reading Panel to
ignore Service reports on political matters and not burden the Department of
State’s eyes or files therewith!
Furthermore, I was told in emphatic terms, and it was recorded in the IAB Minutes,No
minutes of the December 20 IAB meeting
have been found. that the armed services recognize the Senior
Foreign Service Officer at each
foreign service post as “the Senior U.S. Representative” by virtue of his
seniority on the spot and in accordance with diplomatic precedence. They do
not consider that this Directive permits the Department of State in
Washington to police the collection activities abroad of the field personnel
of the armed forces, each of whom, they insist, will continue to receive
orders from his own Department. The implication of this position to me is
clear: that any dissatisfaction with duplication of effort or with
uncoordinated collection and reporting in the field, will have to be
remedied by action taken on the spot by the Ambassador, Minister or Senior
Foreign Service Officer, and not by protests to the other intelligence
agencies in Washington. The Senior Foreign Service Officer has been
recognized as “responsible for the coordination of all collection activities
in his area and for the proper implementation of that coordination.” I hope
this will suffice to secure the proper division of functions, but if it does
not it will obviously be useless to attempt to regulate activities of the
other Departments around an NIA table. In
the event that a foreign service mission is unable to secure the proper
local cooperation it may be necessary to refer the matter directly to a
meeting of the Secretaries of State, War and Navy for action on the highest
level.
William A. EddyPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
181. National Intelligence Authority Directive No. 7Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132.
Confidential.Washington, January 2, 1947.
COORDINATION OF COLLECTION ACTIVITIES
The following over-all policies and objectives are established by the
National Intelligence Authority for the interdepartmental coordination
of collection activities so that measures may be taken promptly to
effect sound and efficient utilization of the various departmental
overseas collecting and reporting services: There shall be an allocation within certain broad categories
of agency responsibility for collection in the field, as
follows: Political—State DepartmentCultural—State DepartmentSociological—State DepartmentMilitary—War DepartmentNaval—Navy DepartmentEconomic—Each agency in accordance with its respective
needsScientific—Each agency in accordance with its
respective needsIntelligence information and material regardless of the
collector, shall, wherever possible, be transmitted immediately
to the field representative of the agency most concerned.
However, the collector may also send copies to his own
agency.The senior U.S. representative in each foreign area where the
United States maintains a foreign service post shall be
responsible for the coordination of all collection activities in
his area and the proper implementation of that coordination
within the spirit of the principles enunciated herein.In order to avoid unproductive duplication and uncoordinated
overlap all collection facilities will be utilized to their
maximum within budgetary limitations for the production of that
full flow of intelligence material which is the major need of
all departments.There shall be free and unrestricted interdepartmental flow of
intelligence information and intelligence to meet the recognized
secondary need of each department for intelligence usually
prepared or obtained by other departments. At present this
Directive is interpreted to apply only to those departments
represented by the permanent members of the Intelligence
Advisory Board.Common sense shall be applied in the implementation of these
established over-all policies and objectives to insure the full
utilization of individual initiative and favorable contacts by
collecting agents.No interpretation of these established over-all policies and
objectives shall negate the basic principle that all
departmental representatives abroad are individually responsible
for the collection and for the appropriate transmission to
Washington of all intelligence material of possible usefulness
to their departments and to the effective accomplishment of the
national intelligence mission.
182. Memorandum From the Chief of the Interdepartmental Coordinating and
Planning Staff, Central Intelligence Group (Edgar) to the Assistant Director for Reports and
Estimates (Huddle)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–804, Item 29. Confidential. The source text is a
copy transcribed for the CIA Historian on July 16, 1952. This copy gives
no indication of the sender but the document appears to be identical to
one described in Darling, The
Central Intelligence Agency, p. 141. This memorandum is
referred to as a draft in a memorandum from Montague to the Assistant Director for Reports and
Estimates, January 29. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–450) See the Supplement.Washington, January 13, 1947.
SUBJECT
Program for ORE
As you know, I consider ORE as the heart of
CIG and believe that our reputation with
the President and the agencies will depend more on the intelligence produced
by ORE than on any other activity.
1. Current Intelligence. I have therefore been
somewhat concerned with the findings of the adequacy survey conducted by
OCD.Memorandum from Olsen to DCI, December 9, 1946. (Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 80–01731R, Box 43, Folder 1) Edgar also commented on this OCD survey in a memorandum to the Executive to the DCI, January 2. (Ibid., Folder 5)
Although there are several parts of the OCD
report that I know you will heed in your continuing effort to improve the
ORE output, I invite special attention
to the comment attributed to the Aide to Admiral Leahy:
“It appears that the concept of the summaries has changed somewhat
since their beginning. Originally they were intended primarily to
keep the President informed and secondarily for the information of
the Secretaries of State, War and Navy. Now, in view of the
dissemination given to the summaries, it seems they are designed as
much for the information of planners as for the President.”
I see in this some small feeling of pique which we must
overcome promptly.
2. I believe that you, while making plans to correct this situation, should
also review your whole allocation of production responsibility. This request
is based on past performance and on those future requirements which I
foresee as a result of my conversation with NIA and IAB members, both in
regular meetings and in personal talks.
3. I therefore request your prompt consideration of and comment on the
following proposals:
A. that you designate certain members of your staff as current
intelligence officers who will have as their sole or principal
responsibility the production of current intelligence.
4. Although the work of the current intelligence officers must be closely
integrated with the work of the strategic intelligence researchers, I think
you will agree that two distinct types of personality and abilities are
required for the two types of work.
5. I am not yet sure in my own mind whether these current intelligence
officers should be centralized in a special unit where they will, with the
assistance of an editor, produce the current intelligence daily digest; or
whether they should be decentralized in the several branches with the editor
centralized close to the Assistant Director.
6. With this specialization, the CIG should
be able to concentrate on meeting the complaints recorded in the adequacy
survey.
7. My reading of that survey leads me to believe that in trying to meet the
needs of several levels requiring foreign intelligence with one series of
reports, all of which are receiving almost identical distribution, we are
not fully meeting the requirements of any. We appear to be overwriting for
some and underwriting for others.
8. I propose that we prepare a special daily for the President, so written
that it should reach the President regularly, in its original form, and
without the need for any preliminary annotations by aides. This will require
very special selection and writing.
9. I propose that we supplement this for NIA
members with additional items which although not worthy currently of
Presidential notice should be brought to the attention of the NIA members.
10. Current Intelligence Summaries. The recent NIA allocation of collection responsibilities
places on CIG the job of meeting the several
agencies’ requirements for intelligence secondary to their own but necessary
to the development of their staff intelligence. I believe this can be met if
CIG revises its weekly in such a way
that it will become a Current Intelligence Summary of the preceding period.
Well done, these should go far toward meeting the G–2, A–2, and ONI requirements
at the working level for foreign intelligence outside their specialized
fields.
11. Strategic Intelligence. CIG has received much praise for its ORE No. 1.See footnote 4, Document 174.
B. that ORE issue situation reports
on the several strategic areas of the world.
12. Since the area branches are divided according to such areas, each branch
should produce a Strategic Intelligence Estimate on a monthly basis. Each
new issue should supersede the previous issue, the latter being recalled for
destruction. Strategic Intelligence Estimates should also be prepared by the
Functional Branches for their several subjects. If well done and kept
currently up to date, these estimates should come to be regarded as forming a handbook for the reference
purposes of policy officers and intelligence chiefs. To my knowledge no such
handbook now exists.
13. Special Estimates. The above publications should
be supplemented from time to time by special estimates as and when special
developments so warrant. In most cases special estimates should be written
for special recipients.
14. Nothing is more indicative of poor planning and lack of appreciation of
recipients’ needs than the indiscriminate distribution of intelligence
reports. Overwriting places a burden on aides to interpolate explanations;
underwriting demands the marking up of reports to indicate “must reading”
and “skip reading”. I desire that CIG do
this editorial work at the time of initial preparation in so far as it may
be possible.
15. Basic Intelligence.
C. that you create a working group in ORE, drawn from present personnel of the several
branches to prepare an outline for the development of National
Intelligence Digests. If possible this group should be balanced
among geographic areas, functional subjects, and IAB agencies.
16. Discussions in the IAB indicate that some
form of responsibility in this field will fall to CIG in the near future. The Defense ProjectAn early effort to produce a digest of basic
intelligence on the Soviet Union and a forerunner of later efforts to
produce basic intelligence “encyclopedias.” For the early history of the
Defense Project, see Darling, The
Central Intelligence Agency, pp. 84–86. group is
revising its outline as a proposed outline for all areas. I desire that
CIG give sufficient advance study to
this matter so that when I require a CIG
recommendation it will be forthcoming promptly. The group should consider
all obtainable outlines, whether prepared by IAB or other U.S. Government or private agencies or by foreign
governments or private enterprises.
17. In collecting and integrating these outlines, collection should be made
of the related handbooks so that when once approved the outline can be
fleshed out in part and initially at least with this material.
18. I believe that if the above program is adopted by ORE, I should receive fewer queries from the agencies as to
when CIG is going to produce intelligence.
In proposing this program I do not want you to believe that I am placing
overemphasis on publication. Much of the work of ORE must continue to be laying that groundwork which prepares
for emergencies. And I believe that ORE will
be called upon more and more to do oral briefings. But I do consider that
the above program is a minimum essential to our reputation.
183. Central Intelligence Group Directive No. 18Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 130.
Confidential.Washington, January 23, 1947.
COORDINATION OF COLLECTION ACTIVITIES
Memorandum by the Director of Central Intelligence
To implement the overall policies and objectives established by the
National Intelligence Authority for the interdepartmental coordination
of collection activitiesSee Document 181. the following program
is announced:Responsibilities. There has been made the following allocation within
broad categories of agency responsibility for collection
in the field: Political—State DepartmentCultural—State DepartmentSociological—State DepartmentMilitary—War DepartmentNaval—Navy DepartmentEconomic—Each agency in accordance with its
respective needsScientific—Each agency in accordance with its
respective needsIn preparing reports under these allocations,
reporting agents will take full cognizance of the
collateral or secondary needs of other agencies for such
information. Determination of these needs may be made by
consultation with appropriate collecting agents or by
references to pertinent agency collection
directives.Intelligence information and material, regardless of
the collector, shall wherever possible be transmitted
immediately to the local field representative of the
agency most concerned. However, the collector may also
send copies to his own agency.There shall be free and unrestricted interdepartmental
flow of intelligence information and intelligence to
meet the recognized collateral or secondary need of each
department for intelligence usually prepared or obtained
by other departments. This directive shall be
interpreted to apply only to those departments
represented on the Intelligence Advisory Board by
permanent members.Designation and Duties of the Coordinating
Official. In all areas where the United States maintains a
foreign service establishment, the senior U.S.
representative will be responsible for the coordination
of all collection activities within his area to the end
that the announced intelligence objectives of the
Government as a whole shall be most efficiently and
expeditiously accomplished.Field collection shall generally follow but not be
limited by the allocated responsibilities of the
respective departments or agencies. The coordinating
authority, in the implementation of the respective
collection programs, shall take full advantage of the
individual abilities and contacts of his staff
members.To implement this program each coordinating authority
shall, wherever practicable and within the limits of
security requirements: Establish a central intelligence file for the
use of all authorized personnel.Insure that unproductive collection
duplication is avoided; and that the information
obtained is properly channeled.Insure whenever one or more of the
departmental intelligence agencies are not
represented at a foreign post or whenever the
appropriate representative is unable for any
reason to carry out his mission, that the
reporting responsibility is allocated to the
extent possible to other members of the staff.
When such delegation is other than temporary, the
responsible officer will advise the agency
concerned through his parent agency of his action
and the reason therefor.Responsibilities of Collecting Agents. Field representatives of each intelligence department
or agency, whether permanently attached to the
establishment or on temporary duty in the area, will be
directed by their department or agency to: Cooperate in the coordination measures
prescribed by the responsible officer as set forth
in paragraph B above.Promptly bring to the attention of the proper
representatives of other departments or agencies
any intelligence information or material of
concern to them.Collect information and prepare intelligence
reports other than within their own categories
when specifically directed by their agency or by
the senior U.S. representative.Make available to the senior U.S.
representative all collection directives and
instructions which are received from their
departments.Nothing in this directive shall be interpreted as
authorizing any officer to delay, suppress, or make
substantive changes in any intelligence report without
the concurrence of the officer submitting the report.
Intelligence information and material which may have no
significance to field representatives in a single area
or which may appear to be at complete variance with the
overall trend may have great significance and form a
definite part of a picture being developed by the
individual department or by the Central Intelligence
Group. Any dissenting opinion or commentary will either
be incorporated in the report, or submitted separately
as promptly as possible.Subject to the limitations of security, reports will
bear the following information: Name of collector and name of reporter.The CIG index
number (when established).Local distribution given the report.In order further to assure the most effective accomplishment of the
national intelligence mission through the avoidance of conflicting or
duplicating instructions to the field, agency directives implementing or
affecting the above procedures or policies as well as directives
assigning collection missions in the unallocated fields of economics or
scientific information will be coordinated with CIG prior to issuance.Any existing instructions or directives in conflict with the
provisions of this directive will be rescinded or appropriately
amended.
184. Memorandum From the Chief of the Intelligence Staff, Central
Intelligence Group (Montague) to the Assistant Director for Reports and
Estimates (Huddle)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–450. Confidential. The source text is a
transcript prepared for the CIA Historian on December 16,
1952.Washington, January 29, 1947.
SUBJECT
The Mission of OREThe true primary mission of ORE is
clear in the light of the President’s Letter and of N.I.A. Directives No. 1 and No. 2.Documents 71, 141, and 142. It is to produce strategic and national policy
intelligence through the correlation, evaluation, and final synthesis of
all intelligence information and finished departmental intelligence
available in the State, War and Navy Departments and other Federal
agencies. By “strategic and national policy intelligence” should be
understood that intelligence required at the highest policy making and
planning level as a basis for the determination of national policy and
strategy in the broadest sense. It relates to those issues which are of
collective concern to the State, War, and Navy Departments, or,
conversely, which are not the exclusive concern of any of them. In this concept ORE has no occasion to duplicate or compete
with departmental intelligence agencies—rather it is charged to make
full use of them and of their product—but ORE does have the function of final evaluation and final
synthesis. The departmental agencies are tributary to it. Its own
contribution is the added value provided by authoritative final
interpretation and synthesis for the benefit, primarily, of the high
authorities whom it serves, and incidentally of the contributing
agencies. It must be supported and manned in such a way as to assure
that it does speak with recognized authority.Since the inception of N.I.A.
Directive No. 5Document
160. this clear concept has been confused. That
paper introduced considerable ambiguity regarding a research function in
ORE. No new authority was required
to expand the staff provided to perform the supplemental research found
necessary to accomplish the mission indicated in paragraph 1. The
initial draft of the Directive, however, had reference to basic research, and so alarmed the departmental
agencies by its implications regarding duplication and eventual
supercession of their activities that ever since there has had to be
resort to all sorts of expedient explanations intended to allay these
fears. There is reason to suppose that the confusions and contradictions
introduced in the course of these explanations result from their
expediency and lack of candor. Their general tenor is to give verbal
assurance against duplication of functions while at the same time
justifying the establishment of duplicate research facilities. To this
end it is said that ORE will not conduct
research in fields of primary interest to any department, but will
conduct research ab initio in certain undefined fields not of primary
interest to anyone. These “gaps” cannot be defined because they do not
exist. If, however, this doctrine were taken literally, it would reduce
ORE to the status of a drudge
performing miscellaneous tasks in the service of the departmental
agencies, inverting the order indicated in N.I.A. Directives No. 1 and 2. Never, during the last six
months, has there been any indication that C.I.G. understood, or was even aware of, the mission
indicated in the preceding paragraph, although that is the primary
mission of C.I.G. in the terms of its
basic charter, the President’s letter.Until this dichotomy is resolved there can be no firm basis for
planning the organization, recruitment, and work program or ORE, nor any stability in our relationships
with departmental agencies. Hitherto the cart has been put before the
horse—we have been required to devise an organization and a T/O to
accomplish we know not what, and are now called upon to state the
qualifications required in personnel in ignorance of the tasks they may
have to perform. It is impossible to determine such qualifications, or
to induce the most highly qualified personnel to accept positions in ORE, until this situation has been clarified and
stabilized. In any case, no coherent program of research can be based on
the concept indicated in paragraph 2. The departmental agencies are as
confused as we as to where they stand, and react accordingly. In short,
the failure of ICAPS to establish a
clear concept of the mission of ORE and
of its functional relationship to the departmental agencies is
preventing the development of ORE as an
effective instrument for the accomplishment of any purpose.Ludwell L. MontaguePrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
185. Minutes of the 9th Meeting of the National Intelligence
AuthoritySource: Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–245. Top Secret. No drafting
information appears on the source text. The meeting was held at the
Department of State. Also reproduced in CIA Cold War
Records: The CIA under Harry
Truman, pp. 113–121.Washington, February 12, 1947, 11
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentSecretary of State George C.
Marshall, in the ChairSecretary of War Robert P.
PattersonSecretary of the Navy James
ForrestalFleet Admiral William D.
Leahy, Personal Representative of the PresidentGeneral Hoyt S. Vandenberg,
Director of Central IntelligenceAlso PresentAssistant Secretary of War Howard C.
PetersenMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMr. H. Freeman Matthews, Department of
StateCaptain Robert L. Dennison, USNMr. James S. Lay, Jr., Central
Intelligence GroupSecretariatMr. J. S. Earman, Acting
Secretary
Coordination of Intelligence Activities
Relating to Foreign Atomic Energy Intelligence Developments and
Potentialities (N.I.A. 6)Document 162. NIA 6 as approved was issued as NIA Directive 9, April 18; Document 194.
Secretary Patterson gave a brief
report on the present status of N.I.A. 6. He
stated that the Atomic Energy Commission desired to retain three people to go over information
contained in the files to be transferred to the Central Intelligence Group.
He said that these three people were to search these files for information
pertaining to uranium deposits and such information was to be retained by
the Commission. Secretary Patterson
suggested that C.I.G. take up the matter of
the transfer of the personnel with Mr. Lilienthal.
After some discussion,
The National Intelligence Authority:
Agreed to the transfer of the personnel mentioned in N.I.A. 6 and directed the Director of Central Intelligence to
work out the details with Mr. Lilienthal. (Transfer
subsequently completed on 18 February 1947)
Report by the Director of Central Intelligence
At Secretary Marshall’s request,
General Vandenberg stated that
his last reportSee Document
169. was rather comprehensive in pointing out the
accomplishments of C.I.G. since its
inception. However, this time he wished to report some of the difficulties
encountered by C.I.G. He said that before
taking up these difficulties he wished to point out a few accomplishments
recently effected by C.I.G.
General Vandenberg said that when it
was first agreed that the C.I.G take over
the activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the South American
field, there was some doubt as to whether C.I.G could ably accomplish this assignment. He mentioned that
he had received a letterNot found. from
Ambassador Pawley which commended the smooth transfer
of these activities accomplished by the C.I.G. representative attached to his staff. General Vandenberg also mentioned that
Mr. Dawson of the State Department had also stated that
the C.I.G.’s representatives who had
replaced the F.B.I personnel were of a
particularly high type. General
Vandenberg brought out the point that C.I.G. had a roving mission to check these newly assigned
personnel in South America and their reports indicated that they were
carrying out their functions in an exemplary manner.
General Vandenberg then gave a brief
report on C.I.G.’s monitoring of foreign
broadcasts and stated C.I.G. was now
preparing to negotiate a new agreement with the British Broadcasting
Corporation for better exchange of material and the future transfer of
C.I.G.’s Cairo Monitoring Station
covering the Middle East from Cairo to Cyprus.
[2 paragraphs (19 lines of source text) not
declassified]
General Vandenberg pointed out that
C.I.G. was coordinating the exploitation
of documents collected in the Far East and that plans are now being
completed for similar exploitation of documents from Europe.
General Vandenberg stated he would
now like to mention some of the principal difficulties being encountered by
C.I.G. in its operations. He said that
what he believed to be essential coordination to reduce duplication had been
retarded by an uncertainty as to the directive authority of the Director of
Central Intelligence. He said that the President specified that the Director
of Central Intelligence shall “plan for the
coordination of such of the activities of the intelligence agencies of the
departments as relate to the national security and
recommend to the National Intelligence Authority the establishment
of such overall policies and objectives as will assure the most effective
accomplishment of the national intelligence mission.” (Paragraph 3 of
President’s letter of 22 January 1946, emphasis added)
General Vandenberg further stated
that the National Intelligence Authority specified that: “Recommendations
approved by this Authority will where practicable govern the intelligence
activities of the separate departments represented herein. The members of
the Intelligence Advisory Board will each be responsible for insuring that
approved recommendations are executed within their respective departments.”
(NIA Directive No. 1, par. 4)
General Vandenberg said that the
National Intelligence Authority specified that: “The Director of Central
Intelligence is hereby authorized and directed to act for
this Authority in coordinating all federal foreign activities
related to the national security to insure that the overall policies and
objectives established by this Authority are properly implemented and
executed.” (NIA Directive No. 5, par. 3,
emphasis added)
General Vandenberg pointed out that
it was the feeling of the agencies (Intelligence Advisory Board) that the
current interpretation of coordination was “by mutual agreement.” This
placed the Director of Central Intelligence only in the position of an
executive secretary to the I.A.B. and that
he did not believe this was what was contemplated by the N.I.A.General Vandenberg then pointed out
that in some instances it had taken six to eight months to get agreement on
a paper. He stated that in order to rectify this he recommended that the
Director of Central Intelligence be considered as having authority similar
to that given to the Joint Research and Development Board—“The Joint
Research and Development Board shall operate within its jurisdiction as an
agency of the Secretaries of War and Navy and the necessary authority its
hereby delegated by the Secretaries of War and Navy to the Board so that its
decisions, orders and directives shall be considered as emanating from them
and shall have full force and
effect as such.” (JRDB 1/1, 6 June 1946, as
amended 3 July 1946)Not found.
General Vandenberg suggested that as
an alternative to the above recommendation that C.I.G. forward its implementing directives to the N.I.A. members for subsequent issuance from
their offices. However, such a practice would be cumbersome and involve a
great loss of time on the part of all concerned.
General Vandenberg stated that the
production of strategic and national policy intelligence has been hindered
further by an uncertainty among the agencies as to its definition. In order
to clarify this situation, C.I.G. had
developed the following definition, which he requested the N.I.A. approve: “Strategic and national policy
intelligence is that composite intelligence, interdepartmental in character,
which is required by the President and other high officers and staffs to
assist them in determining policies with respect to national planning and
security in peace and in war and for the advancement of broad national
policy. It is in that political-economic-military area of concern to more
than one agency, must be objective, and must transcend the exclusive
competence of any one department.”
General Vandenberg stated it was his
understanding that those persons who developed the plan for the creation of
a Central Intelligence Group had in mind that the C.I.G. would replace the Joint Intelligence Committee. This, so
far, had not taken place, nor had any working relationship been achieved;
further, that J.I.C. continues to have
responsibilities paralleling those of C.I.G., and until this is resolved, complete coordination,
effectiveness, and efficiency in the national intelligence mission cannot be
attained. General Vandenberg
recommended that J.I.C. be abolished, and
that C.I.G. provide the necessary
intelligence to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said, however, he believed
that some members of the J.C.S. had stated
that if this were done, it would lower the original concept of a Central
Intelligence Group. General
Vandenberg said it was difficult for him, in appearing before
appropriation committees, to defend C.I.G.’s
request for funds since he was constantly confronted with the question as to
the amount of overlap in intelligence. It was his understanding that one of
the principal tasks expected of the Director of Central Intelligence was the
reduction of such overlap to an absolute minimum.
General Vandenberg stated he would
also like to point out that when C.I.G. went
to the intelligence agencies of the War and Navy Departments for
information, there was constant friction as to whether J.I.C. or C.I.G. should have priority. In short, two agencies were asking
for the same type of
intelligence but requested in a slightly different manner. This duplication
was unnecessary and occupied the time of personnel which should be engaged
in more productive intelligence activities.
Secretary Forrestal then asked whether
the question of dissolution of the J.I.C.
and the assignment of its duties to C.I.G.
had been taken up with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
General Vandenberg answered that he
believed it had through the I.A.B.
members.
Mr. Eddy stated that he thought that
it was important now to abolish J.I.C. and
to have all interdepartmental intelligence under the C.I.G.
After some discussion,
The National Intelligence Authority:Agreed that while they believed that the J.I.C. should be abolished and its functions assumed by
C.I.G., they desired to withhold
decision until such time as it had been discussed with the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.Noted that Admiral Leahy
would take up this matter with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
At Secretary Marshall’s request,
General Vandenberg then reread
his first recommendation.
Secretary Patterson stated that he saw
no alternative to the N.I.A approving this
recommendation. He added, however, that a proviso should be inserted in the
recommendation to allow any aggrieved agency to appeal to the N.I.A. through that agency’s respective
Secretary.
General Vandenberg said it was
realized that each agency has the inherent right to appeal through its
respective Secretary any objection to a specific directive.
Admiral Leahy stated that he
recommended approval, but that he was in agreement with Secretary Patterson’s proviso.
Secretary Patterson raised the
question as to whether General
Vandenberg’s recommendation would involve C.I.G. entering into the field of operational
intelligence of the agencies.
General Vandenberg stated that this
was not the intent.
Mr. Eddy asked, if authority was
delegated by the N.IA. to the Director of
Central Intelligence that his directives shall be considered as emanating
from them, would such authority be interpreted to allow the Director of
Central Intelligence to draft personnel from other agencies to perform
specific jobs.
General Vandenberg stated that
C.I.G. had no intention of interpreting
this authority as indicated by Mr. Eddy.
Secretary Patterson asked if C.I.G. was contemplating recommending that some
of the intelligence manuals now published by the intelligence agencies of
the State, War and Navy Departments be discontinued.
General Vandenberg stated he would
like to have an opportunity to look over these publications before answering
this question.
Secretary Forrestal stated he believed
that the proviso to be added to General
Vandenberg’s recommendation under discussion should read
along the following lines: “Provided in cases of objection to specific
actions, any aggrieved agency may have access to that agency’s Secretary and
through him to the N.I.A.”
Mr. Eddy stated he assumed that any
directives, before being issued by C.I.G.,
would normally have had prior discussion by the Intelligence Advisory
Board.
General Vandenberg concurred.
The National Intelligence Authority:
Approved the recommendation that “The Director of Central Intelligence shall
operate within his jurisdiction as an agent of the Secretaries of State, War
and the Navy, and the necessary authority is hereby delegated by the
Secretaries of State, War and the Navy to the Director of Central
Intelligence so that his decisions, orders and directives shall be
considered as emanating from them and shall have full force and effect as
such, provided any aggrieved agency may have access to that agency’s
Secretary and through him to the N.I.A.”
At Secretary Marshall’s request,
General Vandenberg then
repeated his recommended definition of “Strategic and national policy
intelligence.”
After some discussion, in which General
Vandenberg pointed out the reason why an approved definition
of this term was needed,
The National Intelligence Authority:
Approved the following definition: “Strategic and national policy
intelligence is that composite intelligence, interdepartmental in character,
which is required by the President and other high officers and staffs to
assist them in determining policies with respect to national planning and
security in peace and in war and for the advancement of broad national
policy. It is in that political-economic-military area of concern to more
than one agency, must be objective, and must transcend the exclusive
competence of any one department.”
Secretary Marshall stated that in a
recent conversation Congressman Taber was concerned
from a security standpoint with reference to appropriations for intelligence
activities. Secretary Marshall
further stated that Mr. Taber had said that it appeared
to him that too many people had to
be consulted in considering such appropriations. Secretary Marshall went on to state that he believed
the best way to maintain proper security was for the President or the
Secretary of State to control these funds, and that a request should be made
for a flat appropriation.
General Vandenberg stated he had
appeared recently before a joint committee, which he was told before
appearance would consist of four or five people. However, upon arrival he
found there were actually twenty-two people present. He went on to state a
subsequent meeting had been called and he would continue to be careful of
the information presented. However, he agreed that security of intelligence
operations could best be protected by funds which should be concealed and
appropriated in a lump sum controlled by one person.
186. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Eddy) to Secretary of State MarshallSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.61/2–1547. Top
Secret. Marshall annotated this
memorandum “Hold. G.C.M.”Washington, February 15, 1947.
SUBJECT
Comment on the Central Intelligence Group
I
A central agency for national intelligence under civilian control is needed
continuously in time of peace in addition to intelligence services in the
several Departments. Its functions should include the following: Interdepartmental intelligence required by interdepartmental
agencies such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State-War-Navy
Coordinating Committee, and other agencies and commissions of the
national Government whose responsibilities extend beyond the
province of any one Department.Intelligence on matters which may be of secondary interest to any
one Department, and which would, therefore, otherwise be neglected,
but which may be of prime interest for national policy.Under-cover intelligence and espionage abroad which should not
compromise the official representatives of the United States of
America. Espionage, which is certainly needed, and which involves
the employment of unofficial agents, both American and foreign,
should be operated by an agency outside the Departments and with
funds not subject to departmental accounting.
II
The Central Intelligence Group (CIG), with
the passage of requested legislation, should be able to perform the valuable
services described above since: The CIG operates under the
National Intelligence Authority (NIA) which reports directly to the President. The NIA is composed of the Secretary of
State, as Chairman, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy,
and a personal representative of the President, thus representing a
balance between civilian and military needs.The NIA, controlling as it does
both its executive agency, the CIG,
and through its individual members, the intelligence services of the
Departments represented, is well constituted to promote the
efficient coordination of all national intelligence.
III
The CIG has already made a good beginning and
should be directed to confine itself to the following fields: Interdepartmental intelligence and other special assignments made
by the NIA.Coordination of intelligence reports produced by the several
Departments and by its own special operations to make the total
available intelligence accessible to those who guide our national
policy.Avoid entering the field of departmental intelligence where
duplication would be wasteful. Only the Army and the Navy are
technically equipped to direct their operational intelligence
services; and only the Department of State, through its Foreign
Service, attempts to cover the world with expert political and
economic reports for its daily political and economic
operations.Operate an under-cover espionage service with freedom to use for
this purpose special agents and special funds. Of all the great
nations of the world, the United States of America has lacked an
efficient espionage service which, in many critical parts of the
world, is the only way to acquire indispensable information.
IV
The CIG budget. The present plans of the
CIG contemplate a total budget of
something less than $40,000,000. for the fiscal year 1948. With the extent of CIG’s operations at present unpredictable, it
is not practicable to verify or deny their need for such a sum, with the
single exception, however, of the Office of Reports and Estimates, for which
it is believed a total personnel of 500 would be more than adequate, instead
of the 852 requested. The budget appears to be a reasonable request on the
understanding that it is a permissive maximum, to be used on projects
expressly approved in each case by the NIA.
It would seem the part of wisdom to publish only the administrative budget
for the CIG and to have the funds required
for secret and special operations segregated in a special fund entrusted to
the President, or, if that is inadvisable, to the Secretary of State, with
knowledge of that fund and an accounting of it confined to a very few
Congressional leaders.
William A. Eddy
187. Memorandum of ConversationSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/2–1947. Drafted by
Allan Evans. The memorandum was covered by a
brief handwritten transmittal note from Evans to
Eddy and had attached a
paper, possibly a draft, entitled “Relations With Other Government
Intelligence Agencies,” dated June 14, 1946. See the
Supplement.Washington, February 19,
1947.
SUBJECT
CIG Meeting, 19 February in General Vandenberg’s Office
PARTICIPANTS
General Vandenberg Mr. EddyMr. EdgarMr. HuddleMr. CullenMr. Evans
Mr. Eddy and I met with Messrs.
Edgar, Huddle, Cullen. The General indicated
the need for agreement on the mutual functions of ORE and OIR in view, among
other things, of budget. He pointed out that he and General Chamberlain had both
faced the question “what do we know about Russian strength now and five
years from now, etc., in case of war?” This involved questions of military
strength, and in the course of developing his remarks he showed clearly that
he did not think it affected us very much in the State Department and,
therefore, was primarily a matter of CIG
development. At this inconclusive point he asked if his colleagues had
anything to say.
Edgar started off by saying there was
one clear point of agreement which was that CIG should undertake the gathering and formulation for all
consumers of basic intelligence. Mr. Eddy at once commented that we of course were concerned with
the political, social, and economic sides of that enterprise and had
responsibilities. In the course of discussion the following points were
made:
The General spoke from time to time in terms of the Department’s contributing
materials but CIG doing the compilation on
these basic matters.
We presented the concept that the Departments prepared their contributions on
these and other matters of joint interest while CIG coordinated in the sense of insuring the complementary
nature of the outlines in advance and being equipped with overall experts
and evaluators who would fuse the contributions and work them into a
whole.
Edgar raised the familiar point that
these evaluators could not evaluate without covering all the intelligence
involved in the matter. We countered by saying that really high quality
people could undoubtedly act as would our own Review Section in evaluating
and appreciating intelligence through acquaintance with top-flight
materials, through understanding of style, presentation, and internal
evidence. Such top-flight evaluators and re-writers are what we most
particularly hoped to find in CIG so that
they might from a national point of view stimulate our own work and planning
and help to point out oversights and omissions in our general plans. To this
there was no objection and some appreciation by the General.
The conversation turned to the defense project.See footnote 3, Document 182. The
General made it clear that he was most anxious to secure control of the
defense project. Edgar requested that
we propose at the next opportunity that the project be transferred to CIG. It was, I think, agreed that Mr. Eddy would at least support the proposal,
if not make it at the IAB.
In regard to timing the control of CIG over
SID,Strategic Intelligence Digest, the publication in which the work of the
Defense Project was issued. Mr. Eddy indicated that the contemplated date was 1 July. It was
discussed whether, as the old SID were
completed, CIG should not take over
responsibility piecemeal for
continuing the SID project under the new
outline. I made it clear that the new SID
outline was prepared and contributed to by us as an outline for the
particular purposes of G–2 and not as a
national outline; furthermore, that no commitments for the implementation of
the outline had been made except in the old defense project agreement.
At one point Captain Cullen mentioned the great
desirability of close contacts between ORE
and OIR. Mr. Eddy emphasized the importance of this and proposed that Mr.
Huddle and I should develop
contacts at all working levels between our staffs. To this the General
explicitly assented, while at the same time injecting a phrase to show that
he thought ICAPS should participate in
such contacts.
The General at one point indicated that his great desire to establish CIG control over the SID type of enterprise was to insure proper allocation of
responsibilities among departments and notably allocation of political and
economic responsibility of State. (I take this statement to be associated in
the General’s mind with the problem of reporting from the field; it does
notThe word “not” has been inserted by hand
in the source text. modify, I believe, the thought in his mind
that all compilations of SID material shall
be performed in CIG.)
Mr. Eddy explained in general terms
the area of responsibility of the Department by pointing out that this area
of responsibility was unchanged since the time before CIG existed and comprised essentially the
processing and interpretation of reporting by Foreign Service officers from
the field. Centering about this fundamental responsibility the division of
appropriate functions properly related to the State Department’s concerns
from those additional or nationally oriented concerns of CIG could be developed.
188. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Eddy) to the Under Secretary of State (Acheson)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49,
101.61/2–2847. Confidential.Washington, February 28, 1947.
SUBJECT
Directorship of the Central Intelligence Group
I have been unable to confirm officially the report that Lt. General Hoyt S. Vandenberg will
resign as Director of Central Intelligence and will be succeeded by
Rear Admiral Roscoe H.
Hillenkoetter.Admiral Leahy noted in his diary that
the NIA had discussed the question of a
successor to Vandenberg (so he
could move on to the future Air Force) at its meeting on February 12.
(Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Papers of William D. Leahy, Leahy Diary, 1947, p. 12; February 12,
1947) The discussion was not recorded in the minutes; see Document 185. Leahy’s brief entry does not mention the names of any
potential successors. On February 17, Leahy wrote in his diary that he had obtained the
approval of all NIA members and the
President for Rear Admiral Roscoe H.
Hillenkoetter to replace Vandenberg. (Library of Congress, Manuscript Division,
Papers of William D. Leahy,
Leahy Diary, February 17,
1947, p. 13) In a note written some years later, Ludwell Montague, the chief of CIG’s Intelligence Staff (and at that time
on detail to the CIG from the Department
of State) recalled that as of February 27 or 28, Eddy’s office was not aware Hillenkoetter had been definitely
selected and that Eddy’s deputy
had approached him for his views on a State Department nomination of
Allen Dulles to succeed
Vandenberg. (Memorandum for
the record, April 7, 1970; Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–400, Item 8) Whether or not such a move takes place, I
would like to call to your attention certain matters which I feel are
important in the selection of any Director of Central Intelligence. If the
reported new appointment has not been finally decided upon by the President,
perhaps you might like to discuss this question with the Secretary. I hasten
to add that my remarks should not be construed as an attack on, or support
for, any individual. I am concerned with what I consider to be an important
basic principle, that the Director of Central Intelligence should be a
civilian.
In the thirteen months of its existence, the Central Intelligence Group
already has had two directors, each a Service representative. Should there
be a continuation of the policy of selecting directors from one of the
Services, there is always danger that demands of the appointee’s department
may result in similar early shifts in the directorship. Necessity for
continuity of leadership can hardly be overestimated, especially in a new
and growing organization like the Central Intelligence Group.
The nature of the Central Intelligence Group requires that its director be,
as far as possible, untouched by any departmental bias or influence. Under such circumstances a Service
director will always and inevitably be torn between absolute objectivity and
natural allegiance to his own Service.
Continuity and objectivity of leadership can best be assured by a director
drawn from civilian ranks and not subject to demands from or allegiance to
any single department. This seems especially true in the light of the
proposed National Security Act of 1947. Under its provisions the National
Intelligence Authority would be dissolved and its functions assumed by a
National Security Council. Since the composition of the Council is weighted
on the side of the Armed Forces, it is important that the national, as
opposed to the military, character of its central intelligence agency be
emphasized in the form of a civilian director.
William A. Eddy
189. Central Intelligence Group PaperSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–276. Confidential. For the background on this paper, see Document 185.Washington, March 12, 1947.
CIG 24
ACTION BY THE INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD ON MATTERS SUBMITTED
TO THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY
Memorandum by the Secretary
Pursuant to a request by the Chief of Naval Intelligence, the enclosed paper,
which is to be placed on the agenda of the Intelligence Advisory Board, is
circulated herewith.
J.S. EarmanPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Acting Secretary, N.I.A.
Enclosure
ACTION BY THE INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD ON MATTERS
SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY
The Problem
To establish procedure for the Intelligence Advisory Board in considering
matters submitted to the National Intelligence Authority for action.
Facts
N.I.A. Directive No. 1,Document 141.
paragraph 3, requires that all recommendations be referred to the
Intelligence Advisory Board for concurrence or comment prior to
submission to the National Intelligence Authority. However, no procedure
has been established to accomplish this action by the Intelligence
Advisory Board.
Discussion
It is believed that the requirements of N.I.A. Directive No. 1, paragraph 3, can be satisfactorily
met by formal or informal procedure, depending upon the importance of
the particular matter under consideration. If members of the
Intelligence Advisory Board were furnished copies of the agenda for the
N.I.A. meeting, together with copies
of papers or a statement of the problems up for consideration, they
could then, with respect to each item, express their concurrence, submit
comments, or request a formal meeting to discuss the matter. Such
procedure would insure that the secretaries had the views of the heads
of their own intelligence agencies when acting on all matters presented
to them.
Conclusion
It is concluded that a procedure should be established for the
Intelligence Advisory Board in considering matters being submitted to
the National Intelligence Authority for action.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the following procedure be adopted for securing
the concurrence or comments of the Intelligence Advisory Board on all
matters being submitted to the National Intelligence Authority:The agenda for the National Intelligence Authority meeting be
referred by the Director of Central Intelligence to the
Intelligence Advisory
Board, together with copies of all papers to be considered or a
statement of subjects to be discussed.Members of the Intelligence Advisory Board informally express
concurrence or submit comments on all items on the agenda to the
Director of Central Intelligence for submission by him to the
National Intelligence Authority.In case of important matters on the agenda any member of the
Intelligence Advisory Board may request a formal meeting of that
committee for the purpose of discussing such subject prior to
its submission to the National Intelligence Authority.
190. Letter From the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg) to the Chairman
of the Joint Research and Development Board (Bush)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–804, Item
46, Job 84–B00443R, Box 7. Secret. The source text is a transcript made
for the CIA Historian on July 29, 1952.Washington, March 13, 1947.
JRDB 49/3
Dear Dr. Bush: Pending the arrival of the Chief of the Scientific
Branch, I am most anxious that the Central Intelligence Group afford you
every service possible on an interim basis.
I have, therefore, issued a memorandum to my offices which sets up the
functional operation within CIG in this
respect. This system will, I believe, provide the close cooperation
envisioned by our agreement. A copy of this memorandum is attached
hereto.Dated January 10. See the
Supplement. Also attached was a March 13 memorandum by Wright, printed as an
enclosure.
I have designated Colonel Whitely as Acting Chief of the
Scientific Branch and have directed him to report to you, and to make
himself available to you and your Board for all intelligence requirements,
or other intelligence matters which you may desire. I hope you will feel
free to refer all intelligence requirements or other matters to us through
Colonel Whitely.
If, in any way, I personally, or my Assistant Director for Reports and
Estimates can be of further assistance to you at any time, please call on us
direct.
Sincerely,
Hoyt S. VandenbergPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Lieutenant General, USA
EnclosureSecret. Addressed to the CIG Assistant Directors for Reports and
Estimates, Collection and Dissemination, Operations, and Special
Operations and the Chief, Intelligence Coordinating and Planning
Staff. The source text is a transcript made for the CIA Historian on
July 29, 1952.Washington, March 13, 1947.
Memorandum by the Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence (Wright)
SUBJECT
Operations—Intelligence Relationship of CIG with JRDB
REFERENCE
“Program for JRDB–CIG Cooperation in the Field of
Scientific Intelligence,” dated 10 January 1947In accordance with Program for JRDB–CIG Cooperation,
which was jointly approved by the Director of Central Intelligence
and the Chairman, JRDB, the
following policies for the functional operation within CIG in its relations with JRDB are announced. The Chief or Acting Chief of the Scientific Branch, ORE, under supervision of the Assistant
Director for Reports and Estimates, is the Intelligence Advisor to
the Chairman, JRDB. In performing
this function he will: Report to the Chairman, JRDB, as advisor and make himself and the
facilities of his branch and the CIG as a whole fully available to him.Be the principal liaison and operational contact between
JRDB and CIG.Arrange with the control the working relationships of
appropriate offices of CIG
with offices, individuals, or committees of JRDB.Coordinate closely with JRDB to develop and pass to OCD for appropriate processing,
JRDB requirements,
requests, information, and intelligence, except those
matters subject to special handling or which cannot be
accomplished within the framework of ORE.Receive from OCD, for
processing with JRDB,
CIG requirements and
collection requests which may be susceptible of collection
from JRDB sources.In performing the above functions, he will follow the functional
organization of CIG and will be
guided by the operational policies announced by the Director. On matters concerning JRDB the
other offices of CIG will regard the
deal with the Chief of the Scientific Branch, ORE, as they would with the Chief of intelligence of a
departmental agency. Contact with operational personnel of JRDB will be arranged through the
Chief of the Scientific Branch, ORE.The Assistant Director, OSO, and
the Assistant Director, ORE, will
recommend to the Director any special arrangements necessary to the
security requirements of OSO.Nothing in this directive negates the control of the Scientific
Branch by the Assistant Director, ORE, for the purpose of producing national intelligence
in the scientific field, and general requirements related thereto or
abridges the normal relationship of the Assistant Director, ORE, with the appropriate officers of
JRDB. E.K. WrightPrinted from a copy that
bears this typed signature.Brigadier General, USA
191. Memorandum by the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (Wright)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–100, Item 5. Secret. Addressed to the CIG Assistant Directors for Reports and Estimates,
Collection and Dissemination, Operations, and Special Operations and the
Chief, Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff.Washington, March 28, 1947.
CIG-A-605
SUBJECT
Establishment and Functions of the Nuclear Energy Group, Scientific
Branch, Office of Reports and EstimatesThe Assistant Director for Reports and Estimates will establish
immediately a Nuclear Energy Group within the Scientific Branch of his
office.In carrying out its mission, the Chief, Nuclear Energy Group, will
follow the functional organization and procedure of CIG so far as security restrictions
incident to his relations with the Atomic Energy Commission will
permit.The mission of the Nuclear Energy Group, Scientific Branch, ORE, will be:To conduct and coordinate the necessary research and
evaluation of intelligence information and intelligence
pertaining to the development of nuclear energy by foreign
nations.To establish CIG requirements
for intelligence information and intelligence pertaining to
foreign developments in nuclear energy.To prepare estimates of the nuclear energy capabilities and
intentions of foreign nations for coordination with and
incorporation in intelligence of national interest.To represent exclusively the Director of Central Intelligence
on all contacts with the Atomic Energy Commission.As the AEC may specify, to be
the point of contact on nuclear intelligence matters between the
Atomic Energy Commission and other governmental intelligence
agencies.To receive from the Atomic Energy Commission all requirements
for foreign intelligence on nuclear energy which are required by
that Commission. All such requirements received from the Atomic
Energy Commission, their processing, and the intelligence
produced will be subject to such special security restrictions
as the Commission and the Director of Central Intelligence may
find necessary.In order to promote technical coverage and effect the required special
security, the Chief, Nuclear Energy Group, is authorized:To monitor and control all nuclear energy intelligence
information and intelligence received by CIG. In so doing, he will place a representative in
the Reading Center of the Office of Collection and
Dissemination. Except as otherwise personally directed by the
Director of Central Intelligence, he is solely responsible for
final determination of dissemination of nuclear energy
intelligence. He himself will disseminate such special nuclear
energy intelligence as security restrictions make
necessary.To review and approve all collection directives prepared by
OCD which relate to nuclear
energy.To coordinate directly, when essential for technical or
security reasons, with U.S. governmental agencies other than the
AEC and IAB agencies.To maintain such direct relationship with the Office of
Special Operations as both intelligence operations and special
security require.To maintain, when essential for technical or security reasons,
direct contacts with industries, institutions and individuals
which have special significance to the Nuclear Energy Group,
coordinating such contacts with the Office of Operations so as
to avoid duplication of effort and provide maximum coverage in
this field.To coordinate with the Security Branch, OCD, on establishment of special
policies and routine safeguards on nuclear energy
intelligence. E.K. WrightPrinted from a copy that
indicates Wright signed the
original.Brig Gen
192. Circular Instruction From the Department of StateSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 101.5/4–947. Confidential. Drafted by P.G.
Strong and T.M. Nordbeck. Addressed
to American diplomatic and consular officers “except Germany, Austria,
Japan and Korea.”Washington, April 9, 1947.
COORDINATION OF INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES
Sirs:
Reference is made to the Department’s confidential circular instruction dated
January 31, 1947, FSS No. 670, entitled “Establishment of the NIA, the IAB
and the CIG”,Not printed. (Ibid., 101.5/1–3147) See the Supplement. and to
its confidential circular instruction, dated February 3, 1947, FSS No. 671,
entitled “NIA Directive on Coordination of
Collection Activities”Not printed. (National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of
State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/2–347) See the Supplement. and
its enclosure.Document
181. To implement the overall policies and objectives
established by the above circular instructions, the following measures will
be taken by the Officers in Charge of Foreign Service Missions and Posts: The Officer in Charge of each American Mission will assume
responsibility for the coordination of all intelligence collection
activities at all Foreign Service posts within continental limits of
the country to which he is accredited, to the end that the announced
intelligence objectives of the government as a whole shall be most
efficiently and expeditiously accomplished. The senior officer at
each Consular Office outside of the continental limits of each
country to which a diplomatic officer is accredited will assume
responsibility for coordinating all intelligence collection
activities at his post and within his Consular District. For
example, the senior officer at the Consulate General at Singapore
will carry out such duties, reporting directly to the
Department.Each coordinating officer shall, wherever practicable and within
the limits of security requirements: Establish a central intelligence file for the use of all
authorized personnel.Insure that intelligence reports are promptly and
adequately prepared by foreign service personnel to meet his
needs, the needs of the Department, and the National
Intelligence Requirements which may be issued from time to
time.Insure that unproductive collection duplication is
avoided.Insure, whenever one or more of the intelligence agencies
of the War or Navy Departments are not represented at a
Foreign Service post or whenever the appropriate
representative of such agency is unable for any reason to
carry out his mission, that the reporting responsibility is
allocated to the extent possible to other members of the
staff. When such delegation is for a period in excess of
thirty days a report of such action, including the reason
therefor, will be made to the Department as soon as
practicable. A report of any such allocation of reporting
responsibility now in effect should be submitted to the
Department not later than May 15, 1947.Insure that intelligence information and material,
regardless of collector, shall whenever possible be
transmitted immediately to the local field representative of
the agency most concerned (see paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of
enclosure to Circular Instruction No. 671), if such field
representative is attached to the Foreign Service post. If a
field representative of the agency concerned is not attached
to the post, such intelligence information and material will
be transmitted directly to the Department.Insure that in preparing reports under the allocations
cited in paragraph 1 (a) of enclosure to Circular
Instruction No. 671, reporting officers take full cognizance
of the collateral or secondary needs of the Department of
State, War and Navy Departments as determined in
consultation with the appropriate collecting officers or by
reference to pertinent agency collection directives.Insure that, in the implementation of the respective
collection programs, full advantage is taken of the
individual abilities and contacts of his staff
members.Each coordinating officer will issue appropriate instructions to
all personnel of the Foreign Service or of the Department assigned
to or on temporary duty in his area to the end that such personnel
will: Cooperate in the coordination measures prescribed above or
as may be directed by the coordinating officer.Promptly bring to the attention of the proper
representatives of other departments or agencies
intelligence information or material of concern to the
latter.Collect information and prepare intelligence reports other
than within their own spheres of responsibility when
specifically directed.
Nothing in this instruction shall be interpreted as authorizing any officer
to delay, suppress, or make substantive changes in any intelligence report
without the concurrence of the officer submitting the report. Intelligence
information and material which may have no significance to field
representatives in a single area or which may appear to be at complete
variance with the overall trend may have great significance and form a
definite part of a picture being developed by the Departments or the Central
Intelligence Group. Any dissenting opinion or commentary will either be
incorporated in the report, or be submitted separately as promptly as
possible.
Instructions similar to the above are being issued by the War and Navy
Departments, whose representatives will be directed to comply with the
coordination measures indicated above, and to make available to the
coordinating officer all collection directives and instructions received
from their respective departments.
Very truly yours,
For the Acting Secretary of State:William R.
Eddy
193. Circular Instruction From the Department of StateSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 101.5/4–1547. Confidential. Addressed to American Diplomatic
Officers in the other American Republics. Drafted by
Briggs on February 27.Washington, April 15, 1947.
WITH FURTHER REFERENCE TO NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY
DIRECTIVE ON “COORDINATION OF COLLECTION ACTIVITIES” (FOREIGN SERVICE SERIAL
NO. 671, FEBRUARY 3, 1947)
Sirs:
Reference is made to the Department’s Foreign Service Serial No. 671,See footnote 2, Document
192. February 3, 1947, and the preceding instruction
(No. 670)See footnote 1,
Document 192. concerning the national Intelligence Authority directive on
“Coordination of Collection Activities”. Your attention is likewise invited
to the Department’s circular instruction of April 9Document 192. on the
same subject.
With particular reference to the situation in the other American Republics,
there is enclosed for your confidential information a memorandum prepared in
the Department when the subject of the duties and activities of Attachés and
of liaison between Attachés and Ambassadors was under preliminary discussion
last year. While this paper has not been circulated to the War and Navy
Departments, and hence is not an official directive, it was considered by
the State Department representatives during the discussions leading to the
acceptance by State, War, Navy and CIG of
the National Intelligence Authority directive of December 20, 1946.Reference is to Document
181. December 20, 1946, was the date of the meeting at which
agreement was reached on the directive; see footnote 5, Document 179. It is being made available
to our Diplomatic Missions in the other American Republics solely for
information and as representing the view prevailing in the offices of the
Department primarily concerned with Latin America. With respect to point 3
of the memorandum “Reporting on Non-Military and Non-Naval Matters”, the
solution reached, subsequent to the preparation of the memorandum, is as set
forth in the NIA directive of December 20,
1946, paragraph 1(a).
The objective sought both by the memorandum and by the NIA directive is the same, namely the
achievement under the direction of each Chief of Mission of a smoothly
functioning and properly coordinated flow of intelligence.
The Department will be interested in receiving comments from the field
concerning the arrangements established at each Mission under the aforesaid
National Intelligence Authority directive, the receipt of which provides a
favorable opportunity for each Chief of Mission to review the situation, to
evaluate the operations hitherto undertaken, and to see to it that our
objectives are being attained. It is especially important that Chiefs of
Mission eliminate the duplication and resultant confusion which in the past
attended reporting activities and information collecting activities at some
of the posts in the Latin American area.
This instruction is not being sent to Consulates, but Chiefs of Mission are
authorized in their discretion to make it available.
Very truly yours,
For the Secretary of State:Ellis O. Briggs
EnclosureConfidential.Washington, July 9, 1946.
Department of State Memorandum
DUTIES AND ACTIVITIES OF ATTACHÉS
1) Liaison Between Attachés and
Ambassadors.
Generally speaking it should be the purpose and duty of Ambassadors to
see to it that all representatives of other Departments and agencies,
including especially Military and Naval Attachés, are fully informed of
the overall work of the mission and of the various developments and
projects being undertaken by the elements composing the chancery. The
Chief of Mission should preside over regular meetings to be attended by
his principal officers. At the discretion of the Chief of Mission, he
may designate a responsible officer of the political section to act as
day-to-day liaison with attachés and officers representing other
agencies. The Ambassador himself should, however, have at least one
regular meeting per week with the principal members of his staff,
including attachés, and should be accessible to them when they desire to
take up matters with him.
2) Military and Naval Attachés
Responsible for Their Own Reports.
Although Military and Naval Attachés are responsible for their own
reports to the War and Navy Departments respectively, they should make
copies available to the Chief of Mission prior to transmission, so that,
if any difference of opinion arises which is not susceptible of
adjustment through discussion, the Chief of Mission can simultaneously
transmit his own report, together with a copy of the Attaché’s report,
and call attention to the difference of views and the reasons therefor.
In such circumstances the Attaché shall endorse on his own report
wherein the Embassy is not in agreement.
3) Reporting on Non-Military and
Non-Naval Matters.
An examination should be undertaken by the War and Navy Departments of
the reporting schedule of Attachés with a view to determining to what
extent there is duplication of reports prepared by the chancery. The
State Department is of the opinion that Attache reporting should be
reduced in respect of political, social, economic, and related non-military and non-naval
matters. For such time as Attachés may still be required to report on
such matters, the chancery should be the primary source of information.
The personnel of the chancery will always include officers trained in
political and economic reporting, plus in many instances specialists in
the fields of particular interest in a given country (petroleum in
Venezuela, and sugar in Cuba, for example). Their services are of course
available to Military and Naval Attachés in assisting them to prepare
reports.
4) Sources of Attachés’ Information Should be Made
Available to the Chief of Mission on his Specific Request (Except re
Information on Military or Naval Matters).
The Ambassador is the personal representative of the President, in
addition to being the ranking representative of the United States
Government abroad. He must have unquestioned authority over all
representatives of all other agencies of our Government abroad. Since
the Ambassador is responsible for the success of United States
representation as a whole, and for interpreting to the President and the
Department of State developments affecting relations between the country
to which he is accredited and the United States, there may be times when
in his considered judgment, he must (except with regard to information
on subjects that are exclusively military or naval in character as noted
above) be in a position to ascertain under appropriate safeguards of
secrecy the source of an Attaché’s information, in order appropriately
to evaluate it. On the specific request of the Ambassador, the source of
such non-military/naval information should accordingly be made available
to him.
194. National Intelligence Authority Directive No. 9Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132. Top
Secret.Washington, April 18, 1947.
COORDINATION OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO FOREIGN
ATOMIC ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS AND POTENTIALITIES
Pursuant to the President’s letter of 22 January 1946, designating
this Authority as responsible for planning, developing and coordinating
all Federal foreign
intelligence activities so as to assure the most effective
accomplishment of the intelligence mission related to the national
security, the following policies and procedures relating to Federal
intelligence activities in the field of foreign atomic energy
developments and potentialities affecting the national security are announced:The Director of Central Intelligence, subject to the direction
and control of this Authority, is hereby authorized and directed
to coordinate the collection by agencies subject to N.I.A. coordination of all
intelligence information related to foreign atomic energy
developments and potentialities affecting the national security,
and to accomplish the correlation, evaluation, and appropriate
dissemination within the Government of the resulting
intelligence. The Director of Central Intelligence is further
authorized to arrange with other intelligence agencies of the
Government to utilize their collection facilities in this
field.On July 25 the NIA agreed to a proposal from
the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission that the AEC become a permanent member
of the Intelligence Advisory Board. On August 5 the Chairman
of the AEC designated
Rear Admiral John E.
Gingrich, the AEC’s Director of Intelligence, as the
Commission’s representative on the IAB. (Memorandum from Hillenkoetter to Leahy, et al., August 12;
ibid., No. 131) See the Supplement.For the National Intelligence Authority:J.S.
EarmanActing Secretary,
N.I.A.
195. Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of the National Intelligence
Advisory Board (Earman)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–280. Secret. Prepared for the Intelligence
Advisory Board.Washington, April 21, 1947.
IAB 1
COORDINATION OF INTELLIGENCE PRODUCTION
Circulated herewith for consideration of the Intelligence Advisory
Board at its next meeting are:Recommendations contained in the report of the ad hoc
committee appointed to draft a proposed N.I.A. Directive on “The Coordination of
Intelligence Production” (Enclosure A).Minority report from the ad hoc committee member representing
the Assistant Chief of Air Staff–2 (Enclosure B).For the Intelligence Advisory Board:J.S.
EarmanActing Secretary,
N.I.A.
Enclosure A
Washington, April 18, 1947.
Memorandum for the Secretary of the Intelligence
Advisory Board (Lay)
SUBJECT
Proposed N.I.A. Directive on the
Coordination of Intelligence ProductionThe Ad Hoc Committee has prepared the attached draft of a proposed
N.I.A. Directive on the
Coordination of Intelligence Production. It has the unanimous
concurrence of the committee except for paragraph 2 c (4) on which
there is attached a minority report from the A–2 member.The proposed compilations of basic intelligence will be called
National Intelligence Surveys (NIS).
That on the Soviet Union, for example, would be the National
Intelligence Survey of the USSR.In the establishment of arrangements for the production,
continuing revision, and dissemination of the NIS due consideration should be given,
in the interests of economy and efficiency, to the necessity of
closely coordinating the NIS with
the overall intelligence requirements of the individual intelligence
agencies.An essential preliminary to the initial planning for the
production of NIS will be
consultation with the JIC and the
ID, WDGS, with a view to gaining
their consent to merging their respective productions, JANIS and SID, with NIS.It is contemplated that in working out the details for producing,
maintaining current, and disseminating the NIS careful consideration will be given to the
intelligence needs of the JCS and
all other agencies with responsibilities involving national
security. These needs should be automatically determined in the
course of pursuing the following program to initiate the production
of NIS: Adoption of an outline of the complete contents.Formulation of the procedure for producing, maintaining
current, and disseminating NIS.Establishment of priorities by section and country for
production of NIS.Allocation of production and maintenance responsibilities
by agreement of CIG and the
agencies represented on IAB.RecommendationsThat IAB concur in the
attached draft of a proposed N.I.A. Directive.That IAB go on record as
desiring that members of JIC
consent to merge JANIS
with NIS as mentioned in
paragraph 4 above.That IAB recommend to the
Director of Central Intelligence that he request the
Director of Intelligence, WDGS, to consent to merge SID with NIS as mentioned in paragraph 4
above; and,That IAB and JIC appoint an Ad Hoc Committee
with representatives from CIG, ORI (SD), ID (WDGS), ONI
(Navy), A–2 (AAF), JIS, and JTS to plan, with the
aid of as many subcommittees as necessary, the program to
initiate the production of NIS outlined in 5a, b, c, d above, the
committee to make specific recommendations to the Director
of Central Intelligence regarding the following: The integrating of the JANIS and SID production into the program to be
produced under the name of National Intelligence
Surveys, andThe future production and priorities for the
integrated program for NIS taking into consideration past
production of JANIS’s and SID’s.Donald
Edgar, ChairmanPrinted from a copy that bears these
typed signatures.Mr. Allan EvansColonel R.F.
EnnisCaptain R.K. Davis,
USNColonel E.P.
Mussett
Enclosure
Proposed N.I.A.
Directive
COORDINATION OF INTELLIGENCE PRODUCTION
The following overall policies and objectives are established for
the coordination of the production of intelligence.In order that all facilities of the Government may be utilized to
their capacity and the responsibilities of each agency may be
clearly defined in accordance with its mission, dominant interest,
and capabilities, the whole field of intelligence production is
divided into the following four categories, and responsibilities are
allocated as indicated: Basic IntelligenceBasic intelligence is that factual intelligence
which results from the collation of encyclopedic
information of a more or less permanent or static
nature and general interest which, as a result of
evaluation and interpretation, is determined to be
the best available.An outline of all basic intelligence required by
the Government shall be prepared by the CIG in collaboration with
the appropriate agencies. This outline shall be
broken down into chapters, sections, and subsections
which shall be allocated as production and
maintenance responsibilities to CIG and those agencies of
the Government which are best qualified by reason of
their intelligence requirements, production
capabilities, and dominant interest to assume the
production and maintenance responsibility.When completed, this outline and tentative
allocations of production and maintenance
responsibilities shall be submitted for NIA approval and
publication as an annex to this directive. It is
expected that as the result of constant consultation
with the agencies by the Director of Central
Intelligence, both the outline and the allocations
will be revised from time to time to insure the
production of the basic intelligence required by the
agencies and the fullest possible use of current
agency capabilities. Changes in the outline or
allocations shall be effected by agreement between
the Director of Central Intelligence and the
agencies concerned.This basic intelligence shall be compiled and
continuously maintained in National Intelligence
Surveys to cover foreign countries, areas, or broad
special subjects as appropriate. It will be
distributed to the agencies in such form as the
agencies agree will meet their requirements.The Director of Central Intelligence shall be
responsible for coordinating production and
maintenance and for accomplishing the editing,
publication, and dissemination of these National
Intelligence Surveys and shall make such requests on
the agencies as are necessary for their proper
development and maintenance.Departments or agencies to be called on for
contributions to this undertaking may include
agencies other than those represented permanently in
the IAB.Current IntelligenceCurrent intelligence is that spot information or
intelligence of all types and forms of immediate
interest and value to operating or policy staffs,
which is used by them without the delays incident to
complete evaluation or interpretation.The CIG and the
several agencies shall produce and disseminate such
current intelligence as may be necessary to meet
their own internal requirements or external
responsibilities.Interagency dissemination of current intelligence
shall be based on interagency agreement including
N.I.A. Directive
No. 1 and the principle of informing all who need to
know.Staff IntelligenceStaff intelligence is that intelligence prepared
by any department or agency through the process of
correlation and interpretation of all intelligence
material available to it in order to meet the
specific requirements and responsibilities of the
department or agency concerned.Each intelligence agency has the ultimate
responsibility for the preparation of such staff
intelligence as its own department shall require. It
is recognized that the staff intelligence of each of
the departments must be broader in scope than any
allocation of collection responsibility, recognition
of production capabilities, or dominant interest
might indicate. In fact, the full foreign
intelligence picture is of interest in varying
degrees at different times to each of the
departments.Any agency, either through the Director of Central
Intelligence or directly, may call upon other
appropriate agencies for intelligence which does not
fall within its own field of dominant interest. Such
requests shall be made upon the agencies in
accordance with their production capabilities and
dominant interest.The division of interests agreed to in N.I.A. Directive No. 7
shall serve as a general delineation of dominant
interests, subject to refinement and adaptation to
the purposes of intelligence production through a
continuous program of coordination by the Director
of Central Intelligence.As a part of the coordination program, the
Director of Central Intelligence will seek the
assistance of the IAB intelligence agencies in minimizing
the necessity for any agency to develop intelligence
in fields outside its dominant interests.The CIG and the
agencies shall, for purposes of coordination,
exchange information on projects and plans for the
production of staff intelligence.It shall be normal practice that staff
intelligence of one agency is available to the other
intelligence agencies permanently represented on the
IAB.Strategic and National Policy
IntelligenceStrategic and national policy intelligence as
defined by the NIA
shall henceforth be known by the short title
“National Intelligence.”The production and dissemination of national
intelligence shall be the responsibility of the
Director of Central Intelligence.The Director of Central Intelligence shall plan
and develop the production of national intelligence
in coordination with the IAB agencies in order that he may obtain
from them within the limits of their capabilities
the departmental intelligence upon which national
intelligence is based.The Director of Central Intelligence shall by
agreement with the pertinent agency or agencies
receive such estimates, reports, and periodic briefs
or summaries prepared by the individual departments
or agencies in their fields of dominant interest or
in accordance with their production capabilities as
may be necessary in the production of mutually
undertaken intelligence reports or estimates.The research facilities required by any agency to process its own
current and staff intelligence shall be sufficient to satisfy its
individual needs after taking full cognizance of the facilities of
the other agencies. Each agency shall endeavor to maintain
sufficient research facilities, not only to accomplish the
intelligence production tasks allocated to it directly under the
foregoing provisions but also to provide such additional
intelligence reports or estimates within its field of dominant
interest as may be necessary to satisfy the requirements of the
other agencies under such allocations.Implementation. Assumption of
responsibilities as allocated herein shall be effected progressively
and rapidly under the coordination of the Director of Central
Intelligence.
Enclosure B
WashingtonApril 17,
1947.
Memorandum for the Director of Central Intelligence
(Vandenberg)
SUBJECT
Proposed NIA Directive on the
Coordination of Intelligence ProductionThe AC/AS–2 member of the Ad Hoc Committee is in general accord
with the majority report of the Committee as presented, but dissents
from that report with
respect to paragraph 2 c (4) of the proposed directive.Dominant interest is inseparable from mission, and the mission of
each intelligence agency is determined by and must always be
responsive to the requirements of the department or agency which it
serves. There is no reason for attempting to delineate dominant
interests, and consequently no reason for including paragraph 2 c
(4) in the directive.It is further considered that dominant interests should not and
can not be defined by the assignment of collection responsibilities.
Dominant interests flow from the mission of the particular
department or agency, which is not necessarily true of agreed
collection assignments; collection assignments may be based on
capabilities, dominant interest never.Also, in including paragraph 2 c (4) under the heading “Staff
Intelligence” there is a danger that, in spite of its broad
definition, staff intelligence will tend to become confused with
intelligence in fields of dominant interest and consequently its
production would be narrowed and restricted.For these reasons, the AC/AS–2 representative is of the opinion
that paragraph 2 c (4) should be deleted from the proposed
directive.However, if this deletion should not be favorably considered by
the Intelligence Advisory Board, the following paragraph is
submitted as a substitute for paragraph 2 c (4) and in desire to
reach an accord. This proposed substitute accomplishes the purpose
desired, and is not open to the objections noted above.Proposed paragraph 2 c (4). For the purposes of
par (3) above, the following division of interests agreed to in NIA Directive No. 7subject to refinement through a continuous program
of coordination by the Director of Central Intelligence,
shall serve as a general delineation of dominant interests, subject to refinement and adaptation to
the purposes of intelligence production through a continuous
program of coordination by the Director of Central
Intelligence.Political, Cultural, Sociological
Intelligence–State DepartmentMilitary Intelligence—War
DepartmentNaval Intelligence—Navy
DepartmentAir Intelligence—Army Air
ForcesEconomic and Scientific
Intelligence—Each agency in accordance with its
respective needs E.P. Mussett Colonel, Air Forces
The National Security Act of 1947
Introduction
One of General Vandenberg’s early
concerns as Director of Central Intelligence was to secure a statutory basis
for the existence of the Central Intelligence Group. During the concerted
effort to establish a national foreign intelligence system in the months
immediately following World War II, there was a tendency to think in terms
of creating the system by Executive order or Presidential directive, both
because it was more expeditious and because it minimized controversy. The
Joint Chiefs of Staff plan (Document 13) clearly
envisaged a Presidential directive; the McCormack plan appeared to do so; and when the Secretaries
of State, War, and Navy reached agreement in January 1946, they also
recommended action by Presidential directive. (Secretary of State Byrnes apparently believed that the
Reorganization Act of 1945 gave the President the authority he
required.)
The Joint Chiefs’ plan, however, envisaged that legislation would eventually
be sought and so did its latter day variant, the Three Secretaries’
proposal, although the reference to future legislation had been eliminated
by the time the proposal became the Presidential letter of January 22. (Document 71) Admiral
Souers had made a strong recommendation for legislation in
his final report to the National Intelligence Authority (Document 154), citing both the practical disabilities of
operating as a non-statutory agency (e.g., inability to sign contracts,
recruit personnel directly, or expend funds) and arguing that the CIG needed “the necessary authority and
standing to develop, support, coordinate and direct an adequate Federal
intelligence program.”
Vandenberg was already well aware of
the problem when he was the Army representative on the Intelligence Advisory
Board, but when he began his tenure as Director of Central Intelligence,
with plans for a major expansion of CIG’s
size and scope, he faced these difficulties as practical issues. Broken down
into component parts, there were actually two problems, or two phases of the
same problem. One was his strong desire to put the CIG on a statutory basis. From Vandenberg’s perspective, statutory authority was one
important way (perhaps the most important way) to strengthen the position of
the DCI, a thought presumably reinforced by
Vandenberg’s initial skirmish
with the Departmental intelligence chiefs over the definition of his
authority.
There was also a more urgent reason for legislation. The Independent Offices
Appropriation Act of 1945 (58 Stat. 361, Sec. 213) provided in effect that no agency could be in
existence for more than one year without Congressional appropriation. There
was thus a serious possibility that under the terms of the act, the State,
War, and Navy Departments would be unable to transfer funds to the CIG after January 1947.
In the interim, as long as the Presidential directive of January 22 was the
basic charter of the intelligence system, there was a pressing need to
streamline the cumbersome administrative arrangements that it created. If
Vandenberg were to proceed with
his ambitious plans for the Central Intelligence Group, these arrangements
would be impediments to rapid and effective action.
Vandenberg moved quickly and
energetically on all these fronts. Within 3 days of becoming Director of
Central Intelligence, he had received a legal opinion from his general
counsel on the CIG’s administrative
authority. It confirmed for him what he presumably already knew: “the
essential problem is that CIG has no power
to expend government funds.” (Document 196)
By early July 1946, Vandenberg’s
legal advisers had prepared a draft bill for submission to the White House.
(See the Supplement) It provided both for fiscal and other authorities the
CIG lacked and for clear primacy over
the Departmental intelligence agencies.
In a July 12 memorandum to Vandenberg, Clark
Clifford, the President’s Special Counsel, complained about
“the failure of the bill to define in clear terms the sense in which the
word ‘intelligence’ is used. For example, ‘intelligence,’ ‘foreign
intelligence,’ ‘intelligence relating to the national security,’ ‘strategic
and national policy intelligence,’ ‘the national intelligence mission,’ and
‘intelligence affecting the national security,’ are used indiscriminately as
though they were synonymous.”
In addition, Clifford thought the
proposed bill was “self-contradictory,” and feared that “the failure to
distinguish between ‘intelligence’ and ‘foreign intelligence’” would “lead
to the suspicion that the ‘National Intelligence Authority’ and the ‘Central
Intelligence Agency’ will attempt to control, with the powers granted to
them in this bill, the F.B.I and other
intelligence activities.” (See the Supplement)
At a meeting on July 16, however, Vandenberg’s legal counsel, Lawrence Houston, and NIA
Secretary James Lay persuaded
Clifford “that the original
concept of the Central Intelligence Group should now be altered; experience
had shown that it would be ineffective if it remained only a small planning
staff and that it must now become a legally established, fairly sizeable,
operating agency. Mr. Clifford stated
that he would discuss this new concept with Admiral Leahy and the President.” (Document 197)
In the meantime, Vandenberg tackled
the problem at his first formal meeting with the National Intelligence
Authority on July 17, 1946, declaring frankly that he needed his own funds
and that the CIG must be established on a statutory basis, and
sketching some of his own plans for expansion. Vandenberg got a mixed reception from the NIA but on the whole, the outcome was favorable
for his purposes. Admiral Leahy told
him that the President opposed introduction of a bill to obtain an
independent budget and status for the NIA,
but that the NIA could draft one “with a
view to the possibility of presenting it to the next Congress. Admiral Leahy stated that in the meantime
he felt that General Vandenberg
should be given, so far as practicable, all the assistance that he
requires.” (Document 198)
The upshot was that the NIA agreed that
Secretary of State Byrnes should try
to find a solution to Vandenberg’s
problems in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and
report back to the Authority. The result of Byrnes’ inquiries was a complicated procedure, attached to
Document 199 and the annexed correspondence in
the Supplement, in which the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy in effect
delegated certain fiscal authority to the Director of Central Intelligence,
giving him working control over the funds that their Departments transferred
to the Central Intelligence Group. The new arrangement eased the
administrative burdens on the CIG and made
the procedures under which it operated considerably less burdensome.
Although in one sense a technical administrative matter, the arrangement was
of broader significance, as the first step toward making the CIG autonomous.
Toward the end of 1946, the time seemed propitious for a renewed attempt
along the legislative route, and Vandenberg submitted new draft legislation to the White
House at the beginning of December 1946. (Document
201) By that time, however, it was becoming evident that a
statutory enactment concerning the Central Intelligence Group and the
national intelligence structure was more likely to occur as part of a bill
on armed forces unification than as a separate measure. There was no
necessary connection between the two subjects, but there had long been a
tendency in some quarters to regard national intelligence organization less
as an issue in its own right than as one of the many components of the
complex problem of unifying the military services.
On June 15, 1946, President Truman, in
a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House committees on military and
naval affairs, reported that the Secretaries of War and Navy had reached
agreement on 12 principles on which unification legislation could be based.
Among them was the establishment of a Central Intelligence Agency which
would operate under a Council of National Defense, an early designation for
what later came into existence as the National Security Council. (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States:
Harry S. Truman, 1946
(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office 1962), pages 303–305) At that
point there were still some questions on which the military departments had
not yet reached agreement, but in January 1947 the Secretaries of War and
the Navy reported to the President
that they had resolved their remaining differences and reiterated their
earlier support for unification legislation that would include provision for
a Central Intelligence Agency. (Patterson and Forrestal to the President, January 16, 1947, in Senate Report 239, 80th Congress, 1st Session, National
Security Act of 1947, page 5) Truman transmitted their letter to the Congress under cover
of a brief letter of his own in which he noted that “Representatives of my
office and of the armed services are engaged in drafting a bill to be
submitted to the Congress for its consideration.” (Truman to President pro tempore of the
Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, January 18, 1947; Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States:
Harry S. Truman, 1947,
pages 101–102)
Ever cautious about separate legislation on intelligence, the White House
working group drafting the armed forces unification bill included the
establishment of a Central Intelligence Agency as one of its provisions. The
bill that was finally sent forward was much briefer and less comprehensive
than Vandenberg and his colleagues
in the CIG would have liked; their
preference was for an “enabling act” that would spell out in detail the
special powers and authorities of the Director of Central Intelligence,
e.g., provisions governing unvouchered funds, exemption from laws and
regulations relating to the expenditure of government funds, exemption from
laws requiring publication of data on personnel, and procurement authority.
But the White House continued to fear that a Central Intelligence Agency
might prove controversial in the Congress and resisted efforts to expand the
scope of the bill, hoping to keep the intelligence provisions as
inconspicuous as possible and preferring that more detailed enabling
legislation be submitted to Congress at a later date.
There was no Department of State representation on the White House-chaired
drafting group that prepared the legislation, but the fourth draft of the
bill, at least, was sent to the Department for comment. In a long memorandum
to the President dated February 7, 1947, Secretary of State Marshall strongly criticized the
provisions for establishing a National Security Council and expressed
reservations about the provisions establishing a Central Intelligence
Agency. Concerning the latter, he wrote:
“The Secretary of State is at present Chairman of the National
Intelligence Agency [sic] composed of four
members. The new agency would be responsible to the National
Security Council which itself is subject to the objections already
set forth and on which the Secretary of State is numerically
subordinated to the heads of the military establishments. The
Foreign Service of the Department of State is the only collection
agency of the government which covers the whole world, and we should
be very slow to subject the collection and evaluation of this
foreign intelligence to other establishments, especially during
times of peace. The powers
of the proposed agency seem almost unlimited and need
clarification.” (The full text of the memorandum is printed in Foreign
Relations, 1947, volume I, pages 712–715.)
Only one possibly related document has been found: a brief May 5, 1947,
letter from Marshall to Senator
Chan Gurney (Chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, which handled the National Security bill in the Senate) simply
confirming that “The legislation regarding the CIG reflects the unchanged status of the agreement reached in
February by the Secretaries of War and Navy and myself.” (Document 212) No other documents that shed light on
the Department of State position and the apparent changes it underwent were
found.
The House and Senate hearings and then the floor debate went on from
February, when the White House submitted the bill, to late July, when both
houses passed and the President signed the National Security Act of 1947.
The provisions of the bill relating to intelligence attracted considerable
attention, and issues such as whether the Director of Central Intelligence
should be a military officer or a civilian were extensively debated. (For a
detailed account of the Congressional consideration, see
Troy, Donovan and the CIA, chapter XVI.) As finally
enacted, Section 102 abolished the National Intelligence Authority,
established the Central Intelligence Agency, and briefly spelled out the
powers and responsibilities of the new organization and certain restrictions
on it. The National Security Act of 1947 entered into force on September 19,
1947, and the Central Intelligence Agency came into being as a statutory
body the next day.
The Central Intelligence Agency submitted enabling legislation the following
year, but the 80th Congress failed to complete action before it adjourned.
The bill was resubmitted in the next Congress, where it was enacted as the
Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and signed by the President on June
20, 1949. (Public Law 110, 81st Congress, 1st Session; 63 Stat. Ch. 227)
On September 26, 1947, the National Security Council met in its first
session. In approving its own procedures, it authorized the Director of
Central Intelligence “to attend all meetings of the Council as an observer
and adviser.” (NSC Action No. 1; National
Security Council, Policies of the Government of the United
States of America Relating to the National Security, volume 1,
1947–1948, page 46) At the same organizational meeting, the NSC approved an “Initial Directive to the
Central Intelligence Agency” endorsing recommendations that the Director of
Central Intelligence had made in a September 19 memorandum to the Council.
This action continued the National Intelligence Directives in force for the
time being and instructed Hillenkoetter to submit to the Council within 60 days
“proposed authorizations supplanting the former directives.” In the same
action, the Council authorized the Director of Central Intelligence to submit to the Bureau of the
Budget a budget estimate for fiscal year 1949. (Document
222 and NSC Action No. 3; Policies of the Government of the United States of America
Relating to the National Security, page 53)
The Council took no action on Hillenkoetter’s proposal for an advisory committee, although
it soon approved an amended version prepared by Souers, which created a successor to the
Intelligence Advisory Board. (Document 226) The
Council also failed to act on Hillenkoetter’s proposal, made in a memorandum to the NIA on September 11 (Document 220) for a subcommittee of the NSC composed of the Secretaries of State and Defense “to act
similarly to the National Intelligence Authority to furnish the active
direction of the Central Intelligence Agency.” Acting Secretary of State
Lovett, however, endorsed the
idea in a September 23 memorandum to Hillenkoetter, while suggesting that the oversight group
include, in addition to the two secretaries, a personal representative of
the President, similar to the arrangement that had existed in the National
Intelligence Authority. (Document 224)
196. Memorandum From the General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Group
(Houston) to the
Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–803, Item
13. No classification marking. The source text was a transcript prepared
for the CIA Historian on June 6, 1952.Washington, June 13, 1946.
SUBJECT
Administrative Authority of CIGOn 22 January the President directed the NIA to plan, develop and coordinate Federal foreign
intelligence activities, to assure the most effective accomplishment of
the intelligence mission related to national security. He further
directed the respective Departments to assign persons and facilities,
which persons shall collectively form the CIG under the Director thereof to assist NIA. The mission of the Director of CIG is to correlate, evaluate and
disseminate intelligence, making full use of the staff
and facilities of intelligence agencies; to coordinate
activities of such agencies
and recommend over-all policies and objectives for the national
intelligence mission; and to perform for “said intelligence agencies
such special services of common concern as the National Intelligence
Authority determines can be more efficiently accomplished
centrally”. The above appears to give the complete administrative authority of
CIG. As outlined, it is purely a
coordination function with no substance or authority to act on its own
responsibility in other than an advisory and directing capacity. Thus,
it has no power: To take personnel actions;To certify payrolls and vouchers;To authorize travel;To procure supplies directly for itself or enter into
contracts.All the above are fundamental technicalities which apply equally to
vouchered and unvouchered funds. Thus, the essential problem is that CIG has no power to expend Government funds. The Secretary
of War could give the Director, CIG,
unvouchered funds to spend at the latter’s discretion, but even so the
certification of the voucher would have to be done by the Secretary. A
good example of the problem is the case of a civilian employee now
assigned to CIG full time. The
classification sheet and personnel action papers are headed not “CIG”, but “State, War and Navy
Departments,” and actual payment is made on the payroll of one or the
other of these Departments as may be appropriate. The case in question
is paid on War Department Contingencies payroll. If necessary or
expedient for one reason or another, he could be cut off War Department
and be put on either State or Navy payrolls. A body serving CIG could be built up in this way, but it
would still be in the form of facilities furnished by the Departments,
just as Army officers are assigned for duty with the Director but remain
on the Army finance records for pay and administration. A time element
is injected by Public Law 358, which in brief provides that no funds may
be made available to any agency or instrumentality which remains in
existence for more than one year without a specific appropriation from
Congress during that year. Consequently, after 22 January 1947,
Departments could not even furnish unvouchered funds to the Director,
CIG, and it would be questionable
whether the Departments could furnish personnel and supplies paid for
out of vouchered funds. Lawrence R. HoustonPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
197. Memorandum for the FileSource: Truman Library, Papers
of Clark M. Clifford, National
Military Establishment: CIA. No classification marking.Washington, July 17, 1946.
On 16 July Mr. Clifford met Mr.
Houston and Mr. Lay from the Central Intelligence Group,
in his office and discussed with them a proposed bill for the establishment
of the Central Intelligence Agency. Commander Elsey was also present.
The basis of the discussion was the draft billNot printed. (Ibid.) See the Supplement. A later draft is printed as an
enclosure to Document 201. which had
been submitted by General
Vandenberg to Mr. Clifford for comment, and Mr. Clifford’s memorandum in reply of 12 July 1946.Not printed. (Truman Library, Papers of Clark M. Clifford, National Military Establishment: CIA)
See the Supplement.
Mr. Clifford pointed out that it was
not the President’s original intention that a new agency be createdThis phrase which read, “Mr. Clifford pointed out that it was the
President’s original intention that a new agency not be created” was
amended by hand. and he remarked that it appeared that the
proposed bill was departing from the President’s intention by establishing a
separate and sizeable government agency. Mr. Clifford also remarked that the President had intended that
his letter of 22 January 1946 would provide a workable plan for the Central
Intelligence Group. Mr. Clifford than
asked if experience had shown that the plan outlined in the President’s
letter was not workable.
Mr. Houston and Mr. Lay discussed at some length the
administrative difficulties which the Central Intelligence Group has had due
to its being a step-child of three separate departments. They stated that
experience showed that enabling legislation was necessary in order that the
Central Intelligence Group could operate as an integrated organization. They
also informed Mr. Clifford that
experience had shown that the Central Intelligence Group should become an
operating agency with a large staff of Intelligence experts.
After lengthy discussion, it was agreed by all present that the original
concept of the Central Intelligence Group should now be altered; experience
had shown that it would be ineffective if it remained only a small planning
staff and that it must now become a legally established, fairly sizeable,
operating agency. Mr. Clifford stated
that he would discuss this new concept with Admiral Leahy and the President.No record of Clifford’s proposed
discussion with Truman and
Leahy has been
found.
There followed a detailed examination of the draft bill in light of the
comments and criticisms made in Mr. Clifford’s memorandum of 12 July. Mr. Houston and
Mr. Lay agreed that all of Mr.
Clifford’s points were well taken
and they agreed to rewrite the bill incorporating his suggestions.
It was apparent during this part of the discussionThe phrase “during this part of the discussion”
originally read “during the lengthy part of the discussion”; it was
amended by hand. that neither Mr. Houston nor Mr. Lay
had given much thought to the words which they had used in drafting the
bill. Both stated that large parts of it had been extracted from other
proposed legislation or other documents relating to Intelligence. In their
hasty preparation of the draft in this scissors-and-paste method, they had
failed to grasp the essential point that the National Intelligence Authority
should be a planning group and the Central Intelligence Agency an operating
group.
Mr. Clifford pointed out to them the
probable opposition which a proposed bill would arouse if great care and
thought were not given to the choice of words used.
Mr. Houston and Mr. Lay will prepare a new bill and send it to
Mr. Clifford for comment.
G.M.E.
198. Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the National Intelligence
AuthoritySource: Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–245. Top Secret. The meeting
was held at the State Department.Washington, July 17, 1946, 10:30
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentSecretary of State James F.
Byrnes, in the ChairSecretary of War Robert P.
PattersonActing Secretary of the Navy John L.
SullivanFleet Admiral William D.
Leahy, Personal Representative of the PresidentLt. General Hoyt S.
Vandenberg, Director of Central Intelligence Also PresentDr. William L. Langer, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMr. John D. Hickerson, Department of StateColonel Charles W. McCarthy, USACaptain Robert L. Dennison, USNSecretariatMr. James S. Lay, Jr.,
Secretary, National Intelligence Authority
1. Report by the Director of Central Intelligence
Secretary Byrnes asked General Vandenberg to give the members a
report on present and future matters concerning the Central Intelligence
Group.
General Vandenberg invited attention
to the conclusions contained in the “Progress Report on the Central
Intelligence Group” by Admiral
Souers, former Director of Central Intelligence.Document 154. General Vandenberg explained that
at the present time each intelligence agency is working along the lines of
primary interest to its department. It is his belief that C.I.G. should find out what raw material
received by one department is of interest to the others. In order to do
this, C.I.G. must be in a position to see
and screen all raw material received. For example, as regards a given steel
plant, State is studying what products are made there and the rate of
production. War Department, however, is interested in the construction and
physical details of the plant, the railroads serving it, and other data
required for target information. State Department, if it broadened the base
of its studies, might well be able to furnish at least part of that type of
economic intelligence. It is the job of C.I.G., therefore, to find out the needs of all the departments
and to meet them, either by recommending that one department expand its
activities or by performing the necessary research in C.I.G. In order to do this, an adequate and
capable staff is urgently required in C.I.G.
It is extremely difficult administratively to procure the necessary
personnel under the present arrangement. General Vandenberg therefore feels that he must have his own
funds and be able to hire people. This means that C.I.G. must be set up as an agency by enabling legislation.
Secretary Byrnes expressed the
understanding that the N.I.A. was
intentionally established as it is in an effort to avoid the necessity for
an independent budget.
Secretary Patterson agreed, and
explained that this was designed to conceal, for security reasons, the
amount of money being spent on central intelligence.
Secretary Byrnes thought that it would
be difficult to explain to Congress the need for intelligence funds without
jeopardizing security.
General Vandenberg thought that such
considerations should be balanced against the added administrative
difficulties they caused. He expressed the belief that the important thing
was that the Central Intelligence Group should be an effective and efficient
organization.
Admiral Leahy said that it was always
understood that C.I.G. eventually would
broaden its scope. It was felt, however, that the Departments initially
could contribute sufficient funds and personnel to get it started. He is
about convinced that N.I.A. should now
attempt to get its own appropriations. These appropriations, however, should
be small, since the three departments should continue to furnish the bulk of
the necessary funds.
Secretary Patterson thought that the
administrative problems could be worked out under the present arrangements.
Secretary Byrnes believed that the
major problem was to find a way for the departments to give C.I.G. the money it needed.
Secretary Patterson stated that he was
perfectly willing to direct Army Intelligence to furnish the necessary funds
to C.I.G. and then let the Director of
Central Intelligence pick his own personnel with those funds. He opposed a
separate budget because he does not want to expose these intelligence
operations.
Secretary Byrnes agreed that we could
not afford to make such disclosures in this country.
General Vandenberg pointed out that
each personnel action must be handled at present by 100 people in each
department. This means that knowledge of C.I.G. personnel is exposed to 300 people in the three
departments. He feels that handling personnel actions within C.I.G. itself would improve security.
Admiral Leahy agreed that it was
undesirable that so many people in the departments should have knowledge of
C.I.G. He felt that if each department
gave C.I.G. funds, personnel actions could
be taken by C.I.G. itself without exposing
them.
General Vandenberg pointed out that
this would still require defending three separate appropriations acts before
the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Dr. Langer agreed that the funds would
have to be defended before the Congress in any case.
Secretary Byrnes recalled that members
of Congress had offered to include the State Department intelligence budget
under such terms as “investigations abroad” or as an added amount in any
other budget account. He felt that since Congress was apparently willing to
do this, the funds might easily be hidden in this manner within departmental
budgets.
Dr. Langer thought that Admiral Leahy’s suggestion would be very
effective. It might be possible to give N.I.A. an independent budget for the more overt activities, and
hide other funds in departmental appropriations. This would serve as ideal
cover for covert activities. Moreover, he believed that an independent
appropriation for C.I.G. would make General Vandenberg more effective in
supporting departmental intelligence budgets.
Admiral Leahy felt that this problem
must be approached very carefully. He believed that no one was better
qualified to advise N.I.A. on this than
Secretary Byrnes, with his
Congressional background. Admiral
Leahy stated that the President authorized him to make it
clear that the President considered the responsible agency in the present
arrangement to be the N.I.A. The President
stated that the Director of Central Intelligence is not responsible further
than to carry out the directives of the N.I.A.Admiral Leahy said there were some
indications that the Director of Central Intelligence, with the Intelligence
Advisory Board, might tend to assume greater control over intelligence
activities than was intended. Admiral
Leahy reiterated that the President holds the Cabinet
officers on N.I.A. primarily responsible for
coordination of intelligence activities.The
membership of the National Intelligence Authority and the periodic
meetings of the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy were the same except
that Leahy and the Director of
Central Intelligence did not participate in the Three Secretaries
meetings. The first part of this meeting was a session of the NIA; the second a meeting of the Three
Secretaries. John D. Hickerson of the Department of
State was responsible for preparing a record of the Secretaries’
meeting, but he also took notes on the NIA meeting. In Hickerson’s minutes,
Leahy reported that “the
President stated that the National Intelligence Authority has the
responsibility for collection of intelligence; the President expects to
look to the National Intelligence Authority for the performance of this
task and to hold them responsible for it. The Director of C.I.G. carries out the orders of the
National Intelligence Authority and the President expects to deal only
with the NIA in regard to intelligence
and to hold NIA responsible for the work
done by the C.I.G.” (Minutes of the
Meeting of the Three Secretaries, July 17; National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic
Branch Reference File, Minutes of Meetings of the Committee of Three
1944–1947) See the Supplement.
Secretary Sullivan compared the
Director of Central Intelligence to an executive vice president who carries
out the instructions and policies of the N.I.A.
Admiral Leahy stated that with regard
to a bill to obtain an independent budget and status for N.I.A., the President considers it inadvisable
to attempt to present such a bill before the present Congress. The President
feels that there is not enough time for the N.I.A. to give this question sufficient study. The President
feels, however, that a bill might be drafted and be under study by the
N.I.A. with a view to the possibility of
presenting it to the next Congress. Admiral
Leahy stated that in the meantime he felt that General Vandenberg should be given, so
far as practicable, all the assistance that he requires.
General Vandenberg pointed out that
C.I.G. is not an agency authorized to
disburse funds. Therefore even with funds from the departments, it would
require disbursing and authenticating officers in all three departments,
plus the necessary accounting organization in C.I.G. He felt that this was requiring four fiscal operations
where one should suffice.
Admiral Leahy suggested, and
Secretary Byrnes agreed, that this
might be taken care of by the wording of an appropriations act.
Dr. Langer questioned this possibility
unless C.I.G. was given status as a
disbursing agency.
Secretary Byrnes thought this status
could be given the agency by the President under the authority of the
Emergency Powers Act.
General Vandenberg said that he
understood that this solution was decided against because it might indicate
that N.I.A. was a temporary expedient which
would terminate with the end of the President’s war powers.
Secretary Byrnes was sure that it
could be done by the President under his reorganization authority and
without reference to the Emergency Powers Act. Secretary Byrnes undertook to talk with the Bureau of
the Budget on this matter and report back to the N.I.A.
Admiral Leahy was convinced that
C.I.G. must have funds for which it does
not have to account in detail.
Dr. Langer questioned whether
General Vandenberg was not more
concerned over the cumbersome arrangement for handling personnel actions in
all three departments.
General Vandenberg stressed the fact
that without money there could be no personnel actions. For example, he
noted that the State Department does not have sufficient funds to pay
personnel required for C.I.G.General Vandenberg agreed, however,
that personnel actions were extremely difficult under present arrangements.
For example, it takes an average of six weeks to obtain security clearance
from the Departments, and he does not feel that he should employ anyone
without such clearance. General
Vandenberg stressed the fact that his greatest interest was
in getting C.I.G. into operation by whatever
means possible. He felt that time was of the essence during this critical
period.
Secretary Byrnes believed that the
only way at present to avoid the administrative difficulties was to arrange
to have each department transfer the necessary funds to C.I.G.
General Vandenberg pointed out the
difficulty of obtaining funds from the Departments. For example, although
the State Department requested about $330,000 for N.I.A., only $178,000 is being made available. While he
appreciated the need of the State Department for the other funds, this case
exemplified the fact that C.I.G. could never
be certain of receiving the funds which it requested and defended unless
they were appropriated directly to C.I.G.
Dr. Langer believed that this
situation would not recur in the future, but he did agree that State’s
contribution to C.I.G. was not adequate. He
did not see, however, how this could be increased except through a
deficiency bill.
Secretary Sullivan asked why
additional funds might not be secured from the President’s emergency fund.
General Vandenberg stated that total
funds available to C.I.G. for the fiscal
year 1947 were $12,000,000, which left a shortage for effective operations
of $10,000,000. He asked whether it might be possible to obtain permission
to spend available funds at an accelerated rate in anticipation of the
submission of the deficiency bill.
Secretary Byrnes thought that such
permission could not be obtained. He noted that what General Vandenberg had stated was that
C.I.G. had $12,000,000 and wanted
$22,000,000.
Dr. Langer questioned whether any
mechanism was to be available for reviewing this proposed budget.
General Vandenberg stated that he
had the details available. He noted, however, that comprehensive review
meant that this information must be widely disclosed to personnel in three
departments.
Secretary Sullivan felt that since the
President’s remarks indicated that he held N.I.A. responsible, they must know the details regarding any
C.I.G. budget request.
At Secretary Byrnes’ request,
General Vandenberg then made a
brief report on C.I.G. activities. He noted
that C.I.G. was taking over Foreign
Broadcast Intelligence Service and all clandestine foreign intelligence
activities. In addition, however, C.I.G. is
receiving daily requests to take over functions now being done by various
State, War and Navy Committees. One example is the suggestion that C.I.G. centralize the handling of codes and
ciphers to improve their security. Another example is the concern of the War
Department about exchange of information with the British. The
State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee has a subcommittee covering this
exchange but it handles only about 20 or 30 percent of the information
actually exchanged. This subcommittee confines itself purely to secret
matters, whereas the Army Air Forces believe that a central clearing house
should be established where the bargaining value of this information may
also be taken into account.
Dr. Langer pointed out that the SWNCC subcommittee deals only with technical
military information. He feels, however, that the problem also involves such
matters as the transfer of non-military information and the declassification
of material. Unless these matters are centralized, each department will
continue, as at present, going its own way.
General Vandenberg reported that he
has already set up an Office of Special Operations. He has also established
an Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff, but only on a skeleton
basis because of his need for additional personnel.
Secretary Patterson felt that all of
General Vandenberg’s present
problems should be solved if the Secretary of State can obtain help from the
Bureau of the Budget.
General Vandenberg stated his
problems, briefly, were that he needed money, the authority to spend it, and
the authority to hire and fire.
Secretary Byrnes felt there were
really two problems: First, to find ways to handle the money now available,
and second, to get whatever additional funds are required. He thought it
would be difficult to get additional funds fifteen days after the fiscal
year had begun. He questioned whether present funds should not be sufficient
since the understanding was that C.I.G. was
primarily continuing functions which have been previously performed.
General Vandenberg explained that
C.I.G. was now undertaking certain new
functions and also expanding some existing ones. In answer to questions,
General Vandenberg stated that
he proposed to have about 1900 people in secret intelligence and a total of
something less than 3000 in C.I.G. by the
end of the fiscal year.
Dr. Langer stated that he agreed with
almost everything that General
Vandenberg had said, but that he was impressed with the
imposing size of the proposed organization. He thought there should be a
definite review of the program before a request for an additional
$10,000,000 is approved.
General Vandenberg pointed out that
there is a clear need for additional appropriations for intelligence in view
of changing conditions. During the war there were American forces all over
the world who were procuring information and intelligence in connection with
military operations. These operations were not considered as intelligence
activities, however, and the funds required for them were not charged to
intelligence. These operations are now shrinking rapidly. It is necessary
therefore, to have intelligence agents all over the world to get the same
information which during the war was handed to intelligence agencies on a
silver platter.
Secretary Patterson agreed with this
statement. He noted that in each theater of operations G–2 activities were merely a part of the Army’s
operations and were not considered to be part of the intelligence
organization directed from Washington.
General Vandenberg then discussed
briefly his proposed organization chart for the Central Intelligence Group.
He noted that there would be an Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning
Staff to assist in the coordination of all intelligence activities related
to the national security. There would then be four offices to conduct C.I.G. operations, namely, Special Operations, Collection, Research and
Evaluation, and Dissemination.
After further discussion,
The National Intelligence Authority:Noted General
Vandenberg’s report on the Central Intelligence
Group.Noted that the Secretary of State would discuss with the Bureau of
the Budget the solution of the problems mentioned by General Vandenberg, and would
report back to the Authority.For the
results of Byrnes’
efforts, see Documents 199 and 200 and their enclosures.Noted the organization of the Central Intelligence Group which
General Vandenberg was
planning to put into effect.
199. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg) to the National Intelligence AuthoritySource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–804, Item 2, Job 84–B00443R, Box 7.
Confidential. The source text is a transcript prepared for the CIA
Historian on September 4, 1952.Washington, July 30, 1946.
SUBJECT
Establishment of a Special Working Fund for the Central Intelligence
Group
REFERENCE
Minutes of N.I.A. 4th MeetingSee Document
198.At the fourth meeting of the National Intelligence Authority, the
Secretary of State undertook to discuss with the Bureau of the Budget
the solution of the problems mentioned at that meeting by General Vandenberg. One of these
problems was to devise a means whereby any funds made available for
C.I.G. activities authorized by
N.I.A. will be transferred by the
State, War, and Navy Departments to the Director of Central
Intelligence, and expended under the supervision of the N.I.A. by him without the cumbersome and duplicative
administrative procedures now required.The Secretary of State discussed this matter with the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget, and personnel from the Central Intelligence Group
subsequently explored the problem in detail with representatives of the
Bureau of the Budget, the Treasury Department, and the General
Accounting Office. The Bureau of the Budget and the Treasury Department
have definitely indicated a willingness to cooperate, and the General
Accounting Office has promised to give the matter sympathetic
consideration. All three agencies have indicated that the transmittal of
the enclosed letter is now in order, and that it will be considered
expeditiously. It is therefore recommended that the National Intelligence Authority
approve the transmittal of the enclosed letter, and that it be signed by
the Cabinet members as indicated therein. Hoyt S. VandenbergPrinted from a copy that
indicates Vandenberg signed
the original.Lieutenant General, USA
EnclosureConfidential. The source text is
marked “copy” and may be a transcript made for the CIA Historian,
although it is not so marked.Washington, July 30, 1946.
Letter From the National Intelligence Authority to
Secretary of the Treasury Snyder and the Comptroller General
(Warren)
Dear Sir: In accordance with the Presidential
directive of 22 January 1946, the National Intelligence Authority has,
through a series of directives to the Director of Central Intelligence,
established over-all policies for foreign intelligence activities
related to the national security, and has directed that the Central
Intelligence Group engage in certain centralized intelligence activities
which are of common interest to the Departments herein concerned. To
implement properly the wishes of the President, the National
Intelligence Authority has found it necessary to provide the Director of
Central Intelligence with administrative and operational facilities
which involve expenditure of funds and furnishing of personnel and
equipment. This threefold method of supply has become so cumbersome as
to impair seriously the administration of the Central Intelligence
Group, and is becoming an important threat to the security of its
operations.
We desire, therefore, under the provisions of Section 214 of the
Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1946, to make available to the
Central Intelligence Group, from the appropriations of the three
Departments mentioned, amounts authorized by Congress for the support of
intelligence activities and such other funds as it is in our discretion
to use for this purpose. To administer these funds, it is proposed to
establish a special working fund, as provided for in Section 601 of the
Act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 417). This fund will be, for record
purposes, in the War Department, but, with the approval of the Secretary
of War, its administration and fiscal supervision will be solely by
officers of the Central Intelligence Group. Upon the establishment of
such a working fund, it is proposed, in addition to committing such
funds of our respective Departments for administration by the Central
Intelligence Group, to delegate to the Director of Central Intelligence
or his authorized representatives the necessary authorities for the
administration of those funds, for personnel actions, for procurement of
equipment and supplies, and for the certification of vouchers. We are
informed that the Bureau of the Budget is in full accord with the
establishment of such a working fund.
We therefore request, on behalf of the Departments we represent and in
our capacity as members of the National Intelligence Authority, that you
establish such a working fund under the provisions of Section 601 of the
Act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 417). All officials of our Departments
and of the Central Intelligence Group are prepared to give you complete
cooperation.Printed from a copy that
indicates the original was signed by the Secretaries of State, War,
and Navy and by Admiral
Leahy, the President’s Personal Representative on the
NIA.
200. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg) to the National Intelligence AuthoritySource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–804, Item 2, Job 84–B00442R, Box 7.
Confidential. The source text is a transcript made for the CIA Historian
on September 4, 1952.Washington, August 21, 1946.
SUBJECT
Delegation of Authority to Utilize Special Working Fund
REFERENCE
Letter from N.I.A. to the Secretary of
the Treasury and the Comptroller General dated 30 July 1946See the enclosure to Document
199.
In the reference letter, the National Intelligence Authority requested the
establishment of a special working fund to administer funds made available
by the State, War and Navy Departments to the Central Intelligence Group.
The N.I.A. stated that “Upon the
establishment of such a working fund, it is proposed, in addition to
committing such funds of our respective Departments for administration by
the Central Intelligence Group, to delegate to the Director of Central
Intelligence or his authorized representatives the necessary authorities for
the administration of those funds, for personnel actions, for procurement of
equipment and supplies, and for the certification of vouchers.”
The special working fund has now been established and the enclosed letter is
designed to provide the additional authorizations which the N.I.A. proposed in the above quotation. This
letter has been coordinated with representatives of the Treasury Department
and the Comptroller General, and has been agreed to by them in
principle.
It is requested that each member of the National Intelligence Authority, in
turn, sign the enclosed letter and transmit to the next addressee, returning
the letter to the undersigned when all the signatures have been affixed.
Sufficient copies are also attached to enable each member to detach one copy
for file.
Hoyt S. VandenbergPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Lieutenant General, USA
EnclosureConfidential. It appears that
this is not a draft but a copy of the signed original.Washington, September 5, 1946.
Letter From the National Intelligence Authority to the
Comptroller General (Warren)
Dear Sir: In our letter of 30 July 1946, we
requested that you establish a working fund to assist in carrying out
the President’s wishes in
regard to foreign intelligence activities. We proposed in that letter to
authorize the Director of Central Intelligence to direct the
administration and fiscal supervision of such a working fund upon its
establishment. With approval of the Treasury Department and the
Comptroller General, Working Fund, War, General, 1947, has been
constituted and has been assigned the symbol number 2175900.
In order to comply with the Presidential Directive of 22 January 1946
that the Director of Central Intelligence perform such services of
common concern as the National Intelligence Authority determines can be
more effectively accomplished centrally, we now on behalf of the
Departments we represent, and in our capacity as members of the National
Intelligence Authority, authorize the Director, subject to policies
established by the National Intelligence Authority, to control,
supervise and administer this working fund with full powers in respect
thereto as would otherwise have been exercised by us over the funds
contributed to the working fund by our respective Departments, including
the powers and authority granted by the Military Appropriation Act,
1947, and the Naval Appropriation Act, 1947, approved July 8, 1946
(Public Law 492–79th Congress), pertaining to certificates of
expenditures and determinations of propriety of expenditures.
The Director of Central Intelligence and his authorized representatives
shall arrange with your Departments such procedures, practices and
controls as are necessary to meet your requirements, and the Working
Fund, War, General, 1947 shall be subject only to the immediate control
of the Director in accordance with policies established by the National
Intelligence Authority.
Dean AchesonPrinted from a copy that
bears these typed signatures.Acting Secretary of StateRobert P. PattersonSecretary of WarForrestalSecretary of the NavyWilliam D. LeahyPersonal Representative of the President on N.I.A.
201. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Vandenberg) to the
President’s Special Counsel (Clifford)Source:
Truman Library, Papers of
Clark M. Clifford, National
Military Establishment: CIA. No classification marking.Washington, December 2, 1946.
SUBJECT
Proposed enabling legislation for the establishment of a Central
Intelligence Agency
Transmitted herewith is a proposed draft of enabling legislation for the
Central Intelligence Agency.Not printed.
(Ibid.) See the Supplement. It is somewhat more detailed and
comprehensive than the draft submitted last July.
The current draft has been expanded in the light of the experiences of the
last ten months and the administrative facilities available. However, it
does not materially change the interdepartmental relationships conceived in
the original Presidential letter of January 22, 1946.
Section 1 (a) of the current draft consists of Findings and Declaration.
Section 1 (b) Consists of the Purpose of Act.
Section 2 consists of Definitions, as it was felt, in line with your
Memorandum to General Vandenberg of
July 12, 1946,See footnote 2, Document 197. that a definition of terms
was desirable.
Section 3 (a) sets forth the Organization of the National Intelligence
Authority, and delineates its powers. This is also in line with your
Memorandum of July 12.
Section 3 (b) sets forth the Organization of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The salaries have been set on a level established by the Atomic Energy Act
of 1946.Approved August 1, 1946; 60 Stat.
755. It was felt that this was necessary in order to attract the
highest calibre of personnel to the Agency. In addition subsection (5) has
been included in order to avail ourselves of experienced, retired personnel
of the Armed Forces. The language is similar to that of Public Law 718 (79th
Congress),Approved August 10, 1946; 60
Stat. 978. which made similar provisions for the Veterans’
Administration.
Section 3 (c) establishes the Intelligence Advisory Board.
Section 4 sets forth the Functions of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Section 5 has been omitted. It is thought to include, at a later date, a
section on Control of Information, somewhat similar to Section 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. This
has been delayed, pending receipt of information as to the position to be
taken by the Department of Justice on revisions to the Espionage Laws
recommended by the War and Navy Departments and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Section 6 contains the General Authority, including a provision for
termination of employment of personnel in the interests of the United
States. This is similar to a provision in the Department of State
Appropriation Act, 1947 (Public Law 470, 79th Congress, p. 14).Approved June 29, 1946; 60 Stat. 339.
Section 7 is the section on Appropriations.
Section 8 is the section on Separability of Provisions.
Section 9 is the Short Title.
There is also included herewith a copy of your Memorandum for General Vandenberg, dated July 12, 1946,
Subject: Proposed Bill for the establishment of a Central Intelligence
Agency, and a Memorandum to the Director of Central Intelligence containing
comments addressed to your Memorandum.Memorandum, Houston to Vandenberg, July 16, 1946. (National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central
Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers) See the
Supplement.
For the Director of Central Intelligence:E.K.
WrightColonel, GSCExecutive to Director
Enclosure
A BILL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
AUTHORITY AND A CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
Declaration of Policy
Sec. 1. (a) Findings and Declaration.
In enacting this legislation, it is the intent of Congress to provide a
comprehensive and continuous program which will effectively accomplish
the national intelligence
mission of the United States by supplying the President of the United
States, the Secretaries of State, War, and the Navy, and such other
governmental officials as shall be appropriate, with foreign
intelligence of the highest possible calibre. To accomplish this
mission, a central intelligence agency is required by the United States.
This agency shall insure the production of the foreign intelligence
necessary to enable the appropriate officials of the Government to be
informed fully in their dealings with other nations, and to enable these
officials to formulate national policies and plans which this Government
is to pursue in order to avert future armed conflicts and assure the
common defense and security of the United States. The accomplishment of
this service is the national intelligence mission of the United
States.
Experience preceding, during, and following two World Wars has proven
that the uncoordinated decentralization of the collection, research, and
dissemination of foreign intelligence information among many departments
and agencies of the Government is unsatisfactory. In an attempt to
remedy this situation in times of national crises, emergency means have
repeatedly been adopted. These experiences have shown the need for a
permanent, centralized, intelligence agency so that all the foreign
intelligence sources and facilities of the Government may be utilized to
the fullest extent in the production of foreign intelligence, and so
that their greatest potentialities may be realized most efficiently and
economically, with a resultant elimination of unproductive duplication
and unnecessary overlapping of functions in the accomplishment of the
national intelligence mission of the United States.
Accordingly, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the people of the
United States that in order to strengthen the hand of the Government in
formulating national policies and conducting relations with other
nations, and subject at all times to the paramount objective of assuring
the common defense and security, the foreign intelligence activities,
functions, and services of the Government be fully coordinated, and,
when determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act, be
operated centrally for the accomplishment of the national intelligence
mission of the United States.
Section 1. (b) Purpose of Act.
It is the purpose of this Act to carry out the policies set forth in
Section 1 (a) by providing for the execution, among others, of the
following major programs relating to intelligence: A program for the centralized operation of such foreign
intelligence activities of the Federal Government as the
National Intelligence Authority determines can so be performed
most effectively, efficiently, and economically.A program for the planning and development of all foreign
intelligence activities of the Federal Government, and including
the coordination of
those activities of the departments and agencies of the
Government designed for the production of foreign
intelligence.A program for the collection of foreign intelligence
information by any and all means deemed effective.A program of evaluation, correlation, and interpretation of
the foreign intelligence information collected, in order to
produce intelligence for the President and the appropriate
departments and agencies of the Federal Government.A program for dissemination to the President and the
appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal Government
of the intelligence produced.A program for the full administration and implementation of
the above.
Definitions
Sec. 2. As used in this Act.
The term “foreign intelligence” shall be construed to mean the
product of the timely evaluation, correlation, and interpretation of
foreign intelligence information. The term “foreign intelligence information” shall be construed to
mean all data pertaining to foreign governments or areas, which may
affect the foreign policy or the national defense and security of
the United States.The term “research” shall be construed to mean a process of
evaluation (selection), correlation (synthesis), and interpretation
(analysis) of intelligence information for the production of
intelligence. The term “evaluation” shall be construed to mean a process of
systematic and critical examination of intelligence information for
the purpose of determining its usefulness, credibility, and
accuracy.The term “correlation” shall be construed to mean a process of
synthesis of intelligence information with all available related
material. The term “interpretation” shall be construed to mean a process of
determining the probable significance of evaluated intelligence
information.
Organization
Sec. 3 (a) National Intelligence Authority.
There is hereby established a National Intelligence Authority
(hereinafter called the Authority) of five members. The Secretary of
State, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy shall be
members of the Authority. The President shall designate a fourth
member of the Authority to serve as his personal representative
thereon. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, the Secretary
of the Navy, and the personal representative of the President shall
constitute the sole voting members of the Authority. The Director of
Central Intelligence, hereinafter provided for, shall sit as the
fifth member of the Authority, as a non-voting member thereof. The
Secretary of State shall serve as Chairman of the Authority.The members of the Authority shall hold their positions thereon by
virtue of their respective offices. The members of the Authority
shall serve without compensation for this service and shall perform
this service in addition to such other activities, public or
private, as they may engage in.In the absence of the Secretaries of State, War, or the Navy, the
appropriate Acting Secretary shall sit as a member of the Authority.
If the personal representative of the President is absent, the
Secretaries (or Acting Secretaries) of State, War, and the Navy
shall constitute a quorum of the Authority.The Authority shall hold such meetings, conduct such hearings, and
receive such reports as may be necessary to enable it to carry out
the provisions of this Act. The Authority shall meet at least once
each month.The Authority shall be served by a Secretariat, consisting, of a
Secretary and such other technical, administrative, and clerical
assistance as the Authority shall deem necessary. The Central
Intelligence Agency, hereinafter provided for, shall be responsible
for furnishing the Secretariat with personnel. The Secretariat of
the Authority shall also serve as the Secretariat of the
Intelligence Advisory Board, hereinafter provided for, performing
the same duties for this Board as for the Authority.The Authority shall determine policies and objectives for, and
supervise and direct, the Central Intelligence Agency, hereinafter
provided for, in the planning, development, and coordination of the
foreign intelligence activities of the departments and agencies of
the Government, as well as in the conduct of those foreign
intelligence operations performed centrally, in such manner as to
assure the most effective accomplishment of the national
intelligence mission.The Authority shall have the right to transfer responsibilities
and authorities in the field of foreign intelligence between
departments and agencies of the Government.Policies approved by the Authority in relation to the foreign
intelligence activities of the United States, insofar as they affect
the national defense and security, shall govern the intelligence
activities of the various departments and agencies of the
Government.If the decisions of the Authority on matters set forth in Sec. 3
(a) (6) and (7) of this Act are not unanimous, the Authority shall
refer the matter to the President, whose decision shall be
final.
Sec. 3 (b) Central Intelligence Agency.
There is hereby established a Central Intelligence Agency
(hereinafter called the Agency), with a Director of Central
Intelligence who shall be the head thereof, to be appointed from
civilian or military life by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, to serve at the pleasure of the
President. The Director shall receive compensation at the rate of
$17,500 per annum.There shall be a Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, appointed from civilian or military life by the President,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to serve at the
pleasure of the President. The Deputy Director shall receive
compensation at the rate of $15,000 per annum. The Deputy Director
shall be authorized to sign such letters, papers, and documents, and
to perform such other duties as may be directed by the Director of
Central Intelligence, and to act as Director in the absence of that
officer, or in the case of a vacancy in the office of
Director.The functions of the Agency, as outlined in Sec. 4 of this Act,
shall be performed by the appropriate offices of the Agency. Each
office shall be under the direction of an Assistant Director, who
shall be appointed by the Director of Central Intelligence, and
shall receive compensation at the rate of $14,000 per annum. The
Assistant Directors shall be not less than four (4) and not exceed
six (6) in number.Any officer of the Department of State, or of the Foreign Service
of the United States, and any commissioned officer of the United
States Army, the United States Navy, or the United States Army Air
Forces, may be assigned to or detailed for duty with the Agency; and
such service shall in no way affect any status, office, rank, or
grade he may occupy or hold in the Department of State, the Foreign
Service of the United States, the United States Army, the United
States Navy, or the United States Army Air Forces, or any emolument,
perquisite, right, privilege, or benefit incident to or arising out
of any such status, office, rank, or grade, notwithstanding the
provisions of Title 10 U.S. Code, Sec. 576 and Public Law 724, 79th
Congress, approved August 13, 1946,60
Stat. 999. and entitled “An Act to improve, strengthen,
and expand the Foreign Service of the United States and to
consolidate and revise the laws relating to its administration,” or
any other law pertaining to such pay and allowances. Any such
officer of the Department of State, the Foreign Service of the
United States, or commissioned officer on the active list shall
receive, while serving in a position established in Sec. 3 (b) of
this Act, the State Department, the Foreign Service, or the pay and
allowances payable to an officer of his grade and length of service,
and shall be paid, from any funds available to defray the expenses of the Agency, annual
compensation at a rate equal to the difference between the salary
set forth for such position in Sec. 3 (b) of this Act and the amount
of such State Department, Foreign Service, or military pay and
allowances. Notwithstanding section 2 of the Act of July 31, 1894 (28 Stat.
205), as amended (5 U.S.C. 62), or section 6 of the Act of May 10,
1916 (39 Stat. 120), as amended (5 U.S.C. 58, 59), the Director of
Central Intelligence may appoint to, and employ in, any civilian
office or position in the Agency, and pay, any retired commissioned
officer, or retired warrant officer, of the Army, Navy, Marine
Corps, Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Public Health
Service. The retired status, office rank, and grade of retired
commissioned officers, or retired warrant officers, so appointed or
employed and, except as provided in section 212 of the Act of June
30, 1932 (47 Stat. 406), as amended (5 U.S.C. 59a), any emolument,
perquisite, right, privilege, or benefit incident to or arising out
of any such status, office, rank, or grade, shall be in no way
affected by reason of such appointment to or employment in, or by
reason of service in, or acceptance or holding of, any civilian
office or position in the Agency or the receipt of the pay thereof.
Section 3. (c) Intelligence Advisory Board.
The Director of Central Intelligence shall be advised by an
Intelligence Advisory Board, (hereinafter called the Board),
consisting of the heads (or their representatives) of those civilian
and military intelligence agencies of the Government having
functions related to the national defense and security, as
determined, from time to time, by the National Intelligence
Authority.Members of the Board shall serve without compensation for this
service and shall perform this service in addition to such other
activities, public or private, as they may engage in. The Intelligence Advisory Board shall be served by a Secretariat,
as provided for in Section 3 (a) (5) of this Act.Any recommendation of the Agency which is approved unanimously by
the Director of Central Intelligence and the Board, and which they
have the existing authority to execute, may be put into effect
without action by the Authority.Any recommendation of the Agency which does not receive such
unanimous concurrence shall be submitted to the Authority for
decision, together with the dissenting opinions.
Functions
Sec. 4. Functions of the Central Intelligence Agency.
In order to assure the most effective accomplishment of the
national intelligence mission of the United States, the Agency
shall, under the supervision and direction of the Authority: Develop and recommend to the Authority establishment of
over-all policies, plans, requirements, objectives, and
procedures to assure the most effective accomplishment of
the national intelligence mission and to implement the
provisions of this Act;Coordinate such of the foreign intelligence activities of
the departments and agencies of the Government as relate to
the national defense and security;Collect foreign intelligence information originating
outside the continental limits of the United States by any
and all means deemed effective;Give timely evaluation, correlation, and interpretation to
foreign intelligence information;Disseminate national intelligence to the President and
appropriate departments and agencies of the
Government;Operate such foreign intelligence services as the
Authority determines can best be performed, or be more
efficiently or economically accomplished, centrally;Administer the personnel and logistical needs of the
Agency, including the procurement, training, and supervision
of the Agency’s personnel, its budgetary requirements and
disbursement of funds, and the provision of administrative
and logistical support for the foreign activities of the
Agency;Be responsible for fully protecting sources and methods
used in the collection of foreign intelligence information
received by the Agency;Provide for the internal security of the Agency, including
the complete security of its policies, plans, requirements,
objectives, procedures, operations, and personnel;Formulate and promulgate integrated security policies and
procedures pertaining to the safeguarding of classified
information and matter of the various departments and
agencies of the Government, in the interest of the national
defense and security; andPerform such other functions and duties relating to
foreign intelligence as the President or the Authority may
direct.The responsibility and authority of the departments and agencies
of the Government to collect, evaluate, correlate, interpret, and
disseminate departmental intelligence shall not be affected, except
to the extent that the Authority may relieve them of such
responsibility and authority pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 3
(a) (8) of this Act.As required in the carrying out of the provisions of this Act,
there will be made immediately available on a continuing basis to
the Agency all intelligence, information, and such facilities as may
be necessary, in the possession of the various departments and
agencies of the Government.To the extent recommended by the National Intelligence Authority,
the intelligence operations of the departments and agencies of the
Government shall be open to inspection by the Agency in connection
with its planning functions.The Agency shall have no police, subpoena, or law enforcement
powers or functions, nor shall it have any functions concerning the
internal security of the United States except as specifically
authorized by Secs. 4 (a) (8) (9) and (10) of this Act.
General Authority
Section 6. In the performance of its functions, the Central Intelligence
Agency is authorized to: Procure necessary services, supplies and equipment without
regard to the provisions of Section 3709, Revised Statutes (41
U.S.C. 5), as amended, upon certification by the Director, or an
official designated by him for that purpose, that such action is
necessary in the interest of the common defense and security or
upon a showing that advertising is not reasonably practicable,
and partial and advance payments may be made under contracts for
such purpose;Pay quarters and cost of living allowances or in lieu thereof
a salary differential to employees having permanent station
outside the continental limits of the United States;Transfer to and receive from funds available to other
departments or agencies of the Government such sums as may be
authorized by the Bureau of the Budget, either as advance
payment or reimbursement of appropriation, for the performance
of any of the functions or activities authorized in this Act,
and any other department or agency of the Government is
authorized to transfer to or receive from the Agency such sums
without regard to any provisions of law concerning transfers
between appropriations. Sums transferred to the Agency in
accordance with this paragraph may be expended for the purposes
and under the authority of this Act without regard to
limitations of other appropriations;Order to the continental United States on leave of absence any
officer or employee of the Agency upon completion of two (2)
years continuous service abroad, and pay travel expenses
incident thereto of employees and their dependents to their
place of residence in the United States and return. Such leave
will not exceed sixty (60) calendar days, and will be exclusive
of time actually and necessarily spent in travel and awaiting
transportation;Reimburse other Government departments and agencies for
services of personnel assigned to the Agency, and other
departments and agencies are hereby authorized so to assign or
detail any officer or employee for duty with the Agency;Exchange funds without regard to Section 3651 Revised Statutes
(31 U.S.C. 543);Authorize couriers designated by the Director to carry
firearms when engaged in transportation of confidential
documents and materials affecting the national defense and
security;Establish advisory boards to advise with and make
recommendations to the Agency on administration, legislation,
operations, policies, research, and other matters;Make such studies and investigations, obtain such information,
and hold such hearings as the Agency may deem necessary or
proper to assist it in exercising any authority provided in this
Act, or in the administration or enforcement of this Act, or any
regulations or directives issued thereunder; andNotwithstanding the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of
August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), or the provisions of any other
law, the Director of Central Intelligence may, in his absolute
discretion, terminate the employment of any officer or employee
of the Agency whenever he shall deem such termination necessary
or advisable in the interests of the United States, but such
termination shall not affect the right of such officer or
employee to seek or accept employment in any other department or
agency of the Government if declared eligible for such
employment by the United States Civil Service Commission.
Appropriations
Section 7. Appropriations:There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions and
purposes of this Act.Within the limits of such appropriations, the Director is
authorized to employ persons and means and made expenditures, at
the seat of government and elsewhere, for personal services,
rent, travel expenses, preparation and transportation of the
remains of officers and employees who die abroad or in transit,
while in dispatch of their official duties, to their former
homes in this country or to a place not more distant for
interment, and for ordinary expenses of such interment; rental
of news-reporting services; purchase of or subscription to law
books, books of reference, periodicals, newspapers, commercial
and trade reports; purchase or rental and operation of
photographic, reproduction, cryptographic, duplication and
printing machines, equipment and devices, and radio-receiving
and radio-sending equipment and devices including telegraph and
teletype equipment; purchase, maintenance, operation, repair and
hire of motor-propelled or horse-drawn passenger-carrying
vehicles and other vehicles, aircraft, and vessels of all kinds;
printing and binding; purchase, maintenance, and cleaning of
firearms.The Acts appropriating such sums may appropriate specified
portions thereof which may be expended, (A) without regard to
the provisions of law and regulations relating to the
expenditure of Government funds or the employment of persons in
the Government service; (B) for objects of a confidential
nature, such expenditures to be accounted for solely on the
certificate of the Director and every such certificate shall be
deemed a sufficient voucher for the amount therein
certified.
Separability of Provisions
Section 8. If any provision of this Act, or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder
of this Act or the application of such provision to persons or
circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not
be affected thereby.
Short Title
Section 9. This Act may be cited as the “Central Intelligence Agency Act
of 1947”.
202. Draft Central Intelligence Group MemorandumSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job
90–00610R, Box 1, Folder 3. Secret. The source text, attached to a copy
of Document 201, may be the document referred
to in Vandenberg’s office diary
for December 9, 1946, which notes: “went to see Mr. Clifford at the White House with the
article for the President’s ‘State of the Union’ speech to find out if
he approved our project of advocating immediate legislation.” (Central
Intelligence Agency Records, Job 80–01731R, Box 31, Folder 1) Vandenberg also alluded to the
possible inclusion of a recommendation for intelligence legislation in
the State of the Union message in his January 8 conversation with
Clifford; see Document 203.Washington, undated.
MATERIAL PROPOSED BY DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE FOR
INCLUSION IN THE PRESIDENT’S “STATE OF THE UNION” MESSAGE TO CONGRESS,
JANUARY 1947
The vital and urgent need of this nation for effective foreign intelligence
has been amply demonstrated both by our pre-war and war-time experiences.
This need has been recognized in the Congress by a number of bipartisan committee recommendations.
During this atomic age in which the United States has pledged its fullest
energies to the establishment and maintenance of a just and lasting peace,
our statesmen who are charged with this heavy responsibility must not be
asked to steer the ship of state over an uncharted course. The difficult and
far-reaching decisions they are called upon to make must be based upon a
clear knowledge and understanding of present and probable future
developments in other countries if we are to live with them in peace and
security. We have also learned from bitter experience that responsibility
must be placed on one agency to ensure that this essential information
pertaining to our interests in foreign lands is collected, interpreted and
distributed to appropriate officials in cooperation with existing facilities
such as the Foreign Service. Therefore, in line with the apparent desires of
the Congress and in view of the demonstrated urgency, I directed last
January the establishment of a National Intelligence Authority composed of
the Secretaries of State, War and the Navy and my personal representative,
Fleet Admiral Leahy, to plan,
develop and coordinate all Federal foreign intelligence activities. To
assist this Authority, there was created a Central Intelligence Group under
a Director of Central Intelligence who was charged with performing those
intelligence services of common concern which could be more efficiently
accomplished centrally, including coordination of departmental intelligence
activities, and the production and dissemination to appropriate Government
officials of strategic and national policy intelligence. This organization
during its year of existence has clearly proved itself an effective and
essential instrument of Government. To realize its full capabilities,
however, this agency should have the benefit of permanent authorization from
the Congress. I therefore urgently recommend that Congress give early
consideration to the passage of enabling legislation for the National
Intelligence Authority and a Central Intelligence Agency so that never in
the future will our national interests or security be placed in jeopardy for
lack of accurate and timely intelligence concerning foreign
developments.
[Here follows the text of Document 201.]
203. Memorandum of ConversationSource: Truman Library, Papers
of George M. Elsey, Central
Intelligence. No classification marking. Drafted on January 9 by
Elsey.Washington, January 8,
1947.
Lt. General Vandenberg, Director of
Central Intelligence, discussed with Mr. Clifford the proposal of Central Intelligence Group that
legislation be introduced to authorize the establishment on a statutory
basis of the National Intelligence Authority and the Central Intelligence
Group.
It had been Vandenberg’s
understanding since last June when he first submitted a proposed bill to Mr.
Clifford for comment, that the
White House favored such legislation. He had also been led to believe that
the President might include a recommendation along these lines in the State
of the Union message.
Mr. Clifford told him on 8 January
that such a recommendation had been included in the early drafts of the
message but that both Admiral Leahy
and the President felt that it was undesirable and unnecessary to bring this
matter to the attention of the Congress at the present.
General Vandenberg stated that he
believed that the NIA favored such
legislation. Vandenberg will lay
the matter before NIA and report its
decision to Dr. Clifford.
G.M.E. Commander, U.S.N.R.
204. Memorandum From the Chief of the Legislative Liaison Division of the
Central Intelligence Group (Pforzheimer) to the Director of Central Intelligence
(Vandenberg)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 263, Records of the Central Intelligence
Agency, Troy Papers, CIG and NSA of ’47. No classification
marking.Washington, January 23, 1947.
SUBJECT
Proposed Bill for National Defense Act of 1947
1. The following recommendations are made for changes and additions to the
First Rough Draft of the proposed bill for merger of the Armed Forces:Not found.
a. The title of the draft bill should be amended to read as follows:
“To promote the national defense by providing for three functionally
balanced mil departments unified under a Sec of Nat Defense, to
establish a Central Intelligence Agency, and for further
integration, under a Council of Nat Def, with all other departments
and agencies of the Gov concerned with the national defense.”
This will serve to include the establishment of a Central Intelligence Agency
as one of the purposes of the bill (page 1).
b. The Declaration of Policy (section 2, page 1) should be amended to include
reference to the need of centralizing intelligence, and the intent of
Congress to provide for such centralization as set forth in Section 1(a) of
the proposed CIG Enabling Act.See the enclosure to Document
201. This should include detailed reference to the
major programs relating to intelligence as outlined in Section1(b) of the
proposed CIG Enabling Act.
c. A section of “Definitions” should be included in an appropriate place in
the draft so that such terms as “foreign intelligence”, “foreign
intelligence information”, and similar phrases which have a particular
meaning with reference to intelligence are not misconstrued. This is in
accordance with Section 2 of the proposed CIG Enabling Act.
d. After Section 101(b) (page 2) there should be added a section
substantially as follows:
“The Director of Central Intelligence shall serve as the Advisor to
the Council on all matters pertaining to national intelligence. In
this capacity he shall attend all meetings of the Council but shall
take no part in the decisions thereof.”
e. Section 102(a) (page 4) does not specifically create a Central
Intelligence Agency, nor does it spell out chain of command and the
authority which shall exercise policy guidance and control. In addition, the
personnel provisions are felt to be inadequate in that they do not provide
for direct employment by the agency of personnel of its own choosing. It is
felt that Section 3(b) of the proposed CIG
Enabling Act is generally preferable as establishing more clearly the nature
of the agency. However, this section would have to be amended to make clear
that the Director of Central Intelligence would report to the Council of
National Defense but would receive policy guidance and control from a
committee of the Council consisting of the Secretary of State, the Secretary
of National Defense, and the
President’s Personal Representative, if any.
f. Section 102(b) (page 5) should be eliminated in its entirety. This section
defines the duties of the agency in terms which are extremely loose and
lacking in detail. In its place should be put the provisions of Section 4(a)
of the proposed CIG Enabling Act. The latter
sections delineate the functions of the agency in far greater detail with
less chance of misinterpretation or evasion. In addition, Section 4(a) gives
the agency the right to supervise its personnel, its budgetary requirements
and disbursements of funds, and specifically provides for administrative and
logistical support for the foreign activities of the agency. Also Section
4(a) was written to set forth the functions of CIG in accordance with the offices into which CIG has been broken down. The draft submitted
by the White House does not include any specific provision for the
collection of foreign intelligence information.
g. The first sentence of Section 102(c) (page 7) permits other agencies to
continue general intelligence activities. This should be amended to limit
them strictly to departmental intelligence as provided by Section 4(b) of
the proposed CIG Enabling Act. The remainder
of Section 102(c), which provides that the agency shall have no police
power, etc., should be qualified to the extent of permitting it to control
its own security in accordance with Sections 4(a), (8), (9), (10) and 4 (e)
of the proposed CIG Enabling Act.
h. Sections 102(d) and (e) (page 7) deal with the relationship of the Central
Intelligence Agency with other intelligence agencies of the Government, and
the use of their facilities. It is felt that the language of Sections 4(c)
and (d) of the proposed CIG Enabling Act is
preferable in that it provides for the full availability of both information
and facilities on a continuing basis whereas the proposed draft from the
White House is somewhat weaker.
i. The Director of Central Intelligence should be eliminated from the
provisions of Section 404 (page 28) of the proposed draft inasmuch as these
provisions tend to limit his powers of appointment of personnel to exempted
positions and on unvouchered funds, and particularly his power to discharge
employees for security reasons.
j. The draft act proposed by the White House nowhere provides for the
authorities which are essential to the operations of the Central
Intelligence Agency. These include special procurement authorities,
authorization for transfers between appropriations, certain special
personnel practices, the right to exchange funds, and certain other but
necessary powers. The proposed bill does not provide for appropriations for
the Central Intelligence Agency nor for the special expenditures which
should be authorized in these appropriations, particularly expenditures of a
confidential nature to be accounted for on the certification of the
Director, and expenditures otherwise made without regard to provisions of law and regulations relating to
Government funds. The above special powers and authorizations should be
added to the proposed bill as Sections 407 and 408 in the general form
proposed by the CIG Enabling Act, Sections 6
and 7.
Walter L. Pforzheimer
205. Memorandum for the RecordSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 263, Records
of the Central Intelligence Agency, Troy Papers,
Legislation 1947. Confidential. The source text is undated; the date is
from a handwritten date on the copy reproduced in CIA
Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry
Truman, pp. 105–109.Washington, undated.
SUBJECT
Proposed Legislation for C.I.G.
Sometime shortly after 1600 hours on 22 January 1947, a copy of the proposed
National Defense Act of 1947Not found.
was delivered to the Director of Central Intelligence for comment on those
sections applicable to him. Immediate review of the intelligence sections
indicated that they had been lifted virtually verbatim from S–2044, the
Merger Bill introduced into the 79th Congress by Senator
Thomas. These provisions are considered
unsatisfactory to C.I.G. in many respects.
The salient features of disagreement are included in the Memorandum from the
undersigned to the Director of Central Intelligence, dated 23 January 1947,
subject: Proposed Bill for National Defense Act of 1947.Document 204.
A conference with the Director established the policy that an attempt should
not be made to remove from the Defense Act all but a bare mention of the
Central Intelligence Agency, and introduce a separate CIG Bill. The Director also indicated his
desire to have included a provision that he would serve as the advisor to
the Council on National Defense on matters pertaining to intelligence, and
that in this capacity he would attend all meetings of the Council. It was
agreed that the Director should take no part in the decisions of the Council
as this was a policy making body,
and it had long been agreed that Central Intelligence should not be involved
in policy making.
At 1000 hours, 23 January 1947, a conference was held in the office of Mr.
Charles S. Murphy, Administrative Assistant to the
President, at which General
Vandenberg, Vice Admiral Forrest
Sherman, Major General Lauris Norstad, the
undersigned, and Mr. Houston were
present. Mr. Murphy stated that the subject was new to
him, as he had first entered the picture on 20 January 1947 and was charged
with the over-all drafting of the White House version of the National
Defense Act. He stated that he did not know that a proposed CIG enabling act had been submitted to Mr.
Clifford’s office. He suggested
(concurred in by all present) that the draft of the proposed CIG enabling act be substituted for the
intelligence sections of the proposed National Defense Act as an initial
working basis.
In connection with paragraph 1 (a) of the memorandum for the Director from
the undersigned, dated 23 January 1947, it was pointed out that no mention
of CIA had been made in the title of the proposed bill. This was due to the
fact that a considerable number of boards and councils were created by this
bill and none of them were being named in the title. Therefore, it would not
seem appropriate to mention CIA in the title. In this General Vandenberg concurred.
The proposed draft of the National Defense Act of 1947 was modified by the
undersigned, with the assistance of Mr. Houston, to include the changes discussed at the meeting,
and to incorporate the necessary. provisions of the proposed CIG enabling act. Copies of the revised
actNot found. were personally handed
to Admiral Sherman and General
Norstad by Lt. Botsford
shortly after 1700, 23 January 1947. A copy was also handed to Mr.
Murphy by the undersigned at 1715. A copy of NIA Directive #5 was shown to Mr.
Murphy. It was not left with him, due to the
absence of any security in his office. Mr. Murphy
suggested the addition of a paragraph providing for the dissolution of
NIA and CIG, and the transfer of its personnel, property, and records
to the Agency. This was concurred in on 24 January 1947 by the undersigned,
after one or two minor changes.
On 25 January, the undersigned talked with Mr. Murphy,
and was informed that all but the barest mention of CIA would be omitted, as
the drafting committee thought that the material submitted by CIG was too controversial and might hinder the
passage of the merger legislation.
It had been felt by the drafting committee that the substantive portions of
the proposed CIG draft were too
controversial and subject to attack by other agencies. It was further felt
that the General Authorities were rather controversial from a Congressional
point of view, but that CIG might justify them in their own bill if
they had the time to present them adequately. It was further felt that if
detailed intelligence legislation was included in the merger bill CIG might not have time to present their
picture to the Congress in detail in the course of the hearings.
The undersigned asked Mr. Murphy whether the elimination
of CIA from merger legislation constituted permission to submit our own
enabling act as a companion measure. He stated that he could not comment on
this, as he was authorized (with his drafting committee) only to draft the
merger bill, and could not approve or pass on other matters. Authority to
draft and introduce a CIA Enabling Act would have to come from other
sources.
The above information was transmitted to the Deputy Director (Colonel Wright), who cabled General Vandenberg of the
developments.
Colonel Wright spoke with Admiral Leahy, to request information as
to whether Murphy’s position granted us a green light
on our own legislation. The Admiral was inclined to agree. He felt that we
should delete from the draft the phrase “Subject to existing law” (Sec. 302
(b)), as it would only serve to complicate things. He further felt that we
should then let the draft go through.
It was determined to request that the position of Deputy Director be included
in the draft, the phrase mentioned in the preceding paragraph be deleted,
and an attempt made to include a clause which would designate the Director
as the Intelligence Advisor to the Council.
In connection with paragraph 1 (b) of reference memorandum, it was agreed to
make some mention of centralized intelligence in the declaration of policy
in the proposed bill. This suggestion had strong support from Admiral
Sherman, although it was initially thought by the
others present that it might prove cumbersome.
In connection with paragraph 1 (c) of reference memorandum, it was felt that
this suggestion was non-controversial and that the appropriate definitions
would be acceptable.
In connection with paragraph 1 (d) of reference memorandum, General Vandenberg stated that he was
strongly opposed to the Central Intelligence Agency or its director
participating in policy decisions on any matter. However, he felt that he
should be present at meetings of the Council. To this General
Norstad voiced serious exceptions, as he felt that
the Council was already too big. He thought that the Director should not
even be present as an observer, as this had proven to be cumbersome and
unworkable at meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral
Sherman suggested, however, that the Director
should normally be present at meetings of the Council, in its discretion.
General Vandenberg concurred in
this, as did General Norstad, and it was accepted with
the additional proviso that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would also attend
meetings at the discretion of the Council.
General Vandenberg indicated the
difficulties which he had had in having to go to the N.I.A. on so many problems. He felt that the difficulties of
his position would be multiplied, as he would have to ask policy guidance
and direction from the Council on National Defense, which consists of many
more members than the N.I.A. He was assured
that the intent of the act was that the CIA would operate independently and
come under the Council only on such specific measures as the Council may,
from time to time desire to direct. It would not be necessary for the agency
to ask continual approval from the Council. With this interpretation,
General Vandenberg withdrew the
opposition voiced in the last sentences of paragraph 1 (e) of reference
memorandum.
The Director pointed out the difficulties of operation of clandestine methods
in the absence of detailed legislation, empowering him to operate on
unvouchered funds, select certain types of personnel, and discharge
employees for any question of possible disloyalty. It was agreed that these
provisions would be included in the proposed draft from CIG. It was requested further that this draft
be submitted by the evening of 23 January 1947, in order to meet necessary
deadlines.
It was the final sense of the meeting that the Director of Central
Intelligence should report to the Council on National Defense. As General Vandenberg indicated that it
would be necessary to report somewhere; that neither the President nor he
was anxious to have another agency “free wheeling” around the government.
However, it was thought that the agency should have sufficient power to
perform its own functions without it being necessary to have specific
approval from the Council on each action.
On 27 January 1947, the undersigned drafted a letter, for the Deputy
Director’s signature, to Mr. Charles Murphy.Document 206. This
letter set forth the views of the Central Intelligence Group on the draft of
the proposed section on central intelligence, submitted by the White House
on 25 January 1947. After studying the memorandum of 27 January 1947, Mr.
Murphy called the undersigned and requested a
concurrence on eliminating paragraph 302 (b) of his draft of 25 January
1947, on the ground that in view of our objections (as expressed in
paragraph 2 of our memorandum of 27 January 1947), nothing would be lost by
the total elimination of this paragraph. After consultation with Colonel Wright, this concurrence was given
by the undersigned. Concurrence was also given to the lowering of the
proposed salary for the Deputy Director, as set forth in paragraph 1 of our
memorandum of 27 January 1947, from $14,000 per annum to $12,000 per annum,
as the $14,000 figure was greatly in excess of the figure received by the
Assistant Secretaries of the various departments. In addition, Mr. Murphy agreed to
urge strongly a point raised by paragraph 3 of our memorandum of 27 January
1947 designating the Director of Central Intelligence as the Intelligence
Advisor of the Council of National Defense (to be renamed the National
Security Council) and allowing the Director to sit as a non-voting member
thereof.
On 28 January 1947, Mr. Murphy requested the undersigned
to come to his office, and there handed him the Third Draft (dated 27
January 1947) of the proposed National Security Act of 1947.Not found. Mr. Murphy
indicated that most of our requests had not been complied with, and that the
Army and Navy had seen fit to overrule his recommendations in that
connection. The salary of the Director was lowered from $15,000 to $14,000
on the basis that, in all probability, the incumbent would be a military or
naval officer whose salary should not be greatly in excess of that of the
Chief of Staff of the Army or Chief of Naval Operations; that the figure had
been set on the basis of the same salary being paid to the Director of
Military Applications of the Atomic Energy Commission; that the Army-Navy
conferees did not want the salary merely a “juicy plum” for some officer for
whom a berth was being sought.
The paragraph establishing the position of Deputy Director, which Mr.
Murphy had urged, was eliminated as being too
controversial, as was the paragraph regarding the position of the Director
as the Intelligence Advisor of the Council. The Army-Navy conferees felt
that the position of the Director as the Intelligence Advisor was inherent
in the position itself, and that it would not be proper to provide by law
that the head of an agency under the Council should sit on the Council.
Mr. Murphy stated that his role was simply that of a
consultant on drafting in the Army and Navy. He further stated that the
Drafting Committee would present their final version to Mr. Clark M. Clifford, Special Counsel to the
President, at a meeting on the afternoon of 29 January 1947. He further
stated that any comments which we might care to make to the White House on
the proposed draft would be acceptable to him, and that his feelings would
not be hurt.
After examination of the proposed Third Draft by Colonel Wright and the undersigned, it was determined that
same was not satisfactory to C.I.G.
Therefore, a memorandum was dispatched (under date of 28 January 1947) to
Mr. Clifford, setting forth C.I.G.’s comments on the proposed draft.Document
207.
Walter L. PforzheimerChief, Legislative Liaison Division
206. Letter From the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (Wright) to the President’s
Administrative Assistant (Murphy)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1, Folder 3. No classification
marking.Washington, January 27, 1947.
My Dear Mr. Murphy: In the
absence of General Vandenberg, I
wish to offer the following comments on the proposed draft of Section 302 of
the National Defense Act of 1947, insofar as it affects the Central
Intelligence Group.
Paragraph 302 (a) should provide for a Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence to be appointed from civilian or military life by the
President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Deputy
Director should receive compensation at the rate of $14,000.00 per
annum. It is felt desirable to include this in the legislation in order
to provide continuity of action in the absence of the Director or should
there be a vacancy in that office. The Deputy Director should be a man
of such caliber and stature as adequately to serve as an operating
deputy to the Director. It is felt that the phrase “subject to existing law” should be
eliminated from paragraph 302 (b) of the proposed draft as it appears to
add nothing to the meaning of the Section. This is particularly true as
many of the functions and authorities of this Agency are excepted from
existing law. In this connection we have the concurrence of the Personal
Representative of the President on the National Intelligence Authority.
It is therefore felt preferable that section 302 (b) read as follows:
“Under the direction of the National Security Council, the
Central Intelligence Agency shall perform foreign intelligence
functions “relating to the national security.”
It is urged that a paragraph substantially as follows should be
included in the proposed bill:
“The Director of Central Intelligence shall serve as the Advisor
to the Council on all matters pertaining to national
intelligence and in this capacity he may attend meetings of the
Council at its discretion but shall take no part in the
decisions thereof.”
In this connection attention is called to paragraph 2 of the
Presidential letter of January 22, 1946 which states as follows:
“The Director of General Intelligence shall be designated by me,
shall be responsible to the National Intelligence Authority, and
shall sit as a non-voting member thereof.”
In line with paragraph 302 (e) (2) which specifically
transfers the functions of the Director of Central Intelligence it would
appear that his functions as a non-voting member of the National
Intelligence Authority should be transferred to the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency in connection with his relationships to the National
Security Council.
E.K. WrightPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Colonel, GSC
207. Memorandum From the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
(Wright) to the
President’s Special Counsel (Clifford)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1, Folder 3. No
classification marking. The memorandum bears no signature but appears to
be from Wright.Washington, January 28, 1947.
SUBJECT
Comments on the Proposed “National Security Act of 1947”
1. The Central Intelligence Group is in receipt of the Third Draft of the
proposed National Security Act of 1947, dated 27 January 1947.Not found. The Central Intelligence Group has
addressed comments to an earlier draft of this legislation, insofar as it
affected this agency.Document 206. These comments have served the dual
purpose of: Setting forth a working basis for a Central Intelligence Agency
under the Merger; and,Eliminating from the proposed National Security Act any and all
controversial material, insofar as it referred to central
intelligence, which might in any way hamper the successful passage
of the Act.
2. It seems proper to mention, however, that, in the course of securing the
objective outlined in the previous paragraph, the draftersThe team responsible for drafting the National Security
Act of 1947 included Clark
Clifford and Charles Murphy of the
White House; Vice Admiral Forrest P. Sherman, the
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations; and Major General Lauris
Norstad, Director of Plans and Operations, War Department
General Staff. (Central Intelligence Agency, Draft
Legislative History of the Central Intelligence Agency, p.
26) of the proposed
National Security Act have reached the conclusion that the Act should not
include the full text of the proposed Central Intelligence Group Enabling
Act, which was transmitted by this agency to you under date of 2 December
1946.Document
201. It was felt that this text presented certain
controversial issues which should not be included in the Merger Bill. It was
the conclusion of the drafters that the proposed National Security Act
should include a section creating a Central Intelligence Agency
substantially as set forth in Section 302 of the Third Draft, and that the
Agency should then secure its additional necessary powers and authority by
means of separate legislation. In this position we have concurred.
3. However, the drafters have found it necessary to eliminate from the
proposed draft certain provisions which the Central Intelligence Group
considers vitally necessary.
4. It was urged upon the drafters that there be included a paragraph
substantially as follows:
“The Director of Central Intelligence shall serve as the Advisor to
the Council on all matters pertaining to national intelligence, and
in this capacity, will attend meetings of the Council at its
discretion but shall take no part in the decisions thereof.”
It was felt that this paragraph was necessary in that
Section 302 (c) (2) specifically transferred the functions of the Director
of Central Intelligence to the new agency, and these functions included (as
set forth in the Presidential Directive of 22 January 1946) the following:
“The Director of Central Intelligence shall be designated by me,
shall be responsible to the National Intelligence Authority, and
shall sit as a non-voting member thereof.”
It would appear that the Director’s functions as a
non-voting member of the National Intelligence Authority should be
transferred to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in connection
with his relationships to the National Security Council. This position was
concurred in by the Administrative Assistant to the President, charged with
the drafting of this legislation, but was eliminated at the insistence of
the other members of the Drafting Committee as too controversial.
5. As now written, it is feared that the necessary freedom of operation for a
Central Intelligence Authority might well be handicapped by the present
wording of Section 302 (a). It is therefore urged that this paragraph be
changed to read substantially as follows:
“There is hereby established a Central Intelligence Agency with a
Director of Central Intelligence, who shall be the head thereof, to
be appointed from civilian or military life by the President, by and
with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The Director shall receive compensation at
the rate of $15,000 a year. The Central Intelligence Agency shall
coordinate the nation’s foreign intelligence activities and shall
operate centrally those foreign intelligence functions which can be
most efficiently performed centrally.”
In view of the fact that Section 302 (e) (1) specifically
transfers the functions of the National Intelligence Authority to the
National Security Council, and as these functions and relationships have
been efficiently developed over a period of time, it would appear that the
proposed language quoted above would be preferable to that presently
contained in the Third Draft.
7. [sic] The Central Intelligence Group further urged
upon the Drafting Committee that provisions be made in this legislation for
the specific position of a Deputy Director to be appointed from civilian or
military life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate. The Deputy Director should receive compensation at the rate of
$12,000 per annum. It was felt desirable to include this in the legislation
in order to provide continuity of action in the absence of the Director or
should there be a vacancy in that office. The Deputy Director should be a
man of such caliber and stature as adequately to serve as an operation
deputy to the Director. This position was concurred in by the Administrative
Assistant to the President but was overruled by the other members of the
Drafting Committee.
208. Memorandum From the Chief of the Legislative Liaison Division,
Central Intelligence Group (Pforzheimer) to the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
(Wright)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1, Folder 3, CIG Enabling Act, 1947. No classification marking. Attached
to the source text is a handwritten note addressed to Pforzheimer which reads, “Noted. Concur.
Wright.”Washington, March 5, 1947.
SUBJECT
Comments by Mr. Allen Dulles on
Proposed CIG Enabling Act
Mr. Allen Dulles has submitted, under
date of 10 February 1947, his comments on the draft, dated 2 December 1946,
of the proposed CIG Enabling Act.Neither Dulles’
comments nor the draft has been found. The undersigned submits
the following remarks in connection with Mr. Dulles’ comments.
1. Dulles: “Section 1(a). The use of
the term ‘national intelligence mission’ seems to me somewhat awkward.
Possibly instead of ‘mission’ the word ‘objectives’ would be more
appropriate.”
Comment: Either term would appear to be acceptable,
but the word “objectives” can be substituted for “mission” if it is thought
that it is less awkward or ambiguous.
2. Dulles: “Section 3(a).
Consideration should be given to according to the Director of Intelligence
the right to vote in the National Intelligence Authority, both for reasons
of prestige and also to permit matters to be referred to the President under
Subsection (9) in case by any chance there should be a difference of opinion
between the Director and the other members of the Authority.”
Comment: This suggestion can not be adopted. Under the
proposed merger bill, the Director will not sit on the National Security
Council and therefore cannot vote. Provisions could be included, however,
under Subsection 3(a)(9), if it is thought desirable, to allow the Director
to appeal an adverse decision by the Council to the President. However, such
a course of action would be extremely difficult, as it would involve the
President’s over-ruling at least two Cabinet members.
3. Dulles: “Section 3(a)(6). The
reference to the conduct of foreign intelligence operations ‘centrally’ does
not have much meaning. I presume it means the operations which are to be
carried on by the Central Intelligence Agency and I think this should be so
stated.”
Comment: This phrase has been amended to read “as well
as in the conduct of those foreign intelligence operations performed by the
Central Intelligence Agency” rather than “performed centrally.”
4. Dulles: “Section 3(a)(4). In a
moment of crisis it might be necessary to call a meeting of the Authority
and it might be wise to provide the machinery to do this in the Act itself.
I would favor giving the Director the right to call a meeting as well as any
other members of the Authority.”
Comment: The Enabling Act will be amended to allow the
Director to request an immediate meeting of the Council when this is
warranted by the urgency of the situation.
5. Dulles: “Section 3(b)(2). It is
vitally important that the Deputy Director be a man who has the complete
confidence of the Director. The relatively large salary would make this job
an attractive political plum and there should be some safeguard against
this. Possibly it could be provided that the Deputy Director should be
appointed by the Central Intelligence Authority from among a list furnished
by the Director.”
Comment: This comment may be equally true of the
offices of Director and Deputy Director. If the Director were a civilian,
the Deputy Director would in all probability be a military or naval officer,
and confirmation by the Senate would be preferable in view of the advanced
salary this officer will receive. Public opinion is probably the only
safeguard in preventing the
offices of Director and Deputy Director from becoming political plums.
6. Dulles: “Section 3(b)(4). I
question whether the enumeration here is broad enough. You might wish to
avail of the services of someone in the civil service or from some other
department of the government other than the armed forces and the State
Department. Possibly also there is a danger in the provision for payment. If
this clause means that in certain cases the person has to be transferred to,
or a part of his pay assumed by, the CIG, it
might disclose information and connections which you did not wish to have
known. Your salary list will probably become public property sooner or
later.”
Comment: This Section was included to provide for
special cases. Anyone else would be carried, either on Central Intelligence
Agency rolls or on the rolls of some other Department on a reimbursement
basis. In either case his Civil Service status would be established without
the necessity of special legislation. The objection raised in the second
portion of this comment should be met by normal CIG security provisions.
7. Dulles: “Section 3(b)(5). The right
to employ retired officers might well be extended to include any retired
civil servant as well as those who retire from the armed forces. I doubt the
wisdom of Section 3(c)(4) as this might some day be interpreted as
preventing any action by the Agency unless there is unanimous approval by
the Board.”
Comment: The normal retired civil servant (65 or 70)
is generally considered too old for employment in the Agency. If he resigns
from the Civil Service, he could be reinstated under the present procedures.
The comment on Section 3(c)(4) is academic, in view of the fact that Section
3(c) deals with the Intelligence Advisory Board and has been eliminated in
its entirety.
8. Dulles: “Section 4(a)(6). I suggest
deleting ‘centrally’ and inserting ‘by the Agency.’”
Comment: Agreed, as in Comment 3 above.
9. Dulles: “Section 4(a)(8). This
should be rephrased as it imposes an impossible legal responsibility. It
might read somewhat as follows: ‘be responsible for taking measures to
protect,’ etc.”
Comment: Concurred in.
10. Dulles: “Section 4(a)(9). Same
comment as above with regard to the word ‘complete.’”
Comment: Concurred in.
11. Dulles: “Section 4(a)(8), (9) and
(10). This might be a good place to insert a provision to provide an
‘Official Secrets Act,’ in the case of all employees of the Agency as well
as all government employees of any department who make any unauthorized
disclosure or who are responsible
therefor in the case of any information or documents coming into their
possession and originating with the Central Intelligence Agency.”
Comment: This matter is in abeyance pending final
determination of the position of the Department of Justice on an Official
Secrets Act.
12. Dulles: “Section 6(3). The
provision that transfers of funds from other departments to the Agency is
subject to authorization by the Bureau of the Budget may be essential from
an accounting angle but introduces a serious security problem and it would
be better if the power to authorize could be left to the Central
Intelligence Authority. It is unwise that outsiders should know the amount
of funds so transferred.”
Comment: Procedures have been developed in conjunction
with the Bureau of the Budget whereby specially cleared personnel of the
Bureau of the Budget will handle these transfers, subject to careful
security procedures.
13. Mr. Dulles suggests consideration
of three special subjects for eventual legislation. In connection with his
suggestion regarding intelligence training schools, it is felt that
Paragraph 4(a)(1) of the proposed bill should include the establishment of
over-all policies and objectives for intelligence training schools,
including the training of intelligence officers for duties in the field of
collection and dissemination. The Central Intelligence Agency may wish to
take some part in the shaping of the intelligence courses at the National
War College, the Armed Forces Staff College and the Air University, etc.
In connection with Mr. Dulles’
suggestion as to eventual legislation in the field of cryptography, query
whether the Director wishes to include at this time a provision for the
Central Intelligence Agency to coordinate the cryptographic practices of the
government. In connection with the suggestion regarding an Official Secrets
Act, see comment on Paragraph 11 above.
Walter L. PforzheimerPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
209. Memorandum of ConversationSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.61/3–1047. No
classification marking. Drafted by
Sandifer.Washington, March 10,
1947.
SUBJECT
Legislative Interests of Central Intelligence Group
PARTICIPANTS
Mr. Walter L. Pforzheimer,
Chief, Legislative Liaison Division, Central Intelligence GroupMr. Durward V. Sandifer, AA/L
Mr. Pforzheimer called at my office by
arrangement made by Mr. Donald Edgar.
Mr. Pforzheimer, who is in charge of
legislative relations for the Central Intelligence Group wanted to discuss
problems of mutual interest. He took up particularly the following problems:
The National Security Act Provisions for a
Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Pforzheimer said that they had
considerable doubts about the provision in the National Security
Act placing the proposed Central Intelligence Agency under the
National Security Council. He thought that this was
administratively unworkable, and suggested that it would
probably not be satisfactory to the Department of State as the
Secretary of State would be in a minority on the National
Security Council. His agency is considering a proposal for the
establishment of a supervisory committee consisting of the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of National Defense, and a
civilian appointee, who would supervise the Central Intelligence
Agency and make recommendations to the Security Council.
Unanimous recommendations would be binding on the Security
Council and, in the event of a difference of opinion, the matter
would be referred to the President.
The Central Intelligence Group is working on enabling legislation
for the establishment of a Central Intelligence Agency. Mr.
Pforzheimer said that
at a later date he would supply me with copies of the drafts
they were working on.
Central Intelligence Group Personnel. Mr.
Pforzheimer said that the
proposed Central Intelligence Agency would have its own personnel
and would not rely on personnel supplied by the State, War, and Navy
Departments.
Considerable action in this direction has already been taken. There
are only a few persons who are with the Central Intelligence Group
at the present time who are still on the State Department
payroll.
DVS
210. Memorandum From George M.
Elsey to the President’s Special Counsel (Clifford)Source: Truman Library, Papers of George M. Elsey, Central Intelligence. No classification
marking. Elsey was Clifford’s assistant. Also reproduced
in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, p.
127.Washington, March 14, 1947.
SUBJECT
Central Intelligence Group C.I.G. is up to its old tricks again.
It has submitted “informally” the draft of a proposed bill to be
submitted to Congress very similar to the two previous drafts which
Vandenberg has sent to you
in recent months and which you filed without further action.Mr. George Schwarzwalder of Donald
Stowe’s group, called to request advice and information
on what Budget should tell C.I.G. I
suggested that C.I.G. be informed that
there was no necessity for such legislation in view of the sections
concerning Intelligence which are included in the Unification
Bill.The Budget concurs in that position and will inform C.I.G. that it is inappropriate to propose
legislation at this time in view of the President’s support of the
Unification Bill.
Respectfully,
George M. ElseyPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
211. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Eddy) to Acting Secretary of State AchesonSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49,
101.5/5–547. Confidential. Drafted by Eddy.Washington, April 17, 1947.
SUBJECT
Comment on National Security Act of 1947, Title II, Section 202,
“Central Intelligence Agency”
In connection with the hearings on national intelligence to which you have
instructed me to accompany you Monday, April 21, I enclose copy of the
National Security Act of 1947,See footnote 1, Document 220. wherein
Title II, Section 202, sets forth the plan for the Central Intelligence
Agency, concerning which I submit the following comments: It is my conviction that the proposals in Title II, Section 202,
would render more difficult the promotion of peaceful foreign
relations by subordinating the political and economic intelligence
activities of the Department of State to a Central Intelligence
Agency completely dominated by the Armed Forces; and that it would
further have the ultimate, if not the immediate, effect of placing
the reporting activities of the Foreign Service under military
control in time of peace as well as in time of war.The National Intelligence Authority would be abolished and
replaced by the National Security Council. (Section 202,(c) (1))
Whereas the Secretary of State is at present Chairman of the NIA composed of four members, he would
be reduced on the National Security Council to an equality with one
of the three subdivisions of the Armed Forces establishment, and
civilian political intelligence would, therefore, have one
representative out of six or more (see Title II, Section 201 (a)). The Central Intelligence Group would be abolished and would be
replaced by the Central Intelligence Agency (Section 202, (c)(2)).
This CIA would be dominated by the military, with no indication that
a representative of the Secretary of State would be accredited even
as an adviser to the new Director of Central Intelligence, to whom
it is proposed to give the salary and prerequisites of a 4-star
general. The extended discussion of his right to retain his military
salary and allowances, together with a supplement to bring the total
to $14,000, makes it quite clear that there is an expectation to
appoint to this elevated office an officer on active duty in the
armed forces who will serve the primary interests of the five
military members of the National Security Council rather than the
civilian and peacetime interests of the Department of State.In this connection it should be pointed out that the Foreign
Service is the only collection agency of the U.S. Government which
effectively covers the world. For every Military or Naval Attaché’s
office abroad, there are dozens of Foreign Service Officers and
specialists, and for every Embassy or Mission with a Military or
Naval Attaché there are many Consulates General, Consulates or Vice
Consulates with no military or naval staff. It is, therefore, clear
that at present our Government is served with foreign intelligence
chiefly by the Foreign Service trained to preserve political and
economic good relations with the rest of the world. Under the
proposed act this world-wide coverage and personnel would be forced
into the service of the military, directly or indirectly, with a
consequent damage to our peace-time policy that would be difficult
to estimate. The provisions of this act might have merit if made
effective upon the declaration of war, but in time of peace the
National Intelligence Service should be under genuinely civilian
control and its estimates of political and economic situations
abroad should be subject, as at present, to preview by the
Department of State, which has the responsibility for foreign
policy.
William A. EddyPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
212. Letter From Secretary of State Marshall to Senator Chan
GurneySource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/5–547. No
classification marking. Drafted by Marshall. A note on the source text reads: “Delivered by
hand 5/6/47.”Washington, May 5, 1947.
Dear Senator: This is to confirm the message I
asked General CarterBrigadier General Marshall
Carter, Secretary Marshall’s Special Assistant. to pass on to you
Friday afternoon.Presumably Friday, May
2.
The legislation regarding the CIG reflects
the unchanged status of the agreement reached in February by the Secretaries
of War and Navy and myself.No documents
concerning this agreement, and no other references to it, have been
found.
Faithfully yours,Printed from an unsigned
copy.
213. Memorandum From the Chief of the Legislative Liaison Division,
Central Intelligence Group (Pforzheimer) to the Director of Central Intelligence
(Hillenkoetter)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1, Folder 2. No classification marking.
Attached to this memorandum is an undated draft (see the Supplement) of
Document 214. It omits one sentence that
is in the signed version. Also in the Supplement is a second May 9
memorandum from Pforzheimer to
Hillenkoetter, transmitting
a draft of the memorandum to Hillenkoetter, which is identical to the signed copy.
(Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1, Folder 2)
Rear Admiral Roscoe H.
Hillenkoetter was sworn in as Director of Central
Intelligence on May 1.Washington, May 9, 1947.
SUBJECT
CIG Enabling Legislation CIG enabling legislation should be
drafted to meet one of the three alternatives set forth below: If the Senate Armed Services Committee or the House Committee
on Expenditures in the Executive Departments specifically
demands detailed CIG enabling
legislation prior to reaching an affirmative decision on Section
202 of the National Security Act of 1947 (S. 758 and H.R.
2319)If definite indications are received that there is no
possibility that unification legislation (S. 758 and H.R. 2319)
will be enacted into law at his session, orIf the National Security Act of 1947 is enacted into
law.If situation “a” occurs, the legislation will include no preamble. The
first section will amend Section 202 of the National Security Act of
1947 as presently drafted, to enumerate the duties of the National
Security Council in the language of the President’s Executive Directive
regarding the powers of the National Intelligence Authority. The Act
should be further amended to include provision for a Deputy Director,
and to allow the Director to appoint retired officers of the armed
services without regard to those provisions of the law regarding dual
compensation. This will permit retired officers to accept civilian
employment at CIG without loss of
retired pay while on duty here. The functions of the agency should be
more clearly delineated in line with the President’s Executive
Directive. There should also be included those general authorities and
appropriation languages which it is considered necessary to have over
and beyond normal procedures. This includes special language regarding
the transfer of funds by the Departments, permission for use of
unvouchered funds, and absolute right of the Director to terminate the
employment of any member of the organization. If situation “b” occurs, it will be necessary to have a short preamble
setting forth the purpose of the legislation. It will also be necessary
specifically to establish the National Intelligence Authority with the
same terms of reference as presently set forth in the President’s
Executive Directive. It will also be necessary to establish the office
of Director of Central Intelligence and the agency itself. The remaining
functions are the same as in situation “a”, as set forth above. If situation “c” occurs, it will require the same provisions as
situation “a” above.
It is understood that situation “c” is preferable and in accordance with our
present agreement with the Bureau of the Budget.
214. Memorandum From the National Intelligence
Authority to the Director of Central Intelligence (Hillenkoetter)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 101.5/5–1947. Confidential. The source text was an information
copy sent by the NIA secretary to
Eddy and the other members of
the Intelligence Advisory Board. These instructions apparently were
drafted in CIG for the signature of the
principals. For a similar but more detailed memorandum, which probably
is the forerunner of the text printed, see the memorandum from Pforzheimer to Hillenkoetter, May 9, in the
Supplement. (Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1,
Folder 2)Washington, May 14, 1947.
SUBJECT
Enabling Legislation
You are hereby directed to prepare drafts of enabling legislation for the
Central Intelligence Group. This legislation should be drafted to encompass
the principles of the President’s Executive Directive of 22 January 1946,
and subsequent Directives of the National Intelligence Authority.
These drafts should be drawn to meet each of the following possible
situations: That the Senate Armed Services Committee or the House Committee on
Expenditures in the Executive Departments specifically demand
detailed CIG enabling legislation
prior to reaching an affirmative decision on Section 202 of the National
Security Act of 1947 (S. 758 and H.R. 2319),That definite indications are received that there is no
possibility that unification legislation (S. 758 and H.R. 2319) will
be enacted into law at this session, andThat the National Security Act of 1947 is enacted into law.
Upon completion of these drafts, they will be presented to the Intelligence
Advisory Board for comment, prior to submission to this Authority. Upon
approval of the drafts by this Authority, they will be submitted to the
President with the recommendation that they be forwarded to the Director of
the Bureau of the Budget for formal comment and approval.
G.C. MarshallPrinted from a copy that
indicates Marshall,
Patterson, Forrestal, and Leahy signed the original.Secretary of StateRobert P. PattersonSecretary of WarForrestalSecretary of the NavyWilliam D. LeahyPersonal Representative of the President
215. Memorandum for the RecordSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1,
Folder 2. Confidential. The memorandum is unsigned but appears to have
been drafted by Pforzheimer.Washington, May 26, 1947.
At the request of Senator Gurney on 24 May, I went up
and talked with him this morning. He stated that he was “holding his breath”
on Section 202 of the National Security Act, which was coming up for
discussion and decision this morning. He stated that General Donovan had been very active on the
Hill in opposition to Section 202 and had talked
with Senator Gurney, among others, about it.
Senator Gurney then asked me to read two letters and a
memorandum from Donovan to him, dated
early in May 1947, which included an early top secret JCS paper on the subject, and also General
Donovan’s letter to Harold Smith, Director of the Budget
Bureau, written in 1945.None of these documents
has been found. Senator Gurney stated that
General Donovan had told him that the
clandestine operations should remain with the Army and Navy, and read a
sentence in General Donovan’s letter
which he felt supported this. I told him that my interpretation of that
statement was that General Donovan
contended that departmental intelligence functions of G–2 and ONI should be retained
in the services, but then read him several paragraphs from Donovan’s memorandum which specifically
stated that clandestine operations should be placed in the Central
Intelligence Agency and in no other departments of the Government. This
cleared up Senator Gurney’s apprehension on the
point.
I then commented on Donovan’s
suggestion that the Agency should be placed under the Secretary of National
Defense, indicating that this would not be fair to the State Department
components. I pointed out that placing us under the Secretary of National
Defense would contain us within the military establishment, which was not
the design at all. Senator Gurney agreed on this
point.
Senator Gurney asked whether the AdmiralDirector of Central Intelligence, Admiral Hillenkoetter. had
talked with Mr. Cheston and I stated that I thought the
Admiral was attempting to make an appointment to see him. I pointed out that
General Vandenberg had written
General Donovan requesting an
appointment, but that Donovan had not
answered our letter. Senator Gurney felt that Donovan should have answered the letter,
and that this in some measure took the original burden off us in that
connection.
Another suggestion in the Donovan
correspondence was that Section 202 be deleted in the bill and that the
whole matter be thrashed out at the time detailed legislation is submitted.
I indicated that it was my feeling that there could be no harm in passing
Section 202, as it merely gives legislative status to our present existence,
adding that if General Donovan and
his associates wished to make a fight on our detailed functions, that would
be appropriate at the time our enabling legislation comes up.
216. Memorandum From the Chief of the Legislative LiaisonDivision, Central
Intelligence Group (Pforzheimer) to the Director of Central Intelligence
(Hillenkoetter)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1, Folder 2. Confidential.Washington, May 29, 1947.
SUBJECT
Unification Bill in the HouseReference is made to our conversation, in which you requested
information on a report that the House leadership would not take up
unification legislation this session. The following confidential information was secured for me from the
Chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Allen: The unification bill is considered controversial; and once the
Party has secured its basic program, (taxes, appropriations,
labor legislation, etc.) the House leadership does not
contemplate going into further controversial matters.While there has been no definite decision or vote on the
matter, current thinking is to let the measure ride for this
session and not bring it up.A few Congressmen—notably Wadsworth of
New York—are eager to bring it out and may be able to force it
through the Rules Committee.As Mr. Gamble, (R., N.Y.), told me the other day,
Chairman Hoffman of the House Committee on
Expenditures in the Executive Departments is perfectly willing to go
ahead with the hearings and report out a measure. However, he takes the
position that the President himself has delayed action by sending up the
two reorganization bills, both of which must be acted upon within 60
days or automatically become law. The Committee, having virtually
completed hearings on these two measures, is now faced with a third
reorganization bill, (the one on housing), which was sent up this week,
and which therefore will delay the merger hearings further.Walter L. PforzheimerPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
217. Letter From the Director of Central Intelligence (Hillenkoetter) to the Chairman
of the Senate Armed Services Committee (Gurney)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency, Historical Files, HS/HC–805, Item 10.
Secret. The source text is a transcript prepared for the CIA Historian
on September 11, 1952.Washington, June 3, 1947.
My Dear Senator Gurney:
Through your courtesy, there has been communicated to me for comment the
contents of a letter, dated 2 June 1947, which was written to you by Mr.
Charles S. Cheston.Not
found. Cheston had been an Assistant Director of
OSS in 1943–45. I had a very
pleasant meeting with Mr. Cheston on Memorial Day, and
we reached substantial agreement on all matters connected with the Central
Intelligence Group.
As he noted in his letter to you, there were three points about which Mr.
Cheston felt some concern. I would like to review
briefly my position on them.
Mr. Cheston had two arguments for his position that the
Central Intelligence Agency should be headed by a civilian. The principal
argument was concerned with a lack of permanency and continuity in the
position of Director. The second was that the Director must be in such a
position that he cannot be influenced by any one Department, through fear or
favor. We both agreed that there would be no objection to the Director being
an officer of the armed services, provided that he serves in a retired
status and in a civilian capacity. However, the proposed legislation should
specifically provide for this contingency, for the absence of a specified
period of service as Director would work an undue hardship upon an officer
required to forego his military career to accept this position for an
uncertain period of time. This could be remedied by establishing a specific
term for the Director. The question of tenure of office seems to have been
omitted from the proposed legislation in order that the President might have
a free hand in nominating a Director of his own choosing, as he does in the
case of other executive positions in the Government.
I informed Mr. Cheston that, were the bill passed and
were I appointed to the post of Director of the new Agency, I would be
willing to retire from active service and consider the position of Director
as a career job. I feel sure that Mr. Cheston
understands that in such a case it must be a career
job—that is, for a specified period. It would be manifestly unfair for me to
retire now, with the idea of making the position of Director my career, and
then, perhaps, after the next election, be relieved of my post because of a
desire to fill it with a political or personal appointee. If I were thus relieved, I would be without
a career in the Central Intelligence Agency and foreclosed from returning to
the Navy.
The second point raised in Mr. Cheston’s letter is “that
the Agency should have its own independent budget.” With that point I am in
no disagreement. As I have explained to him, we do, in effect, have our own
independent budget at the present time, and no other Department or Agency
has control over the funds which the Congress allocates to us in that
budget.
The third point is that the Director should report to an individual rather
than to a Committee. As I previously stated before the Senate Appropriations
Committee, I feel that this is a matter to be determined by the Congress
rather than by me. On purely theoretical grounds, it would, of course, be
best to report to one individual rather than to a group. However, I can work
with a Council equally well, and see no great difference in either solution
that Congress may determine. There may be some question as to the wisdom of
having the Director of Central Intelligence report to the Secretary of
National Defense. This, in effect, might be considered as placing the Agency
within the military establishment, which would not, in all probability, be
satisfactory to the State Department. They have a great interest in the
operations of the Agency, and their contributions in the intelligence field
are particularly important in time of peace, when the Foreign Service can
operate throughout the world.
As General Donovan stated in his
memorandum to you of 7 May 1947,Not
found. intelligence “must serve the diplomatic as well as the
military and naval arms.” This can best be done outside the military
establishment. As General Donovan
stated further, on page ten of his memorandum, “Since the nature of its work
requires it to have status, it should be independent of any Department of
the Government, (since it is obliged to serve all and must be free of the
natural bias of an operating Department.)”
In view of Mr. Cheston’s remarks and my views expressed
above, it is my opinion that there is no necessity to change the wording of
Section 102 of S. 758The Senate version of the
national security legislation. to restrict the position of
Director to a civilian only. It is my feeling that Section 102 should be
left in its present form.
I very much appreciate your having given me the opportunity to express my
views to you on this subject.
Sincerely yours,
R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.
218. Memorandum for the RecordSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1,
Folder 2. No classification marking.Washington, June 19, 1947.
I talked this morning with Congressman James Wadsworth,
(R., N.Y.), regarding our position before the Committee on Expenditures. I
told him we were somewhat concerned regarding the feeling of certain members
of the Committee and some witnesses appearing before it that we were or
might become an incipient Gestapo, or interested in domestic intelligence of
any sort. I told him that we were considering addressing a letter to the
Chairman, suggesting that a provision be included in the bill substantially
in the form that it appears in the Presidential Directive, prohibiting any
police or internal security or law enforcement powers. Mr.
Wadsworth thought that it would be an excellent
idea and endorsed it, although he thought that the feeling was not very
general.
I then explained to Mr. Wadsworth our position on
enabling legislation; and, while he stated that certain other agencies
created by the bill had their functions spelled out, he seemed receptive to
withholding any statement of functions and general authorities which we need
until the proper time for our enabling act.
I also explained to him the FBIB situation and the unfavorable publicity
which we had received in this connection, indicating that I thought Mr.
Busbey might raise the problem in executive
session, and that we wished to have him in possession of the facts. He was
most sympathetic with the problem, stated that he felt we should not be
under Civil Service at all, and agreed that the Director should have the
right to fire at will.
I subsequently spoke with Mr. Clare Hoffman, Chairman of
the Committee, (in the absence of his son, the General Counsel), and Mr.
Hoffman stated that he would be pleased to receive
any amendment we cared to offer, introduce it, and give it every
consideration.
Walter L. PforzheimerChief, Legislative Liaison Division
219. Central Intelligence Group MemorandumSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job
90–00610R, Box 1, Folder 5. No classification marking. The source text
is neither addressed nor signed and contains no drafting information. It
appears that it was drafted in the office of the CIG’s General Counsel. At the time that this memorandum was
written, the differing House and Senate versions of the national
security legislation had gone to conference.Washington, July 21, 1947.
MEMORANDUM OF THE INTELLIGENCE PROVISIONS OF THE HOUSE AND
SENATE VERSIONS OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
(a). The provisions of Section 102 of S. 758 relating to the
Central Intelligence Agency are thoroughly acceptable and
workable. (b). However, if Section 102 of S. 758 is adopted by the
Conferees, it would be preferable if it were also to include
Section 105 (e) of H.R. 4214. It gives the Director the right to
terminate the employment of any employee of the Agency. This
provision is extremely important at the present time, in order
that any possible subversives may be removed at once.Section 105 of H.R. 4214 as originally introduced is also thoroughly
acceptable and workable. It is, in fact, preferable to Section 102 of S.
758. It is to be preferred for the following reasons: The salary of the Director is placed at $14,000, which is more
in keeping with the relative importance of the position within
the national security structure.It authorizes the Director to terminate the employment of any
employee. It more clearly delineates the functions of the Agency instead
of relying on the provisions of the Executive Order of 22
January 1946.By amendment, the House of Representatives has changed Section 105 (a)
of H.R. 4214 to provide that the Director of Central Intelligence shall
be selected only from civilian life. Previous
versions had provided that the Director be selected from civilian or military life. It is hoped that the Conferees
will restore the provision permitting the President to select the
Director either from civilian or military life.
In this connection, the provisions of S. 758, attached as Tab “A”,None of the tabs is printed; see the
Supplement. or the provisions of H.R. 4214 as originally
introduced, attached as Tab “B” herewith, are both thoroughly
acceptable. In addition, as an alternative, a possible compromise is
submitted as Tab “C”, attached hereto. The provision requiring that the Director may be appointed only from civilian life appears to place an
unfortunate restriction upon the Presidential powers of appointment. The President should be
allowed to exercise his discretion in appointing the best available
Director, either from civilian or military life,
depending upon the qualifications of personnel available at the time of
appointment. The necessity of Senate confirmation of the Director would
eliminate the possibility of a poor selection; and the Senate in its
discretion would probably reject appointees from the armed services if
they were continually rotated for short tours of duty. If at some time
in the future we were plunged into another war, the most qualified
appointee might well be a reserve officer who had entered on active duty
from civilian life. The proposed restriction would prevent his
appointment by the President. Such a limitation would have prevented the
appointment of the Director of Strategic Services during the past war. The main argument advanced in the House of Representatives against a
military Director was that the people “are afraid, in this particular
instance, over the possibility that there might be some sort of a
Gestapo set up in this country.… You might have a military officer who
would like to do that; … if you require a civilian to be the head of
this Agency, then you will not have any danger within the Agency of
military influences or military dictatorship. It is felt that this
argument is an excessive interpretation of the facts. The Agency deals
only with foreign intelligence. It would have none of the publicity
necessary for building its Director into a public figure of such stature
that he might aspire to dictatorship. The Director of Central
Intelligence, heading a small organization, would never be in a position
to build up that great popular following upon which dictatorship must be
predicated.
The New York Herald Tribune, commenting editorially on
the above quotation, on 21 July 1947, stated that it “reflects the ancient
American misunderstanding and suspicion of the military and military
affairs, which throughout our history has always made sound military policy
so difficult for the civil arm.”
220. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Hillenkoetter) to the National Intelligence AuthoritySource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 129. Confidential.
The source text carries a handwritten annotation “Approved by Adm Leahy 20 Sept 1947.” Another copy
of this memorandum is in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA
under Harry Truman, pp.
137–138.Washington, September 11, 1947.
SUBJECT
National Security Act of 1947For a
photographic copy of the National Security Act of 1947, approved
July 26, see ibid., pp. 131–135.Upon the coming into effect of the National Security Act of 1947, the
National Intelligence Authority automatically ceases to exist and the
Central Intelligence Agency comes under the National Security
Council.On September 19, after the act
had come into effect, Hillenkoetter addressed a briefer version of this
memorandum to the NSC; see Document 222. Inasmuch as no date
has been set for a meeting of the National Security Council to carry on
the work of the National Intelligence Authority, the following
suggestions and recommendations are made: At the first meeting of the National Security Council, it is
recommended that all directives of the National Intelligence
Authority and the Central Intelligence Group be continued in
full force and effect until the National Security Council has
had an opportunity to study the problem and to make amendments
and changes that they may consider desirable.In order that the National Security Council make an early
approach to this problem, it is recommended that the Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency be directed to submit, within
sixty days, his proposal for National Security Council
directives to bring former directives of the National
Intelligence Authority and the Central Intelligence Group into
line with the National Security Act of 1947.In consideration of the size of the National Security Council,
as compared to the National Intelligence Authority, it is
recommended that a subcommittee be established to act similarly
to the National Intelligence Authority to furnish the active
direction of the Central Intelligence Agency. This subcommittee
should be composed of a minimum number of members and, as a
suggestion, could be either the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of National Defense, or the Secretary of State,
Secretary of National Defense, and the three Secretaries of
Army, Navy and Air Force. Personally, I believe the first
suggestion is better since the Secretary of State has equal
representation with the military. If the second suggestion is
followed, there may be some complaints from State that the
military is overshadowing them.The Director of the Central Intelligence Group sat as a non-voting
member of the National Intelligence Authority, and, while I believe it
presumptuous and awkward on my part to suggest that he so sit with the
National Security Council, still it would be of utmost assistance if he
could attend all meetings of the National Security Council in some
capacity, either as observer, counsel or advisor, in order to keep
informed of what the thoughts of the National Security Council may be.
In addition, by being present, the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency would also be available for such direct questions as may be
propounded.If you will indicate your approval or disapproval of the suggestions
and recommendations above, I shall go ahead and have formal statements
prepared to be furnished to the National Security Council at its first
meeting. R.H. Hillenkoetter Rear Admiral, USN
221. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Hillenkoetter) to the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–806, Item 6. Confidential. Addressed to Eddy, Chamberlin, Inglis, McDonald, and Gingrich. The source text was transcribed on October 1,
1952, for the CIA Historian.Washington, September 18, 1947.
SUBJECT
Interdepartmental Coordination and Planning The National Security Act of 1947 has required a careful
reconsideration of the organization of the Central Intelligence Group,
its relationship to the intelligence agencies of the Government, and its
transformation into the Central Intelligence Agency. Notice has already been given by the Director of Central Intelligence
to the National Intelligence Authority and to the Intelligence Advisory
Board of his intention, under authority of Section 303(a) of the
National Security Act of 1947, to create an Intelligence Advisory
Committee to be composed of intelligence representatives of the
Departments of State, Army, Navy, and Air and the Atomic Energy
Commission, as the successor of the Intelligence Advisory Board. The
purpose of the Committee will
be to advise the Director of Central Intelligence in carrying out his
functions and those of the Central Intelligence Agency. After consultation with the Intelligence Advisory Board, the Director
of Central Intelligence has determined to continue under the new regime
the existence of his Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff
(ICAPS) with the duties and
responsibilities with which it has hitherto been charged. Although its
personnel will remain under the supervision of the Director of Central
Intelligence, it is requested that each Intelligence Advisory Committee
member consider the Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff
member assigned from his department as his principal liaison contact in
the Central Intelligence Agency on all matters pertaining to
interdepartmental coordination and planning. It is desired to utilize
these Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff members to a
greater degree than heretofore in achieving the maximum possible mutual
understanding and appreciation of each other’s aims and objectives. To
this end, it is suggested that they be encouraged to maintain close
relationships with their agencies and be called into their staff
meetings and conferences on pertinent subjects. In this manner, it is
expected that they may present their agencies’ views in the Central
Intelligence Agency for consideration in advance of the submission of
papers to the Intelligence Advisory Committee, as well as the Central
Intelligence Agency’s aims to their agencies. It must be understood,
however, that although these Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning
Staff members will be expected to present their agencies’ views in full,
they cannot be expected in all cases to support them in the face of
conflictions in the interests of the accomplishment of the national
intelligence mission. It is not contemplated to change the present composition of the
Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff. However, future
developments may require a request for additional members from the
Intelligence Advisory Board agencies. The need in the past of the Intelligence Advisory Board for a policy
and planning body to consider the details of special problems and to
make specific recommendations upon which the Board might act in its
advisory capacity has been recognized. The present Intelligence Advisory
Board procedure of nominating ad hoc committees for this purpose has not
in all cases proved satisfactory. In some cases, officers assigned on a
temporary basis have not had the background knowledge required for full
understanding, and/or were not vested with sufficient authority to act
for their chiefs. This situation naturally leads to an excess of caution
detrimental to “give and take” compromise required to reach a mutual
agreement. It will therefore be proposed to the Intelligence Advisory Committee
at its first meeting that it concur in the establishment of a standing
committee composed of
permanent representatives of each Intelligence Advisory Board member
plus the members of the Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning
Staff, the Committee to be under the chairmanship of the Chief,
Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff. It is not contemplated that these intelligence representatives will be
assigned on a full time basis, but that they will be ready to meet
whenever an interdepartmental problem arises with the view of attempting
to overcome those divergent views which from time to time develop in the
preparation of papers for the Intelligence Advisory Committee advisory
opinion and National Security Council approval. In making assignments of these agency representatives, consideration
should be given to selection of officers with sufficient competence to
act for their Intelligence Advisory Committee members in concurrence or
dissent, except in the most controversial issues, thus reducing to a
minimum the need for detailed discussion at Intelligence Advisory
Committee meetings. Subjects under discussion by the Standing Committee may at times
require the attendance at meetings of additional agency officers to
advise the permanent members, but in these cases the presence of the
permanent members are desired to arrive at decisions. It is considered that the principal value of including the
Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff members on this
committee lies in preliminary discussion on controversial issues between
individual agency representatives and their corresponding
Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff member. Their
participation will also facilitate compliance by the Director with his
duty to advise and make recommendations to the National Security
Council, always with the advice of the Intelligence Advisory
Committee.It will also be proposed that the Secretariat of the Intelligence
Advisory Committee will be supplied from within the Central Intelligence
Agency. R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Rear Admiral, USN
222. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Hillenkoetter) to the National Security CouncilSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research: Lot 62 D 42, IAC. Confidential.Washington, September 19, 1947.
SUBJECT
Appointment of an Intelligence Advisory CommitteeThe President’s letter of 22 January 1946 established an Intelligence
Advisory Board consisting of the heads, or their representatives, of the
principal military and civilian intelligence agencies of the Government
having functions related to the national security, as determined by the
National Intelligence Authority, to advise the Director of Central
Intelligence. The National Security Act of 1947 makes no specific
provision for the continuance of the Intelligence Advisory Board nor for
a successor. However, Section 303 (a) of the Act authorizes the Director
of Central Intelligence (among others) to appoint such advisory
committees as he may deem necessary in carrying out his functions and
the functions of the Agency under his control (Central Intelligence
Agency). Recognizing the advantages to be derived from such an advisory group,
it is the proposal of the Director of Central Intelligence to appoint an
Intelligence Advisory Committee which will to all intents and purposes
continue in existence the Intelligence Advisory Board established under
the National Intelligence Authority by the President in his letter of 22
January 1946. It is therefore requested that the National Security Council authorize the participation by appropriate members of the
several departments in the Director of Central Intelligence’s
Intelligence Advisory Committee.If the National Security Council approves this proposal, the Director
of Central Intelligence will send Enclosure 1 as an invitation to the
officers designated by them and to the Intelligence Director of the
Atomic Energy Commission. R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, U.S.N.
Enclosure
APPOINTMENT OF AN INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The President’s letter of 22 January 1946 establishing the
National Intelligence Authority and the Central Intelligence Group
also provided:
“(7) The Director of Central Intelligence shall be advised by
an Intelligence Advisory Board consisting of the heads (or
their representatives) of the principal military and
civilian intelligence agencies of the Government having
functions related to national security, as determined by the
National Intelligence Authority.”
The National Intelligence Authority determined in its Directive
No. 1 that:
“3. The composition of the Intelligence Advisory Board will
be flexible and will depend, in each instance, upon the
subject matter under consideration. The Special Assistant to
the Secretary of State in charge of Research and
Intelligence, the Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2, WDGS, the Chief of Naval Intelligence and the
Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Intelligence (or their
representatives) will be permanent members. You will invite
the head (or his representative) of any other intelligence
agency having functions related to the national security to
sit as a member on all matters within the province of his
agency.”
The experience of three Directors of Central Intelligence has
established that there are advantages in having the several agency
intelligence chiefs available to him in an advisory capacity. As no
provision is made for the continuance of the Intelligence Advisory
Board under the National Security Act of 1947, these advantages will
be lost unless a similar advisory body is constituted.Therefore under authority of Section 303 (a) of the National
Security Act of 1947, there is hereby appointed an Intelligence
Advisory Committee to be composed of the intelligence
representatives of the State, Army, Navy, and Air Departments, and
the Atomic Energy Commission:
“(a) This permanent membership will be expanded to include
the heads (or their representatives) of other agencies
having intelligence or related functions on such occasions
as their participation may be desirable.”
The Intelligence Advisory Committee will be called upon by the
Director of Central Intelligence to advise him in those matters
related to the carrying out of his functions and the functions of
the Central Intelligence Agency as set forth in the National
Security Act of 1947.The Director of Central Intelligence will supply from the
personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency such secretarial
assistance as the Committee may require.The Intelligence Advisory Committee shall meet on the call of the
Director of Central Intelligence. The Director of Central
Intelligence or his representative shall serve as Chairman.The Secretariat will circulate to the other members of the
Intelligence Advisory Committee all communications addressed to the
Director of Central Intelligence by a member of the Intelligence
Advisory Committee. Such papers shall bear an Intelligence Advisory
Committee series number and all subsequent papers related thereto
shall carry a sub-number under the originally assigned series
numbers. Communications of the Director of Central Intelligence to
the Intelligence Advisory Committee shall be numbered in the same
series.The Intelligence Advisory Committee will hold itself available to
advise the Director of Central Intelligence on such recommendations
as the Director may plan to make to the National Security Council
under authority of Section 102 (d) (2) of the National Security Act
of 1947. In cases where there is disagreement between the Director
of Central Intelligence and any member of the Intelligence Advisory
Committee in matters of the substance of such recommendations, the
Intelligence Advisory Committee member will prepare a formal
statement of disagreement so that it may accompany the Director of
Central Intelligence’s recommendations to the National Security
Council.In order to obtain the considered opinion of the several
intelligence agencies represented in the Intelligence Advisory
Committee, the Director of Central Intelligence will not as a matter
of policy permit discussion by the Intelligence Advisory Committee
of matters which members have not had opportunity to study,
including all related papers, and, where appropriate, have obtained
the opinion of other members of their departments.Any recommendation two or more IAC
members believe should be submitted to the National Security Council
will be submitted by the Director of Central Intelligence in such
form as to set forth his recommendation and the comments of the
Intelligence Advisory Committee members.The participation of any intelligence chief in the Intelligence
Advisory Committee shall not be construed as precluding such
intelligence chief from having access to the National Security
Council through his regularly established departmental
channels.
223. Memorandum From the Director of Central Intelligence (Hillenkoetter) to the National Security CouncilSource: Truman
Library, Papers of Harry S.
Truman, President’s Secretary’s Files, Intelligence File.
Confidential.Washington, September 19, 1947.
SUBJECT
National Security Act of 1947The National Security Act of 1947 established a Central Intelligence
Agency under the National Security Council. Section 102 (d) of the Act
sets forth the basic functions of that agency to be performed under the
direction of the National Security Council. Effective when the Director
of Central Intelligence takes office, the National Intelligence
Authority is abolished and the personnel, property, records and funds of
the Central Intelligence Group are transferred to the Agency. On that
date, therefore, the Agency will be prepared to perform its statutory
functions, but will be without direction from the National Security
Council as specified by the Act. The following recommendations are
therefore submitted for consideration by the National Security Council
at its first meeting:At its first meeting
on September 26 the National Security Council approved both
recommendations; see Document 225.That all directives of the National Intelligence Authority to
the Central Intelligence Group be continued in full force and
effect. The Agency will function under this authorization until
specifically repealed, altered or augmented by the National
Security Council, or changed in accordance with the
recommendation in paragraph b. below.That the National Security Council direct the Director of
Central Intelligence to submit to the Council within sixty days,
proposed authorizations supplanting the former directives of the
National Intelligence Authority and specifying his functions and
those of the Central Intelligence Agency in accordance with the
provisions of the National Security Act of 1947. R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Rear Admiral, USN
224. Memorandum From Acting Secretary of State Lovett to Director of Central Intelligence
HillenkoetterSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Decimal File 1945–49, 101.61/9–1147. Confidential. Drafted by William A. Eddy on September 18.
Attached was a vote slip form, signed by Lovett and addressed to the secretary of the NIA, indicating Department of State
approval of the September 11 memorandum subject to Lovett’s comments. Under the provisions
of the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Group
became the Central Intelligence Agency on September 19, and Hillenkoetter became the Agency’s
first Director of Central Intelligence on September 20.Washington, September 23, 1947.
SUBJECT
Your memorandum of 11 September 1947 regarding the National Security
Act of 1947Document
220.
1. I am in agreement with your recommendation (1–a) to the effect that all
directives of the National Intelligence Authority and of the Central
Intelligence Group be continued in full force and effect until the National
Security Council has had an opportunity to study the problem and to make any
changes that they may consider desirable.
2. I also approve your recommendation (1–b) to the effect that the Director
of Central Intelligence Agency submit, within sixty days, his proposal for
National Security Council directives to bring the former directives of the
National Intelligence Authority and of the Central Intelligence Group into
line with the National Security Act of 1947. In this connection, however, I
would suggest that this report by the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency be coordinated with the Intelligence Advisory Board to insure the
prior consideration of the problem by the chiefs of the intelligence
services of the several Departments whose concurrence would thus be
expedited.
3. With regard to recommendation (1–c) to the effect that a subcommittee of
the National Security Council be established to act similarly to the
previous National Intelligence Authority, with special responsibility to
direct the Central Intelligence Agency, it would seem to me that, in
principle, this is a very useful and practical suggestion. In view of the
fact that the Central Intelligence Agency will be the only
inter-departmental intelligence agency authorized to coordinate peacetime
political and economic intelligence with the intelligence program of the
Armed Forces, it would seem to me very important that the Department of the
Government, responsible for foreign affairs, the protection of our foreign
commercial interests, and the maintenance of friendly diplomatic relations
with all other countries,
should be fully represented. The Armed Forces, for their part, have a
further coordinating, and common intelligence agency, in the Joint
Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I would, therefore, suggest that the proposed subcommittee to direct the
Central Intelligence Agency be composed of the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of National Defense, with a personal representative of the
President, if that should be the President’s desire. It will be recalled
that the National Intelligence Authority included the Secretary of State as
Chairman, and a personal representative of the President.
4. With regard to the recommendation contained in paragraph 2, it would seem
to me essential that the Director of Central Intelligence be present as a
non-voting member at all meetings of the subcommittee of the National
Security Council established to direct the Central Intelligence Agency. It
would seem to me also desirable that he attend meetings of the National
Security Council as an adviser or observer.
For the Secretary of State:Robert A. LovettPrinted from a copy that indicates Lovett signed the
original.
225. Minutes of the First Meeting of the National Security CouncilSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, NSC Minutes, 1st Meeting.
Secret. The meeting was held at the White House.Washington, September 26, 1947.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentThe President of the United States, presidingJames Forrestal, Secretary of
Defense Robert A. Lovett, Acting
Secretary of StateKenneth C. Royall, Secretary of
the ArmyJohn L. Sullivan, Secretary of
the NavyW. Stuart Symington, Secretary
of the Air ForceArthur M. Hill, Chairman,
National Security Resources BoardOthers PresentSidney W. Souers, Executive
Secretary, National Security CouncilRear Admiral Roscoe H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence
DECISIONSDecisions 1–5 below
correspond to NSC Action Nos. 1–5.
(Ibid., Record of Actions, Box 55)
1. Policies and Procedures Governing the Activities of the
National Security Council
The National Security Council:
Approved the following policies and procedures governing the activities of
the Council: The permanent membership of the Council shall be restricted to
those officials whose membership is mandatory under the Act.The Director of Central Intelligence is authorized to attend all
meetings of the Council as an observer and adviser. Attendance by
other officials shall be by approval of the presiding officer,
requested through the Executive Secretary.There will be no set schedule of meetings. Meetings will be
arranged by the Executive Secretary after approval by the presiding
officer.The affairs of the Council will be conducted with the utmost
secrecy.
2. National Security Council Staff
(Memorandum for NSC, same subject,
transmitted as Tab A to Agenda for 1st Meeting)None of the tabs is printed.
The National Security Council:Approved the functions, plans and arrangements for the National
Security Council Staff outlined in the reference memorandum.Adopted a resolution authorizing its Executive Secretary to
control, supervise, and administer funds which have been or
hereafter may be made available to the National Security Council,
with full powers with respect thereto, subject to policies
established by the Council. (Copy of resolution on record in the
office of the Executive Secretary.)
3. Proposed Initial Directive to the
Central Intelligence Agency (Memorandum for NSC from Director of Central Intelligence, subject: “National
Security Act of 1947”, dated 19 September 1947, transmitted as Tab B to
Agenda for 1st Meeting.)Document 222.
The National Security Council:Approved the recommendations by the Director of Central
Intelligence in the reference memorandum.Authorized the Director of Central Intelligence to submit to the
Bureau of the Budget a budget estimate for the fiscal year 1949
(amount on record in the office of the Executive Secretary).
4. Review of the World Situation as it
Relates to the Security of the United States (CIA 1)Dated September 26. (Central Intelligence Agency
Records) Reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA
under Harry Truman, pp.
139–148.
The Council noted and discussed the report by the Director of Central
Intelligence on the above subject.
5. Initial Study Assignment to the
National Security Council Staff (Memorandum for NSC, same subject, transmitted as Tab C to
Agenda for 1st Meeting)
The Council approved the recommendation of the Executive Secretary in the
reference memorandum.
Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Executive Secretary
226. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Souers) to the
National Security CouncilSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Bureau of Intelligence and Research: Lot 62 D 42, IAC. Confidential. Addressed to the
Secretaries of State, Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the
Chairman of the National Security Resources Board.Washington, October 10, 1947.
SUBJECT
Appointment of an Intelligence Advisory Committee
The enclosed memorandum by the Director of Central Intelligence (Enclosure
A)Not printed; see the Supplement.
Enclosure A is Hillenkoetter’s
September 19 memorandum to the NSC on
the Intelligence Advisory Committee (Document
222) with a few changes in wording. is submitted
herewith for consideration by the designated members of the National
Security Council.
The Executive Secretary recommends that Enclosure A be approved subject to
the deletion of paragraph 11Paragraph 11 was
taken from paragraph 3 of NIA Directive
No. 11, Document 325. of the
AppendixThe appendix is the same as the
enclosure to Document 222. thereto.
This paragraph would require the Director of Central Intelligence to submit
to the National Security Council any recommendation which two or more
Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC)
members believe should be submitted. This is considered an inappropriate
channel for reaching the National Security Council by such IAC members. The proper channel for IAC members, which is recognized by the wording
of paragraph 12 of the Appendix, is through the heads of their respective
departments or agencies who, with the exception of the Atomic Energy
Commission, are members of the National Security Council. The Atomic Energy
Commission, if it agrees with the recommendation of its Intelligence
Director, can of course submit such recommendation to the National Security
Council for consideration. Unless the proper channel is used (and paragraph
11 is deleted) there is danger that the National Security Council will
receive recommendations by IAC members with
which their respective departmental heads do not concur.
For convenience in indicating action on Enclosure A, a return memorandum
form, to be completed by each addressee, is attached hereto as Enclosure
B.Not printed.
Sidney W. Souers
227. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research: Lot 62 D 42, IAC. Confidential. Addressed to Armstrong, Chamberlin, Inglis, McDonald, and Gingrich.Washington, October 10, 1947.
SUBJECT
The Successor to the Intelligence Advisory BoardThe Director of Central Intelligence has received inquiries from two
members of the former Intelligence Advisory Board requesting
clarification of his memorandum of 18 September 1947Document 221. as
it pertains to the Intelligence Advisory Committee. With the thought
that there may be uncertainty in the minds of other members of the
former Intelligence Advisory Board, the following clarification is being
given general distribution.The National Intelligence Authority and the Central Intelligence Group
ceased to exist, under the provisions of Section 102 (f) of the National
Security Act of 1947, when the Director of Central Intelligence first
appointed under Section 102 (a) of that Act took office on 20 September
1947. It is the opinion of this Agency that as of 20 September 1947 the
provisions of the President’s letter of 22 January 1946 lapsed and were
superseded by those of the National Security Act of 1947. No specific
mention of an Intelligence Advisory Board or Committee is included in
the National Security Act of 1947.The Director of Central Intelligence desires to continue to have
available to him for advice and guidance a body similar to the former
Intelligence Advisory Board. The members of the former Board having
concurred in that desire, the Director is undertaking to establish a
similar body. Positive action must be taken to accomplish this for the
reasons set forth in paragraph 2 above. An advisory board, having functions similar to those exercised under
paragraph 7 of the President’s letter, can be established under Section
303 (a) of the National Security Act of 1947. This Section authorizes
the Director of Central Intelligence to appoint such advisory committees
as he may deem necessary to carry out the functions of the
agency.Accordingly, the Director of Central Intelligence has submitted a
memorandumSee footnote 1, Document 226. to the National Security
Council informing it of his desire to create an Intelligence Advisory
Committee under the authority
granted him by Section 303 (a) of the National Security Act of 1947, to
be composed of intelligence representatives of the several departments
and requesting the departmental heads who are members of the National
Security Council to designate their representatives and authorize their
participation. The action of the National Security Council in continuing in full
force and effect all directives of the National Intelligence Authority
was for the sole purpose of providing for the continued functioning of
the Central Intelligence Agency as successor to the Central Intelligence
Group. Papers are being prepared for submission to the Intelligence Advisory
Committee for its first meeting, setting forth in further detail the
proposals contained in paragraphs 6 and 11 of the memorandum of the
Director of Central Intelligence, dated 18 September 1947 on the subject
“Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning.” R.H. Hillenkoetter Rear Admiral, USN
228. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Acting Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to Acting Secretary of State LovettSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research: Lot 62 D 42, IAC. Confidential.Washington, October 16, 1947.
While suggesting concurrence in proposal 1b in the attached memorandumAttached is a vote slip form (October 20; see the
Supplement) on which NSC members were to
indicate approval or disapproval of Hillenkoetter’s September 19 memorandum to the NSC (see footnote 1,
Document 226) recommending establishment of an Intelligence
Advisory Committee to succeed the Intelligence Advisory Board.
for the Executive Secretary, National Security Council, I think it advisable
to call your attention to the fact that in earlier discussions on procedures
as between the Intelligence Advisory Board and the National Intelligence
Authority, Mr. Eddy joined with other
IAB members in favoring the procedure
set forth in “paragraph 11” of the memorandum of the Director of Central Intelligence, which
Admiral Souers now proposes to
delete.The NSC Executive Secretary recommended approval subject to
deletion of paragraph 11 of the appendix. Paragraph 11 required the
Director of Central Intelligence to submit to the NSC any recommendation that two or more
members of the Intelligence Advisory Committee believed should be
submitted. I believe, however, that Admiral Souers’ objection to such a channel as called for in
“paragraph 11” has considerable merit and that that procedure would not be
entirely consistent with the National Security Act and the responsibilities
it establishes for the Director of Central Intelligence. Moreover, I believe
that the Department would lose no advantage by acceding to Admiral Souers’ views.
W. Park Armstrong, Jr.
229. Memorandum for Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job
90–00610R, Box 1, Folder 9. Confidential. No drafting information
appears on the source text. From the context, however, it appears that
it may have been written by Pforzheimer.Washington, October 22, 1947.
SUBJECT
Testimony Regarding Civilian Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency
A memorandum was submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee from Mr.
Allen W. Dulles, dated 25 April
1947.Not printed. (Central Intelligence
Agency, Historical Files, HS/HC-400) See the Supplement. Mr.
Dulles stated that the Agency
“should be predominantly” civilian rather than military, and “under
civilian leadership . . . . If previously a military man, he should
not look forward to resuming a position in one of the armed
services. The same should be true of his top staff . . . . They
should, if military, divest themselves of their rank as soldiers,
soldiers, or airmen, and, as it were, ‘take the cloth’ of the
intelligence service.”
This testimony is substantially the same as that given orally by Mr.
Dulles before the House Committee
on Expenditures in the Executive Departments.
Col. John P. Oliver, Legislative Officer for the Reserve
Officers Association of The United States, together with Lt. Col.
Richard Rivvell, appeared before the Senate Armed
Services Committee and urged that the Director should be civilian,
“because he should represent all aspects of the Government, not
merely those concerned with the military, naval or air elements of
our armed forces.”
They further felt that, if the Director should be a member
of the armed forces, he should be required to serve as a civilian. After
conferences with General Vandenberg
and Admiral Hillenkoetter,
undertaken at the request of Senator Saltonstall, the
opposition of the Reserve Officers Association was withdrawn.
In a memorandum submitted by Mr. Charles S. Cheston,
formerly Assistant Director, OSS, a demand
was made that there should be a civilian Director, on the grounds of the
need for specially trained personnel in the fields of political, economic
and technological intelligence and international relations, the need of
continuity of leadership, and the necessity of freeing the Central
Intelligence Agency from the rigidity of the military system.
Peter Vischer testified in closed session in favor of
having a civilian Director. In addition, two members of the Committee have
stated that he introduced into the record a copy of NIA Directive No. 5 (Classification; Top Secret), which led at
least two members of the Committee to ask you how it was possible for
Vischer to have obtained a copy of this document.
You will also recollect that Vischer was the source of
most of the adverse material appearing in the press, particularly the
articles in the Times-Herald by Walter
Trohan and John O’Donnell.
General Kroner was Deputy G–2 of the War Department and Chief of the Military
Intelligence Service in the early days of the war. He did not take a
position on whether the Director should be a civilian.
In July, it was discovered that an article adverse to Central Intelligence
was being prepared for Harper’s Magazine by
Fletcher Pratt. This information was furnished me
by a Colonel of the Marine Corps at Quantico, Virginia, who stated that
Pratt had been invited to Washington by G–2 specifically to do this article, and that
“the red carpet had been rolled out for him.” Immediately following his
meeting in Washington, Pratt went to Quantico and spent
an evening or week-end with my informant. The Colonel tried to dissuade him
from writing so biased an article, and took a pro-CIG view. However, Pratt indicated he
needed the money which Harper’s was paying for the
article and that he was convinced
of the accuracy of the accusations against CIG that he had heard in the War Department. He did not think
it worth his while to hear the other side of the story. The Colonel told me
it was his impression that the War Department was out to “get” CIG and that the comments expressed to
Pratt had been extremely bitter.
230. Memorandum From the Secretary of the Army (Royall) to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)Source: Truman Library, Papers
of Harry S. Truman, Records of
the National Security Council. Confidential. Sent through the Secretary
of Defense. Attached to the source text is a November 28 note on the
stationery of the Office of the Secretary of Defense addressed to
Souers from John
H. Ohly, indicating that Forrestal had not seen Royall’s memorandum but that a copy was being held for
him.Washington, November 26, 1947.
SUBJECT
Appointment of an Intelligence Advisory CommitteeReference is made to your memorandum, same subject, dated 10 October
1947.Document
226.While I agree that it is desirable to create a committee to succeed
the Intelligence Advisory Board, it does not appear to me that such is
accomplished by the Intelligence Advisory Committee which the Director
of Central Intelligence proposes to appoint under section 303 (a) of
Public Law 253. The Intelligence Advisory Board was responsible to the National
Intelligence Authority. The Director of Central Intelligence was
required (paragraph 3, N.I.A. Directive
No. 1) to refer all recommendations to the Board prior to his submission
of them to the Authority. The Board therefore performed two very
important functions: (1) it furnished advice to the Director of Central
Intelligence and (2) it insured the full interdepartmental coordination
of all matters before they were submitted to the National Intelligence
Authority.I therefore recommend that the Director of Central Intelligence draft
a charter which will provide for a committee as successor to the Intelligence Advisory Board
which will perform for the National Security Council those functions
which the Intelligence Advisory Board performed for the National
Intelligence Authority. Kenneth C. Royall
231. Memorandum From the General Counsel of the Central Intelligence
Agency (Houston) to
Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1,
Folder 17. Secret.Washington, April 7, 1948.
SUBJECT
Proposed Legislation
1. The General Counsel of the House Military Affairs Committee has informed
us by telephone that the Committee may be interested in four particular
questions concerning the need for our proposed legislation. They are listed
below with information which should serve to form general answers:
(a) How Has CIA Functioned Without the Authorization
Contained in the Proposed Legislation?
CIA began to function as CIG on 22 January
1946. Through the remainder of that fiscal year, its operations were small,
and administrative support came from the departments from which personnel
were assigned and from the Strategic Services Unit of the War Department,
which had been assigned the task of liquidating the affairs of OSS and preserving for future use such assets
as might be of use for whatever agency was to control the national
intelligence. The funds transferred from OSS
to SSU were adequate for this support.
In the budget hearings in the Spring of 1946, funds for the support of CIG were earmarked in certain portions of the
appropriations for State, War, and Navy. A majority of the funds were in the
War Department appropriation in
the provision for contingencies. At the request of the NIA and with the concurrence of the Treasury
Department and the Bureau of the Budget, the Comptroller General authorized
the establishment of a Working Fund to which the earmarked portions of the
appropriations were transferred for expenditure by CIG. A similar arrangement was followed for the fiscal year
1948. Administration under this procedure was extremely difficult because of
varying limitations in the different appropriation acts. Only through the
splendid cooperation of the Comptroller General’s Office and the other
departments and agencies concerned were interim procedures devised for
proper administration of these funds. Even with such cooperation, continual
problems of administration were encountered, and operations were hampered by
restrictions on the use of funds. It was partly due to the Agency’s needs
and partly due to the suggestion of the Comptroller General’s Office that
this legislation was drafted to provide a proper legal basis for
administration of the Agency’s functions.
(b) What Features of This Bill Have No Precedent in
Existing Law for Any Other Branch of the Government?
Section 6(a) (page 8, line 11, et seq.) is believed to be without exact
precedent in permitting free transfer of funds to and from the Agency and
permitting expenditures of funds transferred to the act under the authority
of the proposed legislation without regard to limitations of the original
appropriation. It is believed that this Section is necessary to preserve the
security of funds made available to the Agency while providing a clear basis
for their expenditure.
Section 6(f) (page 9, line 19, et seq.) provides in the interest of security
an exception from the disclosure required by law of the size of the Agency
and the functions of its officers. It is believed that this provision is
without precedent but is again an essential security measure.
Section 7(a)(1) (page 10, line 18, et seq.), setting forth the purposes for
which sums made available to the Agency may be expended has a novel feature
in that it will, in effect, be permanent appropriation language for the
Agency. This is required because it is proposed that there will be no
specific annual appropriations to the Agency in the interest of security and
that by these provisions there will be language on which Agency expenditures
may be based and on which audits can be made. All other features of the bill
have one or more known precedents.
(c) How Does CIA Propose To Obtain Appropriations Without
Disclosing the Amount and the Source?
We believe that in the past the system of earmarking certain funds in regular
appropriations for subsequent transfer to the CIG Working Fund has prevented disclosure of the amount and
source of funds available to the
Agency. With the transfer authorities of Section 6(a) mentioned above and
appropriation Sections, this process can be greatly simplified. With these,
the earmarked sums may be placed in any limitation of any appropriation, and
any number of such sums may be authorized.
CIA will prepare its regular budget for review by certain designated Bureau
of the Budget officers, who will suggest how that budget should be split
among appropriations of other agencies. Normally, they can be placed in
blocks of a few million dollars in the largest limitations of the National
Defense appropriations or other large items where the increase would not be
noticeable. These proposals would then be discussed in Executive Session
with the appropriation subcommittees, and if approved, would then be
reported as a part of the normal appropriation. Arrangements for the secure
transfer can be made with the appropriate administrative officers of the
departments concerned and the General Accounting Office.
(d) What Safeguards Are Provided in the Spending of Money
by CIA?
All proposed expenditures are reviewed by a Projects Review Committee, which
makes recommendations thereon to the Director. All vouchered expenditures
are audited within CIA by representatives of the General Accounting Office
especially detailed for that purpose. For unvouchered expenditures, the
Director has appointed Special Funds’ officers as his personal
representatives for their administration. Recognizing, however, that he has
sole ultimate responsibility for the propriety of unvouchered expenditures,
he has laid down detailed rules and regulations outlining the purposes for
expenditure and the controls and approvals which will apply. He has
appointed Certifying Officers who are responsible for auditing all
unvouchered expenditures to see that they come within these regulations. If
there is doubt as to compliance with regulations, the Certifying Officer may
refer any question to the Office of the General Counsel for review and
recommendation to the Director. Any exceptions or unusual circumstances
require personal action by the Director. As a further safeguard, the
Director has appointed an Executive for Inspection and Security with a staff
of auditors and fiscal experts, who make periodic general inspections of all
books and accounts and such special investigations as the Director may
require.
All officers of the Agency involved in the expenditure of unvouchered funds
are informed that misuse of such funds may subject them to personal
liability or prosecution under applicable law.
Lawrence R. HoustonPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
232. Memorandum for the RecordSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1,
Folder 7. No classification marking.Washington, April 8, 1948.
The Director and Mr. Pforzheimer
appeared before Sub-Committee No. 3 of the House Armed Services Committee in
connection with H.R. 5871. Present were Mr. Paul W.
Shafer of Michigan, Mr. Lyndon
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Leroy Johnson of
California, Mr. Franck R. Havenner of California, and
Mr. J. R. Blandford, counsel to the Sub-Committee. The
hearing was in Executive Session with a reporter present except during those
times when the discussion was off the record.
A point of discussion arose as to whether debate on the floor would not force
out certain classified information regarding the matters for which this
legislation seeks to provide and the suggestion was offered by
Representative Lyndon Johnson substantially in the
following terms:
“Notwithstanding any provisions of existing law the President, after
approval of the Comptroller General, the Director of the Bureau of
the Budget and the Chief of Staff to the President, is hereby
authorized to exempt CIA from such advertising, purchasing,
accounting, disbursing, contract or other provisions of present law
which requirements of security may dictate.”
(After discussion with Mr. Webb, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, the
Sub-Committee was informed that this proposed language was too broad and
would protect nobody if enforced.)
The question of authority for the Director to issue visas up to fifty people
per annum was considered, and the Sub-Committee ruled that it was too
controversial to include in the present measure and that after the passage
of H.R. 5871 it should be offered as a new bill.
After further discussions on the provisions of the bill, the Sub-Committee
unanimously approved H.R. 5871 with certain textual changes suggested by the
Director.
Walter L. Pforzheimer
233. Memorandum From the President’s Assistant (Steelman) to President TrumanSource:
Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files. No classification marking.Washington, April 24, 1948.
The Congressional Record for April 21, Pages 4836–7
contains a thirty minute speech by Congressman Devitt
of Wisconsin on “We must create a joint committee on intelligence.”
Mr. Devitt is very critical of the Central Intelligence
Agency. He advocates a concurrent resolution proposing that 18 Members
constitute a committee which would constantly study and evaluate the
operations of all Government intelligence services.
At the close of the speech he stated as follows:
“I have spoken informally with Admiral
Hillenkoetter, Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, of my intention to introduce this resolution today, and he
has expressed his approbation of it. He told me that while he
believes there is much merit to the independent position of his
agency in the field of government, he feels somewhat at a loss for
the lack of some specific committee of the Congress to whom he can
turn for confidential guidance and counsel and to whom he can resort
for needed changes in the legislative operations of his agency.”
Perhaps someone should have a talk with Admiral
Hillenkoetter about this matter.
JRS
234. Memorandum From the General Counsel of the Central Intelligence
Agency (Houston) to
Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–808, Item
10. No classification marking. The source text is a copy transcribed for
the CIA Historian on September 10, 1952.Washington, May 7, 1948.
SUBJECT
National Security Act of 1947The following notes are submitted in connection with a discussion of
problems arising in operation under the National Security Act of 1947: From an administrative point of view, the primary difficulty
experienced was lack of detailed enabling legislation to support
CIA’s unusual administrative problems. It was thought, and
properly so, that so much detail should not be put in
legislation of the broad policy nature of the National Security
Act. This problem has now been met by submission to the Congress
of detailed enabling legislation. It is believed that this Bill,
as submitted, will have the support of all the executive
departments and substantial support in Congress.It has been generally agreed in past discussions that it would
be desirable, if feasible, to have CIA’s basic authorization
provide for a Deputy Director as well as a Director. Such a
provision was discussed again in connection with the CIA
enabling act, and it was decided that in view of the current
attitude towards military appointments, no such provision would
be submitted. A check indicates that no practical difficulties
have arisen, or are expected to arise, for lack of statutory
authority for a Deputy Director.In its performance of the intelligence functions outlined in
the National Security Act, the primary difficulty experienced by
CIA has been in certain weakness of language in paragraph 102(d)
concerning the meaning of coordination of intelligence
activities. Where the Act states “it shall be the duty of the
Agency … to advise the National Security Council … (and) to make
recommendations to the National Security Council for the
coordination of such intelligence activities”, it has been
strongly argued that this places on the Director a
responsibility merely to obtain cooperation among the
intelligence agencies. This weakness of language and the ensuing
controversy might have been eliminated by the insertion after
the phrase, “it shall be the duty of the Agency”, the following
words: “and the Director is hereby empowered”, or some other such phrase indicating
the intent of Congress that the Director was to have a
controlling voice in the coordination, subject to the direction
of the National Security Council.The collection functions of CIA are provided for only in the
general provision, “to perform, for the benefit of existing
intelligence agencies, such additional services of common
concern as the National Security Council determines can be more
efficiently accomplished centrally and to perform such other
functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the
National Security as the National Security Council may from time
to time direct”. It is known that Congress intended by these
phrases to insure control of clandestine intelligence by CIA but
considered that security aspects prevented its being spelled out
in the language of the law. Lack of such specific direction may
be considered a weakness in the National Security Act of 1947
that deserves further consideration by the Congress.Lawrence R. HoustonPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
235. Memorandum From the General Counsel of the Central Intelligence
Agency (Houston) to
Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–208, Item
31. No classification marking.Washington, September 2, 1948.
SUBJECT
Comments on Civilian versus Military Head for Central
IntelligenceThe written record arguing the question of a civilian as against a
military head for CIA is voluminous. But it boils down to very few
points, of which the most important appears to be general recognition of
the necessity for continuity of control. The lesser points are fear of
pressures and influences from service relationships and a fear that
career considerations would
hamper independence of action. There is also, in some comment, evidence
of a prejudice in favor of civilians and against giving additional
important posts to military personnel—the prejudice that talks of the
so-called “military mind”. This last point would seem rather
unimportant, in view of the fact that military background has not
generally been considered a handicap in the appointment of the Secretary
of State, the President of Columbia University, the Ambassador to
Moscow, and the incumbents of many other important diplomatic and
industrial positions.The need for continuity of direction is obviously a most important
point on which there appears to be no disagreement. The usual argument
is that a civilian once appointed has no limit to his tenure and may, as
in the oft-cited case of Mr. Hoover and the FBI, stay
in office indefinitely. A counterpoint to this argument is the claim
that a military man normally rotates positions in short tours of duty
or, in any case, could be reassigned by his service at any time. The
critics point out the rapid turnover in the early history of CIG-CIA. I believe the argument loses its
validity when the terms of the National Security Act are studied. By
that Act, an officer of any of the services who is appointed as Director
is in effect separated from the service for all purposes except pay and
allowances. It would be impossible for anyone in the Military
Establishment from the Secretary of Defense on down to order or
otherwise arrange his transfer. Section 102(b) provides that a
commissioned officer appointed as Director shall be subject to no
supervision, control, restriction, or prohibition (military or
otherwise) other than would be operative with respect to him if he were
a civilian. Strictly construed, such an officer could not be transferred
even by the President acting in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. Of
course, the President could remove him in the same way he could remove a
Cabinet officer, but this applies equally to a civilian Director. It
appears, therefore, that under the Act as presently drawn, the tenure of
a military Director is exactly as indefinite as that of a civilian, and
he could continue in office in the same manner that Mr. Hoover continues as head of the FBI.The argument that the military Director would be subject to influences
and pressures due to service relationships has, of course, some
validity. Everyone is influenced by his background and associations. A
civilian Director is influenced by his political, social, and economic
relationships. The answer in both situations is the same—that any
Director appointed should be of such caliber that the pressures and
influences, whether civilian or military, are minimized. A practical
aspect which is important arises from the fact that although CIA is
essentially a civilian Agency serving the Executive in general, its
relations with the military are necessarily close, and a Director from
the services would normally have their trust and would understand better
the problem involved in
exercising the control over the military intelligence activities which
his position requires. Again, however, this is less a question of
background and relationships than it is of the ability of the
Director.The argument concerning the influence of career considerations on the
Director’s decisions receives much the same answer. If the Director is a
man worthy of appointment, he would act on principle rather than on
considerations for the future. If, on the other hand, the latter
outweighed, it appears that a civilian would be just as worried about
his future in Government or business as the officer. To some extent, the
future of the officer is more assured, since by law he keeps the
perquisites of his military position—he is sure that, barring
court-martial, he may retire with pay sufficient to assure a livelihood
in the future. A civilian has no such assurance until he has been with
the Government many years. In addition, presumably the officer would be
picked from among the top ranks in the service. Aside from prestige,
therefore, there would not be many positions open to him which would
offer more in the way of economic inducement. It can, therefore, be
fairly argued that the influence of career considerations would not have
a decisive effect on a military Director of ability and
principle.Even granting that, as a general principle, the Director of Central
Intelligence should be a civilian, the discussion in Congress brought up
a practical aspect which is most important. Very few people have the
experience and qualifications required for the top intelligence job.
With very rare exceptions, those who have adequate experience have
obtained it in military service. It will take many years of operations
before there is a body of civilians with wide intelligence background. A
man with proper experience and qualifications would have to be an
outstanding figure and, in private life, would almost certainly be
economically successful. Considering the drawbacks of Government service
in general and of its economic rewards in particular, the appeal to such
a civilian would depend only on his willingness to make personal
sacrifice. As Mr. Allen Dulles
points out, the position requires an almost monastic devotion and idea
of service. As a practical matter, therefore, it may be necessary to
consider officers for the position. The top officers may not be the best
possible men for the job, but they may be the best men available. With the growing importance of the directorship, it
should become one of the key posts for any officer, but particularly an
intelligence officer, to aim for. To require such a man to separate
wholly from the service in order to qualify as a civilian for the post
would take away the assurance which his retirement rights afford of a
future livelihood and its concomitant independence of action. Therefore,
for no other reason than this practical one, the way should at least be
left open for the appointment of an officer so long as the President is
free to appoint a civilian if he so desires.A final point which might become important concerns possible wartime
conditions. In time of war, CIA would inevitably be tied in much more
closely with military operations. It might be advisable for the Director
to be in uniform even though he was appointed as a civilian. If the Act
restricted the directorship to civilians, commissioning would be
impossible, unless an amendment were passed. There seems, therefore, to
be little basis for the argument that the National Security Act of 1947
should be amended to restrict appointment of the Director to civilians
alone. Since the Director is under the immediate control of the National
Security Council, the arguments concerning “military dictatorship”,
“Gestapo”, and such like are ignored. Lawrence R. Houston
236. Letter From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Director
of the Bureau of the Budget (Webb)Source:
Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman, Records of
the National Security Council, File CIA, Memos for Director, 1948. No
classification marking.Washington, December 15, 1948.
Dear Mr. Webb: In accordance with the letter of the President,
dated 6 November 1948, regarding proposed agency legislative programs for
the coming session, and my reply to you of 29 November 1948,Neither letter has been found. I am forwarding
herewith the text of proposed legislation for the Central Intelligence
Agency.Dated December 15; see the
Supplement.
This proposed bill is substantially the same as S. 2688 (Report No. 1302)
which was passed by the Senate on 19 June 1948. A similar bill, H.R. 5871
(Report No. 1853), was unanimously approved by the Armed Services Committee
of the House of Representatives, but was not passed when lack of time in the
closing hours of the session prevented its being called up. Bureau of the
Budget approval of last year’s draft was contained in a letter to me from
Mr. Elmer B. Staats, Assistant Director of the Bureau
of the Budget, dated 6 April 1948. The full concurrence of the Comptroller
General was contained in his letter to you dated 12 March 1948.Neither letter has been found.
Reexamination of the provisions of S. 2688 indicates that while it was
satisfactory, experiences over the past few months have indicated that
certain additions to that bill would be most helpful to this Agency. We
have, therefore, included them in the accompanying draft bill. I am also
enclosing a detailed analysisNot printed; see
the Supplement. of the new provisions, so that you may readily
see the additions to S. 2688.
Sincerely yours,
R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
237. Memorandum From the Assistant General Counsel, Central Intelligence
Agency (Pforzheimer) to
Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1,
Folder 17. Confidential.Washington, January 6, 1949.
SUBJECT
Section 6(g) of proposed CIA legislation Mr. Houston and I conferred
today with Mr. Fisher Howe, of the State Department
intelligence staff, and Mr. Robert Alexander, of
the Visa Division. They have agreed to concur in our visa section
6(g),Regarding discussions between
Department of State and CIA officials on the visa section of the
proposed CIA legislation conferring limited authority on the
Director of Central Intelligence, see the December 29 memorandum
from Howe to Armstrong (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal
File 1945–49, 101.5/4–3149); Pforzheimer’s memoranda to Hillenkoetter, December 30
(Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1, Folder
17), December 31 (ibid.), and January 3 (ibid., Folder 10); and
memoranda for the files by Pforzheimer, January 3 (ibid., Folder 17) and by
Houston, January 4
(ibid.). All are in the Supplement. and as a result of this
conference we will suggest to you certain modifications. Mr.
Alexander, however, made certain proposals
which he considered preferable
to ours, but this will not prevent him from concurring in our section.
He did point out, however, that he was constantly being called into
Executive session by Congressional committees to testify on all matters
concerning visas, and that presumably the State Department would be
called in this connection in our bill. He stated that if he were called
and were asked for his opinion, he would testify that he did not agree
with our approach, although he agreed as to the necessity for such
legislation, and that he would be forced to testify as to his own
opinion as to the best means to secure our end.While I believe he is under a misapprehension as to the committee
before which our legislation will come, and while I think it is doubtful
that the Armed Services Committee would ever request his testimony, once
the State Department has concurred in our legislation, I believe Mr.
Lovett should make it crystal
clear that the only testimony Mr. Alexander can
give would be in direct support of the language in which the Department
has concurred and not his personal opinion. Furthermore, if State
Department testimony is considered desirable, it appears to me that it
should be given preferably by Mr. Lovett himself or otherwise by Mr. Armstrong. I envisage the possibility,
in the light of Mr. Alexander’s past legislative
performances, that he may attempt to throw some sand in the gears, and
this should not be allowed to happen through any private lobbying
operations of his own.Walter L. Pforzheimer
238. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to Acting Secretary of State LovettSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49,
101.5/12–2948. No classification marking. Drafted by Fisher
Howe and approved by EUR,
OFS, CON, ODA, ORP, L/A, and
C/L.Washington, January 11, 1949.
SUBJECT
Attached letter re Proposed Revisions to CIA Legislation
Discussion:
The proposed revision of CIA enabling legislation involves two major
subjects of interest to the Department: an exception to the normal immigration procedures, and
administrative arrangements for CIA overseas personnel. With respect to the immigration clause which permits the bringing into
the United States of up to 100 individuals without regard to immigration
statutes, the following is pertinent: In discussion with Admiral
Hillenkoetter, it is understood that you gave
informal approval to this clause.The Visa Division has concurred in this clause of the
legislation and, in fact, in consultation with CIA
representatives has suggested improvements in the phraseology
which have been adopted by the CIA according to the
attachment.With respect to the administrative clauses: These were approved a year ago when almost identical
legislation was put forward by the CIA; it was, in fact, only
with the immigration clause that the Department found
exception.The specific grants in powers of this legislation are being
sought by the CIA now as a result of requests by the General
Accounting Office, and are in accordance with their
specifications. It is understood that the Bureau of the Budget
also concurs in the need for such modifications to the CIA
enabling legislation.On the whole, the legislation tends to legalize procedures
which have been followed in the past two years and which are
intended to make the administration of CIA overseas personnel as
much like the administration of Foreign Service personnel as is
possible.
Recommendation:
That you sign the attached letter concurring in the CIA legislation.
AttachmentDrafted by Fisher
Howe on January 11.
Letter From Acting Secretary of State Lovett to the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget (Webb)
My Dear Mr. Webb: The Department has received your letter
of December 24,Not found. in which
comment is requested by the Bureau of the Budget on the “Proposed
Central Intelligence Act of 1949” admitted by the Central Intelligence
Agency.
The Department perceives no objection to this proposed legislation. You
will note that one clause, 6(g), has been revised in consultation with
CIA, according to the attachment.
The Department believes that despite the extraordinary grant of powers
involved, such legislation is entirely proper and necessary for the
efficient operation of an intelligence service.
Sincerely yours,Printed from an unsigned
copy.
239. Letter From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Speaker
of the House of Representatives (Rayburn)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 90–00610R, Box 1, Folder 17. No
classification marking. A similar letter was sent to Senator
Millard Tydings, chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, on the same date. (Ibid.) See the
Supplement.Washington, February 11, 1949.
Dear Mr. Speaker: There is submitted herewith the
draftNot printed. The bill was enacted as
the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, June 20, 1949, Public Law
110, 81st Congress, 1st Session (63 Stat. Ch. 227). A signed copy of the
act is reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA
under Harry Truman, pp.
287–294. of a proposed bill “To provide for the administration of
the Central Intelligence Agency, established pursuant to Section 102,
National Security Act of 1947, and for other purposes.”
This proposed legislation is substantially the same as H.R. 5871 which was
introduced in the Eightieth Congress and unanimously reported out by the
House Armed Services Committee. However, due to lack of time, the bill was
not called up on the floor. It was also reported out unanimously by the
Senate Armed Services Committee in the Eightieth Congress, and passed the
Senate on 21 June 1948. The favorable action of the House Armed Services
Committee is reported in House Report No. 1853, dated 4 May 1948.
The purpose of the bill is to grant to the Central Intelligence Agency the
authorities necessary for its proper administration. The bill deals with
procurement, travel, allowances and related expenses, general authorities,
and methods of expenditures of appropriated funds. Further, it protects the confidential nature of the
Agency’s functions and makes provisions for the internal administration of
the Agency. In almost all instances, the powers and authorities contained in
the bill already exist for some other branch of the Government, and the bill
merely extends similar authorities to the Central Intelligence Agency.
This proposed bill has been resubmitted to the Bureau of the Budget, and we
have been advised that they have no objection to its presentation to the
Congress in its present form.
Sincerely yours,
R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
240. Memorandum From the General Counsel (Houston) and the Legislative Liaison Officer of
the Central Intelligence Agency (Pforzheimer) to the Executive of the Central Intelligence
Agency (Shannon)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–84, Item 3. Confidential. The source text is a transcript prepared
for the CIA Historian on September 9, 1952.Washington, September 27, 1949.
SUBJECT
Legal Responsibilities of the Central Intelligence AgencyThe interpretation of an act of Congress is often extremely difficult.
At times provisions which are perfectly clear when the act is written
become subject to various interpretations in practice, making it
necessary to fall back on Congressional Committee reports and Floor
debates. This appears to be the case in connection with certain
authorities under Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947 which
sets forth the duties of the Central Intelligence Agency. But whatever
uncertainty has arisen out of inadequate wording or subsequent
interpretations, in our
opinion the basic intent of the Congress is clear and unchanged in
regard to this Section of the law.Section 102(d) of the National Security Act sets forth certain duties
for CIA to perform “under the direction of the National Security
Council”. The Agency was placed under the National Security Council,
with the approval of the former and present directors of CIA, because it
was felt that it should report to a group rather than directly to the
President. The President would be too busy to give adequate personal
attention to its needs and should not be so burdened. Rather than leave
the Agency in a vacuum it was decided that it should answer to a council
composed of the President, and the Secretaries of State and the Military
Establishment, who were to be the prime users of our material and who
should therefore set certain broad patterns and directives for the
Agency to follow.While there was little specific discussion on the record, we feel it
is quite clear that Congress intended CIA to look to the National
Security Council only for broad direction, and that the day-to-day
operations of the Agency were to be in the hands of the Director.
Furthermore, there is no question but that if anything went wrong with
the Agency, or if any questions arose (as they did at the time of the
Bogota riots)(and at the time of the Korean
invasion.) [Footnote in the source text. The note was obviously
added later, perhaps when materials were being selected for the use
of the CIA Historian.] the Congress would hold the Director
personally responsible and would look no further. It was Congressional
intent to create an independent intelligence agency to perform the
functions set forth in the Act, the agency to look to the National
Security Council only for the broadest type of guidance.The first function set forth in Section 102(d) of the National
Security Act is that of advising the NSC
“in matters concerning such intelligence activities of the Government
departments and agencies as relate to national security.” We believe
Congress, by imposing this duty, intended CIA to report and give
positive advice on the inadequacies, gaps and overlaps in the entire
foreign intelligence field. The other intelligence agencies of the
Government have been loath to accept such a concept. They have looked
upon CIA as just another Government intelligence agency with no
supervisory or directive powers over their own intelligence
establishments.Section 102(d)(2) of the National Security Act gives the Agency the
duty to make recommendations to the NSC
for the coordination of certain intelligence activities of certain
departments and agencies of the Government. In this, we believe the
intent of Congress was for CIA to make positive and aggressive
recommendations for improvement of all intelligence activities relative
to the national security. The recommendations which we have made in this connection are not in
fact CIA recommendations as contemplated by the law. They are joint
papers concurred in by all the intelligence agencies. Inevitably such
compromises lack teeth, and the task of obtaining clearances consumes an
undue amount of time. We feel that Congress intended CIA to prepare
these recommendations for NSC directives
in the form which it deems proper. They might then be circulated to the
standing committee for comment. If valid objections are presented, they
may be accepted if CIA feels that the purpose of the paper is not
thereby impaired. It may be that CIA would likewise include IAC dissents in the final recommendation to
the NSC. However, that final paper would
be a CIA recommendation, as required by the law, and not the
watered-down result of compromise.Section 102(d)(3) places the duty on CIA to correlate and evaluate
intelligence relating to the national security, and to provide for its
appropriate dissemination within the Government. There is no question as
to what the Congress intended in this connection. In placing upon us the
burden of correlating and evaluating intelligence relating to the
national security, it was inherent that we should receive the raw
material necessary to perform this function. In the course of the debate
in the House of Representatives on 19 July 1947, Congressman
Judd pointed out that all intelligence relating to the national security which was
developed by the various agencies of the Government must be made
available to the DCI. It was with this
thought in mind that Section 102(e) was written into the law, providing
that intelligence relating to the national security should be made
available to the Director for correlation, evaluation and dissemination.
(The special proviso that was written in, making it necessary for the
Director to make written request to the Director of the FBI, was included, not to preclude the
Director from information from that source, but merely to make it
impossible for the Director to inspect specific operations of the FBI which are all in the field of internal
security.)The intent of Congress is clearest in its determination to make
certain that CIA received all the information which it needed to perform
its functions. This is indicated by the authority to inspect
intelligence of agencies (other than the FBI) to the extent recommended by the NSC and approved by the President. The
present directive (NSCID #1), the
wording of which was reached by compromise among the agencies,
authorizes inspection by the DCI only
through arrangement with the head of the intelligence agency concerned.
This qualification vitiates the entire inspection authority.The feeling that there was outside interference with CIA was evident
in connection with the Bogota hearings. The sentiment of Members of the
Congress was expressed in the statement of Congressman
Clarence Brown of Ohio, who served as the
Chairman of the Special Subcommittee investigating the Bogota incident, and who was
also a member of the original Committee which established CIA. He
stated, on 16 April 1948, that:
“It may be necessary for Congress to enact additional legislation
to give the CIA the independent status it was generally presumed
to enjoy.”
The focus brought upon the subject of intelligence was in great
measure caused by the Joint Congressional Committee Investigation of the
Pearl Harbor disaster. In connection with its report on this matter, the
Committee stated:
“Why, with some of the finest intelligence available in our
history, with the almost certain knowledge that war was at hand,
with plans that contemplated the precise type of attack that was
executed by Japan on the morning of December 7—Why was it
possible for a Pearl Harbor to occur?”
It was the intent of Congress in establishing CIA to
establish an independent agency which would be the focal point of all foreign intelligence information, to correlate
and evaluate all such information and to disseminate
the product to the necessary Government officials. The Congress felt it had
conferred the statutory authority necessary for CIA to perform these
functions, even though it left broad direction largely to the NSC and the President. We believe there is
ample authority latent in the law, and that adequate directives will permit
CIA to fulfill the role which, even now, the Congress believes the Agency is
playing as an essential element in the national defense and security.
Lawrence R. HoustonPrinted from a copy that
bears these typed signatures.Walter L. Pforzheimer
Psychological and Political Warfare
Introduction
The documentation on this subject is fragmentary and episodic, and it appears
that many early records no longer exist. Very little policy documentation on
projects and operations under psychological and political warfare programs
has been found, and those documents that have been retrieved tend to be
random and scattered in their subject matter. In addition to the paucity of
early documents on this subject, it is also possible that in many instances
the written record was deliberately kept to a minimum. Making allowance for
major gaps, the main outlines of the formative period can be traced,
however, and the documentation that has survived gives a sense of the
motives and concerns of the major participants in the debate over
psychological and political warfare and how it should be handled within the
government.
When the functions of OSS were divided after
its dissolution by Executive Order 9621, the War Department inherited the
capabilities for “special operations” which had been employed in organizing
and assisting resistance movements in Europe in World War II, and for
“morale operations” or “black propaganda.” General Magruder and his War Department superiors were
concerned to maintain intact the OSS
capability in secret intelligence until some decision could be made at the
national level about a successor organization. But there was no apparent
concern to preserve “s.o.” or “m.o.” capabilities and they were quickly
liquidated; in fact, the process was well underway before the OSS was dissolved. In the formative period of
the national intelligence structure, there was considerable discussion and
debate about clandestine intelligence gathering but no attention seems to
have been paid to covert operations.
Indeed, in September 1947 the General Counsel of CIA wrote an opinion in
which he concluded that it had not been the intent of Congress that such
activities should be conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency and that
they could not be undertaken without first obtaining Congressional
authorization and funding. (Document 241) From
this memorandum, it appears that there was some discussion at the time about
cooperation with nascent resistance movements in Western Europe but even
this, Counsel concluded, would require Congressional authorization.
In the meantime, the subject of covert political action was coming onto the
policy agenda through another route, the growing interest in “psychological
warfare.” Since 1946, a subcommittee of the State–War–Navy Coordinating
Committee (SWNCC), later designated the
State–Army–Navy–Air Coordinating Committee (SANACC), had been
charged with developing a plan for wartime psychological warfare and for
making whatever peacetime preparations were required to move quickly to a
wartime footing in this field. By October 1947 such a plan had been
prepared, but it was noted at the time that it related solely to planning
for wartime or threat-of-war situations and that SWNCC had not been authorized to look into peacetime
psychological warfare.
At this point, however, concerns about the situation in Western Europe began
to focus attention on peacetime “psychological operations” in support of
U.S. foreign policy. SANACC was a forum
for the expression of those concerns. Director of Central Intelligence
Admiral Hillenkoetter was one of
those who urged that the subject be put on the agenda, and there were
similar urgings from Forrestal,
Souers, Harriman, and others. By the latter part of
1947 an effort was made to distinguish between the variety of subjects that
had been bundled together under the rubric of “psychological warfare”: overt
and covert propaganda, and domestic and international information
programs.
In early November, the heads of the military services concluded at a War
Council meeting that peacetime psychological warfare should be undertaken
only in the foreign field (i.e., no domestic program) and that it was a
Department of State responsibility. Moreover, the War Council concluded that
there should be a “black” (covert) as well as a “white” (overt) program and
that the “black” program should also be run by the Department of State,
albeit with the advice and consultation of the Director of Central
Intelligence and a military representative. On November 7, a SANACC subcommittee made approximately the
same proposal. (Document 249)
At its second meeting on November 14, 1947, the National Security Council
considered the SANACC paper. Secretary of
State Marshall distanced himself
from it, expressing concern at the use of the term “warfare” and asking
whether the proposed program would conflict with his policy of only telling
the truth on the Voice of America. The three service secretaries also backed
off, stating that they did not believe the military should be involved in
such activities. (Document 250)
The Council remanded the paper to the NSC
staff for revision, thereby separating overt foreign information activities
from “psychological warfare” and covert action. One “stream” became NSC 4 and NSC
43, establishing Department of State responsibility for foreign information
programs, and the other “stream” became NSC
4–A (Document 253) and, somewhat later, NSC 10/2, dealing with covert action.
Also at this point began a jurisdictional battle over how much “outside”
supervision and control there would be over covert actions. As the NSC staff worked to develop an acceptable
proposal, it became clear that the responsibility for these operations would
be lodged in the Central Intelligence Agency but that some sort of
monitoring mechanism would be
created. The dividing lines were already being drawn. As early as December
2, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Brigadier General Edwin Wright wrote to the CIA
representative on the NSC staff:
“All concerned must appreciate that this Agency is and must be the
sole agency to conduct organized foreign
clandestine operations. To sabotage this principle can only
lead to chaos in this type of operation.
“Whatever Agency is chosen to indicate the type of Black operations
to be conducted, or the material and/or propaganda to be
disseminated—the Central Intelligence Agency must alone be the
Agency to determine how the material is
disseminated. The pattern of our foreign operations will not permit
supervision of these activities by other agencies if it is to be
maintained as an efficient and secure operation and the conduct of
Black psychological operations must fit into the over-all
operational pattern.” (Document 251)
Two weeks later, George F. Kennan,
Director of the Department of State’s Policy Planning Staff, was advising
the Acting Secretary, in anticipation of an NSC meeting on the issue, “that whereas it is desirable to
establish the authority for the proposed operations, the Council should be
frankly informed that before giving our consent to any such activities we
would wish to consider most carefully the need therefor. Furthermore, we
would want to examine the situation in all its aspects in case of any
suggested operation, and to judge each case strictly on its merits.” (Document 256)
At its meeting on December 17, the NSC
approved a directive (NSC 4–A) which
“directs the Director of Central Intelligence to initiate and conduct,
within the limit of available funds, covert psychological operations
designed to counteract Soviet and Soviet-inspired activities which
constitute a threat to world peace and security or are designed to discredit
and defeat the United States in its endeavors to promote world peace and
security.” The directive also charged the Director of Central Intelligence
with responsibility for “ensuring that such psychological operations are
consistent with U.S. foreign policy and overt foreign information
activities.” (Document 257)
NSC 4–A did not settle the issue. By March,
Secretary of Defense Forrestal was
seeking an NSC review of how the NSC 4 series was being applied in practice.
Moreover, as a result of a SANACC
subcommittee report on wartime psychological warfare, the idea of creating a
separate organization for both peacetime and wartime psychological
operations, perhaps directly under the NSC,
was being raised. The subject was once more docketed on the agenda of the
NSC which, at its meeting on April 2,
1948, asked the NSC consultants to review
“certain aspects” of the NSC 4 series. (Document 266) The consultants did so later that
month; their report admonished the Director of Central Intelligence to work
with “anti-Communist democratic forces in foreign countries, particularly
those which are politically
left of center” and to move faster in the psychological operations area.
(Document 267)
In the meantime, the Department of State was becoming increasingly unhappy
about CIA’s performance under NSC 4–A. The
Policy Planning Staff had been considering various aspects of “political
warfare,” and on May 3, 1948, approved a paper entitled “The Inauguration of
Organized Political Warfare,” which proposed a program of support for
“liberation committees,” “underground activities behind the Iron Curtain,”
and “support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries
of the Free World.” Organizationally, the paper proposed the establishment
of a directorate of political warfare operations within the NSC secretariat, under a director appointed by
and responsible to the Secretary of State. The director would be assisted by
a staff drawn from the State and Defense Departments (at least “initially”)
and would “have complete authority over covert political warfare operations
conducted by this Government.” The proposal did not mention the Central
Intelligence Agency except to say that the covert operations it was
conducting should be brought under the authority of the proposed
directorate. (Document 269)
The battle touched off by the Policy Planning Staff proposal is difficult to
follow in its details and ramifications because of gaps in the
documentation, but the main outline of the conflict is clearly visible. The
NSC staff seems to have adopted the
substance of the proposal, judging by the draft reports that were being
prepared and debated at this time, although it made some amendments in the
details, such as renaming the Director of Political Warfare the “Director of
Special Studies” and placing the office directly under the NSC. Commenting on the proposal, George Kennan wrote to Secretary Marshall and Under Secretary Lovett on May 19:
“Organizationally, the ideal solution would be to place the Director
of Special Studies, for cover and intelligence reasons, under the
Director of CIA. S/P did not recommend this solution because, at the
present time, the CIA set-up in respect both to personalities and
organization is not favorable to such a development and it is not
likely that there will be any material change in this situation in
the near future. We therefore reluctantly decided to let the CIA
sleeping dog lie and recommend a separate organization which might
at a later date be incorporated in CIA.” (Document 276)
Allen Dulles was a new and important
participant in the “political warfare” debate that flared up again in the
spring of 1948. Dulles was chairman
of the survey group appointed by the NSC in
February to evaluate the effectiveness of the CIA. In May 1948, the survey
group was more than 7 months from submitting a report but, aware of the
controversy that had broken out, Dulles and his colleagues prepared a brief report on
“Relations between Secret Operations and Secret Intelligence.” Dulles introduced a new element by
proposing that the conduct of secret operations and the collection of secret
intelligence should be run by single director who might either be under the
Director of Central Intelligence or directly under the NSC. The argument perhaps was weighted slightly
in favor of the latter alternative by Dulles’ statement that he and his colleagues had
independently decided to consider in their final report whether secret
intelligence should continue to be a CIA responsibility. (Document 275)
It was this proposal that led Kennan
to recommend to Marshall and
Lovett that they should meet with
Secretary of Defense Forrestal and
present a joint invitation to Dulles
to replace Hillenkoetter as Director
of Central Intelligence, or become director of secret operations/secret
intelligence under Hillenkoetter, or
become director of special studies under the NSC. (Document 276)
At an inconclusive NSC meeting on May 20,
NSC 10—the designation for the Director
of Special Studies proposal—was deferred for action at the next meeting.
(Document 277) Kennan prodded Lovett
again. He apparently had been in touch with Dulles and knew he would be in Washington in late May. He
had also been in touch with Forrestal
or his staff and said that Forrestal
was prepared to come to Lovett’s
office to discuss NSC 10. Kennan’s tone in his memorandum to
Lovett was pessimistic: “If the
Executive Branch does not act soon to firm up its ideas as to what should be
done along these lines,” Kennan
wrote, “the possibility of getting secret funds out of Congress for covert
operations will be lost. If this is not done now, it will mean that this
Government has given up hope of conducting effective political warfare
activities for the duration of this administration.” (Document 279) Kennan also
told the Under Secretary that if NSC 10 were
not adopted, he would have to recommend abrogation of NSC 4–A, “which is not working out well.”
Forrestal, Lovett, and Dulles
met late in May (Document 280) and agreed on a
proposal with the following elements: CIA was the proper place for secret operations as well as secret
intelligence.Both subjects should be handled by a new “Special Services Unit”
within CIA.The unit would have a “considerable measure of autonomy within
CIA” and its director could appeal to the NSC in case of differences with the Director of Central
Intelligence.The director of the special services unit would be recruited from
outside CIA and approved by the NSC.The director of the special services unit would have access to and
receive policy guidance from the Departments of State and
Defense.The system described above would be a “provisional arrangement
subject to review at a later date.”
The proposal was circulated to NSC members
and debated at length at the Council’s meeting on June 3, 1948. The
discussion was not conclusive but the participants strongly emphasized the
importance of political guidance for covert operations. There was also
fairly widespread (although mildly expressed) criticism of CIA, with some
participants also raising doubts about whether CIA had legal authority to
conduct covert operations. After discussing a proposal for an advisory panel
on covert operations, the Council again remanded the issue to the staff for
a new draft proposal. (Document 283)
By this point, both the Department of State and the Central Intelligence
Agency were becoming exasperated by the failure to reach an agreement. When
Souers and the NSC staff proposed (apparently on the basis of
a suggestion by Hillenkoetter) an
arrangement under which the DCI would be
responsible for ensuring that covert activities were consistent with U.S.
foreign policy, and in which there would be an advisory panel of one State
and one Defense member to provide “authoritative policy guidance” and assist
the DCI in the preparation of all plans,
Kennan wrote to Lovett “that the arrangements which it
envisages might easily operate to cause embarrassment to this government.”
He continued:
“It is our view that these things, if they are to be done at all,
must be done under the intimate direction and control of this
Department. If this cannot be arranged (and I understand the
difficulties which stand in the way), I think it would be better to
withdraw this paper entirely and to give up at this time the idea of
attempting to conduct political warfare.” (Document 286)
This proposal was modified a few days later by another draft, which has not
been found, but, from references to it in other documents, apparently
emphasized the autonomy of the Director of Special Studies within CIA.
Reacting to it, Hillenkoetter wrote
to the Assistant Executive Secretary of the NSC:
“I should like to suggest that, since State evidently will not go
along with CIA operating this political warfare thing in any sane or
sound manner, we go back to the original concept that State
proposed. Let State run it and let it have no connection at all with
us. It seems to me that this is the only thing that will satisfy
State in any way and rather than try to keep a makeshift in running
order, subject to countless restrictions which can only lead to
continued bickering and argument, I think maybe the best idea is to
go back and make the OSP work for State alone.” (Document 287)
By mid-June, when the draft had become NSC
10/1 (apparently close to what Hillenkoetter had complained about in the preceding letter),
Kennan was recommending to
Lovett and Marshall that despite its serious defects
they approve the draft, which was “probably the best arrangement we can get
at this time.” (Document 289)
Finally, on June 17, 1948, the NSC approved
NSC 10/2, which:established an Office of Special Projects in CIA to conduct covert
operations;specified that it should be headed by “A highly qualified person”
nominated by the Secretary of State and acceptable to the Director
of Central Intelligence;provided that the head of the Office of Special Projects should
report directly to the Director of Central Intelligence, but “To the
maximum degree consistent with efficiency” the office would operate
independently of other components of the Agency;made the DCI responsible for
ensuring, through designated representatives of the Secretaries of
State and Defense, that covert operations were consistent with U.S.
foreign and military policies; andmandated that disagreements be referred to the NSC. (Document
292)
Despite the approval of NSC 10/2, the
controversy about covert operations continued. The separation of CIA’s
secret intelligence and secret operations functions was again brought
forward as an issue by the Dulles
Report. Although a head of covert operations was proposed by the Department
of State and accepted by the DCI, and
although the arrangements functioned for a time as originally designed, the
system established under NSC 10/2 was
distasteful to the Central Intelligence Agency. Eventually, the concept of a
head of secret operations who had a special relationship with the NSC, special responsibilities and ties to the
Departments of State and Defense, and a quasi-autonomous status within CIA
was discarded, and the secret operations and secret intelligence functions
were merged under a single head. These developments, however, occurred after
1950.
241. Memorandum From the General Counsel of the Central Intelligence
Agency (Houston) to
Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC-805, Item
12. Secret. Attached to a brief transmittal note from Houston to Hillenkoetter summarizing the contents. See the
Supplement.Washington, September 25, 1947.
SUBJECT
CIA Authority to Perform Propaganda and Commando Type FunctionsA review of the National Security Act reveals two provisions which
might be construed as authority for CIA to engage in black propaganda or
the type of activity known during the war as S.O., which included ranger and commando raids,
behind-the-lines sabotage, and support of guerrilla warfare. Section 102
(d) (4) provides that it shall be the duty of the Agency to perform for the benefit of existing intelligence agencies
such additional services of common concern as the National Security
Council determines can be more efficiently accomplished centrally.
Section 102 (d) (5) provides that the Agency shall perform such other
functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national
security as the NSC may direct. Taken
out of context and without knowledge of its history, these Sections
could bear almost unlimited interpretation, provided the service
performed could be shown to be of benefit to an intelligence agency or
related to national intelligence.Thus, black propaganda, primarily designed for subversion, confusion,
and political effect, can be shown incidentally to benefit positive
intelligence as a means of checking reliability of informants,
effectiveness of penetration, and so forth. Even certain forms of S.O. work could be held to benefit
intelligence by establishment of W/T teams in accessible areas and by
opening penetration points in confusion following sabotage or riot. In
our opinion, however, either activity would be an unwarranted extension
of the functions authorized in Sections 102 (d) (4) and (5). This is
based on our understanding of the intent of Congress at the time these
provisions were enacted.A review of debates indicates that Congress was primarily interested
in an agency for coordinating intelligence and originally did not
propose any overseas collection activities for CIA. The strong move to
provide specifically for such collection overseas was defeated, and, as
a compromise, Sections 102 (d) (4) and (5) were enacted, which permitted
the National Security Council to determine the extent of the collection
work to be performed by CIA. We do not believe that there was any thought in the minds of
Congress that the Central Intelligence Agency under this authority would
take positive action for subversion and sabotage. A bitter debate at
about the same time on the State Department’s Foreign Broadcast Service
tends to confirm our opinion. Further confirmation is found in the brief
and off-the-record hearings on appropriations for CIA.Aside from the discussions of normal departmental expenses for CIA as
a whole, approval was given to the unvouchered funds requested by the
Director of Central Intelligence mainly for the specific purposes of
conducting clandestine intelligence operations outside the United
States. We believe that there was no intent to use either the vouchered
or unvouchered funds for M.O. or S.O. work. Either of these activities would
require establishment of a new branch of office, employment of
considerable personnel, the procurement of huge quantities of all types
of goods and materials, and large sums for expenses of administrative
support and incidentals. We believe this would be an authorized use of
the funds made available to CIA. It is our conclusion, therefore, that
neither M.O. nor S.O. should be undertaken by CIA without previously
informing Congress and obtaining its approval of the functions and the
expenditure of funds for those purposes.There is, however, one function now being properly performed by CIA
which is so closely related to the matters discussed above as to be
mentioned in connection therewith. An important by-product of the
clandestine intelligence function is the acquisition of extensive
information on plans in Western Europe for establishment of resistance
movements in the event of further extension of Communist control. These
plans include training of agents and W/T’s, organizing groups, providing
outside contacts, and every other form of resistance. It is on such
groups that M.O. and, particularly,
S.O. would depend for most efficient
function.It is felt that this body of information might be the basis for
consideration by the National Security Council, or a sub-committee
thereof, in order to form a basic policy of cooperation with planned or
actual resistance movements and to assign the implementation of such
policy to the proper agency or body. If such implementation were then
assigned to CIA, it would, we feel, still be necessary to go to Congress
for authority and funds.Lawrence R. HoustonPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
242. Memorandum From the Secretary of the State–Army–Navy–Air Force
Coordinating Committee (Moseley) to the Under Secretary of State (Lovett)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 353, Records of Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental
Committees—State Department, Records of the State-War-Navy Coordinating
Committee, Box 55, File 304, 381, Psychological Warfare Pt. 1.
Secret.Washington, October 15, 1947.
SUBJECT
Proposal for a National Psychological Warfare Organization
In accordance with procedure whereby the more important papers under
consideration by the State–Army–Navy–Air Force Coordinating Committee
(SANACC)Earlier known as the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee (SWNCC). are brought to your and
the Secretary’s attention, it is believed that you will be interested in
SWNCC 304/6Dated September 30. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 353, Records of Interdepartmental and
Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Records of the
State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee, File 304, 381, Psychological
Warfare Pt. 1) See the Supplement. which proposes the
establishment in time of war or threat of war of a National Psychological
Warfare Organization. This paper is a report of the SANACC Subcommittee on Special Studies and
Evaluations which consists of full time representatives of State, CIG and the Armed Services, who have been
directed to study and propose plans for the conduct of psychological warfare
in time of war or threat of war. (Mr. Ralph Block,
OIE, is Chairman of this
Subcommittee.)
This paper proposes for approval (Tab A)Although
the source text identifies two enclosures, SENC 304/1 and SWNCC 304/6, it does not specify which is
at which Tab A. SWNCC 304/1, which was
forwarded to the National Intelligence Authority for concurrence on
December 12, 1946, has not been found. (Memorandum by Earman; Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–243, Job 84–00473R, Box 3, Folder 1) the
plans for a Psychological Warfare Organization which in time of war or
threat of war would be either under the National Security Council or the
reconstituted State–Army–Navy–Air Force Coordinating Committee. This
organization would be empowered to provide unified direction and
authoritative coordination of the national psychological warfare effort and
activities, and operations related thereto. It would be headed by a
director, appointed by the President; the director also to be chairman of a
policy planning board which would include representation from the JCS, CIG and
the Armed Services. The paper further recommends that the Organization
should be provided with the necessary allocations of manpower, funds,
facilities, etc.
The paper concludes (Tab B) that a psychological warfare specialist category
should be established and training instituted now in the Army, Navy and Air
Force and that rosters of available people for this type of work should also
be made up by the State Department, CIG and
the Armed Services.
The paper also brings out the facts that:The SANACC Subcommittee is the
only peacetime organization of the Government charged with the
preparation of policies, plans and studies for employment of
psychological warfare in time of war.The Department of State and the Military Establishment have no
funds appropriated for psychological warfare purposes.No psychological warfare specialist reserves exist within the
Military Establishment or the Department of State.Adequate training of personnel for psychological warfare would
require a training school, recruitment policies and measures, and an
extensive training period.
It should be pointed out that the terms of reference of the SANACC Subcommittee authorize it to prepare
policies and plans for employment only in time of war or threat of war, and
that it is not authorized to conduct psychological warfare in peacetime.
Thus, the plans proposed in the paper relate only to a wartime agency except
for the proposals that there be created now a psychological warfare category
by the Armed Services and that rosters of available personnel be
prepared.
243. Memorandum by the Army Member of the State–Army–Navy–Air Force
Coordinating Committee (Pixtou)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 353, Records of Interdepartmental and
Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Records of the
State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee, Box 55, File 304, 381,
Psychological Warfare Pt. 1. Secret. Transmitted under an October 20
transmittal note from the committee secretariat.Washington, undated.
SANACC 304/8
PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE
With the question of the functioning of the National Security Council
still undetermined and with the SANACC now being reconstituted, I consider it premature and
unnecessary at this time to determine the agency to whom the proposed
psychological warfare agency shall be accountable. I recommend,
therefore, that this remain a problem for future determination in the light of subsequent
developments in the organization and operation of the National Security
Council and the SANACC. Subject to
this reservation I approve SANACC
304/6.See footnote 2, Document 242.I note that the terms of reference of the Subcommittee limit its
considerations to those within the time frame of war or threat of war as
determined by the President. I am of the opinion that the changing tenor
of events of the past few months has raised for serious consideration
the problem of determining the desirability or necessity of engaging in
deliberate coordinated psychological effort on a national scale at the
present time. I recommend, therefore, that the Subcommittee be directed
to consider and make recommendations as a matter of urgency, on the
problem “Should the U.S. at the present time utilize coordinated
psychological measures in furtherance of the attainment of its national
objectives? If so, what organization is required and what should be its
terms of reference?”
244. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the State–Army–Navy–Air Force Coordinating CommitteeSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 353, Records of Interdepartmental and
Intradepartmental Committees—State Department, Records of the
State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee, Box 55, File 304, 381,
Psychological Warfare Pt. 1. Secret.Washington, October 22, 1947.
SUBJECT
Psychological Warfare
REFERENCE
SWNCC 304/6 dated 30 September
1947See footnote
2, Document 242.
The Central Intelligence Agency approves SWNCC 304/6 dated 30 September 1947 subject to the following
provisions: In view of the fact that the functioning of the National Security
Council is still undetermined, and the fact that SWNCC is now being reconstituted, I
recommend that the decision of determining the agency to whom the
Psychological Warfare Agency shall be accountable be deferred at
this time. When the question does arise, however, I recommend that
study and thought be given to assigning accountability of the
Psychological Warfare Agency to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.The paper envisages guidance for a Psychological Warfare Agency
which will be established in time of war or threat of war as
determined by the President. I am of the opinion that conditions now
indicate that psychological warfare measures be instituted now as a
matter of urgency. I, therefore, recommend that the Ad Hoc
Subcommittee undertake a study and submit recommendations on the
program “Should the U.S. at the present utilize psychological
warfare measures in furtherance of the attainment of its National
objectives.”
RH Hillenkoetter Rear Admiral, USN
245. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Souers) to
Secretary of Defense ForrestalSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department,
Records of the State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee, Box 55, File 304,
381, Psychological Warfare Pt. 1. Secret.Washington, October 24, 1947.
The attached memorandumNot found. from
Secretary Harriman is a very
persuasive and accurate appraisal of the need for psychological warfare
operations to counter Soviet-inspired Communist propaganda, particularly in
France and Italy.
Secretary Harriman, however, leaves
the question of appropriate organization somewhat indefinite. It seems to me
that this problem could be solved fairly simply along the following lines: Continue and support the strengthening of the overt activities of
the Information Division of the Department of State.Assign the conduct of covert activities to the Central
Intelligence Agency, since it already has contacts and
communications with appropriate organizations and agents in foreign
countries.Establish policies for both of the above activities and coordinate
their operations by means of a full-time interdepartmental board
under the chairmanship and supervision of the Department of State,
with representatives from the National Military Establishment and
CIA.
It is my understanding that sufficient unvouchered funds to initiate these
activities might be obtained from CIA or the Military Establishment. Also, I
understand the Department of State already has a qualified psychological
warfare expert serving as chairman of a subcommittee of SANACC which deals with this subject.
SANACC, incidentally, has formed a special
group to prepare a recommendation for the President that the United States
initiate this type of operation, which I understand will be transmitted
through the National Security Council.
Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that
indicates Souers signed the
original.
246. Memorandum From the Assistant Executive Secretary (Lay) to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records
of the National Security Council, NSC
10/2. Top Secret.Washington, November 3, 1947.
SUBJECT
Psychological Warfare
REFERENCE
SANACC 304/10Dated November 3. (Ibid., RG 353, Records of
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department,
Records of the State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee, Box 55, File
304, 381, Psychological Warfare Pt. 1) See the
Supplement.
The organization proposed in SANACC 304/10
does not appear to offer a practical solution for the following reasons: It is proposed to establish it under either the National Security
Council or the Committee of Two. The Council appears inappropriate
since it is only advisory to the President and was not legally
designed to supervise interdepartmental activities, with the sole
statutory exception of CIA. The Committee of TwoThe Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense. is an informal body like its predecessor, the
Committee of Three,The Secretaries of
State, War, and Navy, who met informally under this rubric from
1944 to 1947. which never to my knowledge undertook to
supervise interdepartmental organizations. SANACC, on the other hand, already
supervises two interdepartmental organizations (Military Information
Control and the Security Advisory Board) which are similar in
character to that required for the coordination of foreign
information and psychological warfare activities.SANACC 304/10 proposes a
full-time working group headed by a specially appointed director,
with separate funds and personnel. This would only create another
governmental agency. Its director would be usurping the functions of
the head of the State Department’s Information Service. Finally, a
request for separate funds for the proposed organization would
jeopardize the security of psychological warfare operations.
A much less complicated and more effective organization could easily be built
along the following lines: Establish, under SANACC, a board whose functions would be to formulate
coordinated policies and plans for the conduct of foreign information and
psychological warfare activities and, upon their approval by SANACC, to coordinate the implementation of
such policies and plans. This board would be composed of officials in the
various departments and agencies who are responsible for the conduct of
foreign information and psychological warfare activities. The Assistant
Secretary of State for Public Affairs should be chairman. The other members
should consist of the official in CIA charged with covert activities, and
any officials in other Government departments who are responsible for
similar activities. The members of the board should jointly furnish the
funds and the personnel required to form a full time staff for the
board.
The above plan would have the following benefits and advantages:An established interdepartmental coordinating body, SANACC, would furnish policy
direction which incorporated the views of the State Department and
the Departments of the National Military Establishment.A separate agency, with a new director, separate budget, and
additional personnel, would not be required.The formulation of policies and plans and the coordination of
their implementation would be in the hands of the officials
responsible for the actual conduct of foreign information and
psychological warfare activities.
James S. Lay, Jr.Printed from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
247. Memorandum From the Deputy Director (Wright) to Director of Central Intelligence
HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–807, Item 4. Secret.Washington, November 4, 1947.
SUBJECT
Psychological WarfareYou are aware that I have been keeping in close touch with the subject
of Psychological Warfare and the various studies being conducted in
connection therewith. It now appears that the latest SANACC conclusions will be aired today
in a full committee meeting. You (or your Deputy) have been invited to
attend and I urgently recommend that you (or your Deputy) be fully
briefed as to the desires of the NSC
prior to this meeting.The subject of Psychological Warfare has been an active issue with
SWNCC since 6 June 1946 (see
SWNCC 304) and has been under
urgent consideration since the formation of SANACC. While techniques and organization of a
Psychological Warfare Agency have been argued pro and con, all parties
are agreed on the following:The present world situation requires the U.S. immediately to
develop and utilize strong and concerted measures designed to
produce psychological situations and effects favorable to the
attainment of U.S. national objectives.The organization to carry out the proposed project should be
operated within the framework of the National Security
Council.At one period of the SWNCC (later
SANACC) studies there was
proposed an organization which, with minor changes, could efficiently
carry out the national program envisaged. (See paragraph 31 of SSE 1, 1
August 1947—SWNC Subcommittee Special Studies and Evaluations.) After
further studies were conducted, however, it has become apparent to me
that thought is being focused on another inter-departmental coordinating
committee completely unable to do an efficient job in this important
field. The SANACC ad hoc Committee on
Psychological Warfare has stated their latest proposal under date of 3
November in SANACC 304/10.See Document 246.
This proposal would only provide, in my estimation, the following:An inter-departmental committee to sit over another
inter-departmental committee with a “Director” in
between.The nucleus of another national intelligence
organization.As you know, I have recently discussed these matters with General
Donovan and other individuals
with wartime experience in Psychological Warfare organization and
technique. I urgently recommend that, if you and the NSC concur, we present to SANACC our views on this matter as follows:The immediate development of an organization, within the
framework of the NSC, to
implement both white and black psychological warfare designed to
the attainment of U.S. national objectives.The proposed organization to be under the control and
direction of a “Director” appointed by the President from
military or civil life. (See Annex I, herewith.)“The Director” to be the chairman of a Planning and Policy
board composed of representatives of the Departments of State,
Army, Navy, Air, the Central Intelligence Agency, and such other
government agencies whose participation may be necessary or
desirable.The Organization be so established as to be easily merged into
the Military Establishment in the event of war or threat of
war.The necessary authority, guidance, information, and resources
of manpower, funds, facilities, and materials be provided to
enable the organization its efficient functioning in the
achievement of national aims.The Organization to be authorized to merge into a national
effort all activities and operations related to psychological
warfare using established agencies where practicable.The Organization to be fully responsible for the planning,
development, and coordination of all phases of the national
program of radio,
press, publications, and related propaganda activities involving
the dissemination of information in the national
interests.E. K. WrightPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Brigadier General, USA
Annex I
SUBJECT
Psychological Warfare
Reference is made to paragraph 4. b., of basic Memorandum, herewith.
You will remember that General Donovan in my recent discussion with him, was
positive in his opinion that all Psychological Warfare be conducted
by the Central Intelligence Agency. He agreed that it would be
desirable if it could be done under proper cover. His recommendation
in this regard was as follows: The “Director” mentioned in my basic memorandum should
actually be appointed by the President as a Special
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense—with the specific
understanding that he was actually under the operational
control of the Director of Central Intelligence.That the knowledge of this operational control be known
only to the fewest possible individuals.General Donovan of course
is a firm believer, as are most of those people having operational
experience in this field, in the principle that the greatest
propaganda success will be found in the field of Black operations.
He, therefore, feels the organization must be so operated as to
foster the use of Black methods. Since such methods are solely
within the jurisdiction of CIA, General Donovan feels the Director of Central Intelligence
should be firmly in control of the entire operation, both White and
Black.I submit this separate paper for your consideration since I know
you are fully cognizant of the magnitude of the whole project.
Personally I would like to see the proposed “Director” appointed as
the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense with the Director
of Central Intelligence
and an Assistant Secretary of State designated as Advisory
Consultants.E. K. WrightPrinted from a copy that
bears this typed signature. Brigadier General, USA
248. Memorandum From the Deputy Director (Wright) to Director of Central Intelligence
HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–807, Item 4. Secret.Washington, November 4, 1947.
The results of the War CouncilA group consisting
of the Secretary of Defense, the three service secretaries, and the
three service chiefs, established by the National Security Act of 1947
to advise the Secretary of Defense on “broad policy pertaining to the
armed forces.” Meeting held this date generally took the
following line in connection with an organization to carry out psychological
warfare measures. The position of the Security Council was that any
propaganda measures in time of peace were a primary function of the State
Department and that in any case should not be handled by the Security
Council as such since it is in effect an advisory group to the
President.
It was decided that the project for carrying out psychological warfare will
be restricted solely to the foreign field and would be under the direct
supervision of an Assistant Secretary of State. The Assistant Secretary of
State to carry out these functions to be appointed from among individuals to
be recommended in the next two or three days by the members of the War
Council.
It was decided that insofar as public knowledge was concerned that this new
organizational set up would deal only in what is known as White propaganda.
However, it was agreed that the fullest advantage of any propaganda measures
would have to be obtained in the field of Black propaganda. That, therefore,
the Assistant Secretary of State to handle this project would have as
Advisory Consultants, the Director of Central Intelligence and a military representative to
be selected by the War Council.
The Security Council is cognizant of the fact that they will have to issue a
directive to the Director of Central Intelligence to provide him the legal
status for assisting the State Department in carrying out our phase of
operations in this field.
New subject:
At the SANACC conference this afternoon
the Committee was confused by a statement made by Mr. Whitney, Assistant Secretary of Air, that
the War Council intended to appoint a Director to carry out these operations
under the Assistant Secretary of State mentioned above. This was not the
intent nor the expression of the War Council. Their discussions with regard
to the appointment of an individual to carry out the project had to do with
the appointment of a new Assistant Secretary of State.
I have already submitted to Admiral
Souers the name of David K.E. Bruce,
currently an Assistant Secretary of Commerce, and have indicated that
tomorrow I will furnish him additional names for consideration.
E. K. WrightPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature. Brigadier General, USA
249. Report by an Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the State–Army–Navy–Air Force
Coordinating CommitteeSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 353, Records of the
Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees—State Department,
Records of the State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee, Box 55, File 304,
381, Psychological Warfare Pt. 2. Top Secret. Although dated November 7,
SANACC amended and approved the
report on November 13, and the last 2 pages of the source text bear the
typed notation “Revised 13 November 1947.” The source text is an
enclosure to two memoranda, neither printed. (Ibid.) The first is a
November 13 covering note from the SANACC secretaries explaining the changes. The latter is
another note by the SANACC
secretaries, dated November 7, which indicates that the text amended and
approved by SANACC was a revised
version of the report originally submitted by the ad hoc committee on
November 3 and designated as SANACC
304/10. (Ibid.) See the Supplement for SANACC 304/10.Washington, November 7, 1947.
SANACC 304/11
PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE
The Problem
1. To determine whether at the present time the U.S. should utilize
coordinated psychological measures in furtherance of the attainment of its
national objectives; if so, what organization is required and what should be
its terms of reference.
Facts Bearing on the Problem and Discussion
2. a. The USSR is conducting an intensive propaganda campaign directed
primarily against the U.S. and is employing coordinated psychological,
political and economic measures designed to undermine all non-Communist
elements in foreign countries which are capable of opposing Soviet
aspirations.
b. The ultimate objective of this campaign is not merely to undermine the
prestige of the U.S. and the effectiveness of its national policy but to
weaken and divide foreign opinion to a point where effective opposition to
Soviet aspirations is no longer attainable by political, economic or
military means.
c. In conducting this campaign, the USSR is utilizing all such measures
available to it through satellite regimes, Communist parties, and
organizations susceptible to Communist influence.
d. The U.S. is not now employing coordinated psychological measures to
counter this propaganda campaign or to further the attainment of its
national objectives.
e. The extension of economic aid to certain foreign countries, particularly
in Europe, is one of the principal means by which the U.S. has undertaken to defend its vital
interests. The extent of this aid and other U.S. contributions to world
peace is unknown to large segments of the world’s population. Inadequate
employment of psychological measures is impairing the effectiveness of these
undertakings.
f. None of the existing departments or agencies of the U.S. Government is now
charged with responsibility for utilizing coordinated psychological measures
in furtherance of the attainment of U.S. national objectives.
g. Taking into account the foregoing considerations the ad hoc Committee has
reached the following Conclusions:
Conclusions
3. The present world situation requires the U.S. immediately to develop and
utilize coordinated measures designed to influence attitudes in foreign
countries in a direction favorable to the attainment of U.S. objectives and
to counteract effects of anti-American propaganda.
4. It is considered that the initial steps to
implement paragraph 3 above should be designed to provide closer
coordination of policies, more effective integration of existing facilities,
and intensification of psychological measures.
5. a. The Secretary of State should be charged with responsibility for the
general direction and coordination of psychological measures designed to
influence attitudes in foreign countries in a direction favorable to the
attainment of U.S. objectives and to counteract effects of anti-American
propaganda. It is assumed that this responsibility will be delegated to the
Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, hereinafter referred to as
the Assistant Secretary. The Assistant Secretary should be assisted by an
informal group composed initially of representatives of the Army, Navy and
Air Force Departments, and the Central Intelligence Agency, and subsequently
of other departments or agencies at his discretion.
b. All participating departments and agencies should be directed to insure
the most effective utilization of all their appropriate facilities, and to
perform such additional functions as may be necessary, for the execution of
approved policy decisions.
c. The Assistant Secretary should be furnished with qualified full-time
personnel from each participating department or agency, headed by a director
appointed by the Secretary of State. The major responsibilities of the
Director should be to implement the policies and plans established by the
Secretary of State by: Obtaining the most effective utilization and coordination of all
informational facilities and of related psychological activities
within the participating departments and agencies;Providing effective liaison with other departments and agencies
whose related activities can be profitably employed;Initiating and developing for the approval of the Assistant
Secretary specific plans and programs designed to influence foreign
opinion in a direction favorable to U.S. interests and to counteract
effects of anti-American propaganda.
6. As a matter of priority, the Assistant Secretary should take steps to
determine the need for such funds as may be necessary to insure performance
of the responsibilities assigned in paragraph 5 above.
7. The Assistant Secretary and Director should be furnished by the Central
Intelligence Agency with appropriate foreign intelligence.
8. The Assistant Secretary should be furnished with classified information
necessary for the fulfillment of his responsibilities by the participating
departments.
9. In carrying out the responsibilities assigned in paragraph 5 above, the
Assistant Secretary and the Director should maintain the closest possible
liaison with the SANACC Subcommittee on
Special Studies and Evaluations, in order that the latter may adequately
fulfill its responsibilities.
10. The utmost secrecy should be observed with regard to the contents of this
report.
Recommendations
11. It is recommended that:SANACC approve the above
Conclusions.After approval by SANACC, the
Conclusions of this paper be forwarded to the National Security
Council for appropriate action.
250. Memorandum of Discussion at the 2d Meeting of the National Security
CouncilSource: Truman Library, Papers of Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files, Subject File. Top Secret.Washington, November 14, 1947.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 1–4, control of exports to the USSR
and Eastern Europe, U.S. Maritime Commission, U.S. position with respect to
Italy, and base rights in Greenland, Iceland, and the Azores.]
Secretary Marshall requested that the
title of this paper be changed to eliminate the word “warfare.” Hillenkoetter
told his staff meeting on November 18 “Mr. Marshall does not like term ‘PW’ and does not seem to
favor the idea of psychological warfare at this time.” (Minutes of Staff
Meeting, November 18; Records of the Central Intelligence Agency, Job
80–01731R, Box 31, Folder 3)
[1 paragraph (2–1/2 lines of source text) not
declassified]
Mr. Lovett and Admiral Hillenkoetter explained that the
intent was only to ensure that all psychological activities were coordinated
with our foreign policy and our information program. The Secretary of State
was therefore given the responsibility for general coordination of all such
activities.
Secretary Royall, speaking also for
Secretary Forrestal and Secretary
Symington, stated that the
Military Establishment did not believe that it should have a part in those
activities. He therefore suggested deletion of the provisions for an
advisory group and a director.
The National Security Council:
Referred SANACC 304/11 to the National
Security Council Staff for revision in the light of the comments at the
meeting.
[Here follows discussion of agenda item 6, review of the world situation as
it relates to the security of the United States.]
251. Memorandum From the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
(Wright) to the
Chief of the Interagency Coordinating and Planning Staff, Central
Intelligence Agency (Childs)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HS–74, Item 1. Top
Secret.Washington, December 2, 1947.
SUBJECT
NSC Notes on Psychological
Operations
Reference is made to your attached notes on Psychological Operations.Not found. The memorandum appears to refer to
discussions at the NSC staff level about
the prospective NSC directive on
psychological warfare. That paragraph relating to the placing of
a special panel of Army, Navy, and
Air Force planners within CIA (or elsewhere), to give special attention to
psychological operations to insure very close cooperation abroad—is very
alarming.
All concerned must appreciate that this Agency is and must be the sole agency
to conduct organized foreign clandestine operations.
To sabotage this principle can only lead to chaos in this type of
operation.
Whatever Agency is chosen to indicate the type of Black operations to be
conducted, or the material and/or propaganda to be disseminated—the Central
Intelligence Agency must alone be the Agency to determine how the material is disseminated. The pattern of our foreign
operations will not permit supervision of these activities by other agencies
if it is to be maintained as an efficient and secure operation and the
conduct of Black psychological operations must fit into the over-all
operational pattern.
It is possible that the actual situation is not known or appreciated by all
members of the NSC staff. If you feel this
is so I would be very happy to discuss it with them.
EKW Brigadier General, USA
252. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary (Souers) to the Members of the National Security CouncilSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC Minutes, 4th Meeting. Confidential.
Copies sent to the President, the Secretaries of State, Defense, the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and the Chairman of the National
Security Resources Board. For an early version of this document, see the
memorandum from “REN” to Souers, November 25, and the two undated attachments (ibid.)
in the Supplement.Washington, December 9, 1947.
NSC 4
COORDINATION OF FOREIGN INFORMATION MEASURES
REFERENCES
SANACC 304/11NSC Action No. 11NSC Action No. 11,
taken at the NSC meeting on November
14, referred SANACC 304/11 to the
NSC Staff for revision based on
the comments at the meeting. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security Council,
Record of Actions, Box 55)
At its second meeting the National Security Council referred SANACC 304/11 to the National Security
Council Staff for revision in the light of the comments at the meeting. The
enclosed report has been prepared pursuant to that directive, after
consultation with representatives of the Departments of State, the Army, the
Navy and the Air Force, and of the Central Intelligence Agency.
It is recommended that the National Security Council approve the enclosed
report and authorize its submission to the President, with the
recommendation that he approve the “Conclusions” contained therein and
direct that they be implemented by all appropriate executive departments and
agencies of the U.S. Government under the coordination of the Secretary of
State.
Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
EnclosureConfidential. The word “Draft”
at the top of the first page has been crossed through. The
typewritten date December 9 was changed by hand to December
17.Washington, December 17, 1947.
National Security Council Memorandum
NSC 4
REPORT BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ON COORDINATION OF
FOREIGN INFORMATION MEASURES
The Problem
1. To determine what steps are required to strengthen and coordinate all
foreign information measures of the U.S. Government in furtherance of
the attainment of US national objectives.
Analysis
2. The USSR is conducting an intensive propaganda campaign directed
primarily against the US and is employing coordinated psychological,
political and economic measures designed to undermine non-Communist elements in all countries. The
ultimate objective of this campaign is not merely to undermine the
prestige of the US and the effectiveness of its national policy but to
weaken and divide world opinion to a point where effective opposition to
Soviet designs is no longer attainable by political, economic or
military means. In conducting this campaign, the USSR is utilizing all
measures available to it through satellite regimes, Communist parties,
and organizations susceptible to Communist influence.
3. The US is not now employing strong, coordinated
information measures to counter this propaganda campaign or to further
the attainment of its national objectives. The extension of economic aid
to certain foreign countries, particularly in Europe, is one of the
principal means by which the US has undertaken to defend its vital
interests. The nature and intent of this aid and other US contributions
to world peace is unknown to or misunderstood by large segments of the
world’s population. Inadequate employment of information measures is
impairing the effectiveness of these undertakings.
4. None of the existing departments or agencies of the US Government is
now charged with responsibility for coordinating foreign information
measures in furtherance of the attainment of US national objectives.
Upon the Department of State devolves the principal responsibility,
under the President, for the formulation and execution of American
foreign policy and the conduct of American foreign relations.
5. Facilities now existing in the Departments of State, the Army, the
Navy and the Air Force in the field of foreign information or which can
be utilized in this field are listed in the AppendixThe appendix, not found, lists agencies and offices
of the Departments of State, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force
involved in the dissemination of information overseas.
hereto.
Conclusions
6. The present world situation requires the immediate strengthening and
coordination of all foreign information measures of the US Government
designed to influence attitudes in foreign countries in a direction
favorable to the attainment of its objectives and to counteract effects
of anti-US propaganda.
7. It is considered that the initial steps to
implement paragraph 6 above should be designed to provide closer
coordination of policies, more effective integration of existing
facilities, and intensification of foreign information measures.
8. a. The Secretary of State should be charged with formulating policies
for and coordinating the implementation of all information meas-ures
designed to influence attitudes in foreign countries in a direction
favorable to the attainment of US objectives and to counteract effects
of anti-US propaganda. It is
assumed that these functions will be exercised by the Assistant
Secretary of State for Public Affairs, hereinafter referred to as the
Assistant Secretary. The Assistant Secretary should consult with an
informal group composed of representatives of other appropriate
departments and agencies.
b. Appropriate departments and agencies should be directed to insure the
most effective coordination and utilization of their appropriate
facilities for the implementation of approved foreign information
policies.
c. The Assistant Secretary should be assisted by a staff including
qualified full-time personnel detailed from each appropriate department
or agency. This staff should assist the Assistant Secretary in
implementing the policies and plans established by the Secretary of
State by:Obtaining the most effective utilization and coordination of
all federal foreign information facilities;Initiating and developing for the approval of the Assistant
Secretary specific plans and programs designed to influence
foreign opinion in a direction favorable to US interests and to
counteract effects of anti-US propaganda.
9. As a matter of priority, the Assistant Secretary should coordinate the
determination of the requirement for funds necessary to insure
performance of the functions assigned in paragraph 8 above.
10. The Assistant Secretary should be furnished by the Central
Intelligence Agency with appropriate coordinated foreign
intelligence.
11. The Assistant Secretary should be furnished by the appropriate
departments with classified information necessary for the fulfillment of
his responsibilities.
12. In carrying out the functions assigned in paragraph 8 above, the
Assistant Secretary should maintain the closest possible liaison with
the State-Army-Navy-Air Force Coordinating Committee.
253. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary (Souers) to the Members of the National Security CouncilSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC Minutes, 4th Meeting. Top
Secret.Washington, December 9, 1947.
NSC 4–A
PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS
REFERENCE
SANACC 304/11Document
249.The National Security Council at its second meeting referred SANACC 304/11 to the NSC Staff for revision in the light of the
comments at the meeting.SANACC 304/11 appears to be
designed to accomplish the following two related but separate purposes: To initiate steps looking toward the conduct of covert
psychological operations designed to counteract Soviet and
Soviet-inspired activities.To ensure that all overt foreign information activities are
effectively coordinated.Therefore, in the interest of security and clarity, the Staff of the
National Security Council has prepared separate reports to the National
Security Council designed to achieve each of the above purposes. This
report deals with the purpose described in 1–a, while NSC 4Document 252. deals with the purpose
stated in 1–b.The enclosed draft directive to the Director of Central Intelligence
is believed to be an appropriate and adequate action by the Council with
reference to covert psychological operations abroad. This directive
contains the following desirable provisions:It specifies the reason and the authority for the Council’s
action;It grants sufficient authority to the Central Intelligence
Agency; whileAt the same time it ensures that Central Intelligence Agency
will conduct such operations in a manner consistent with U.S.
foreign policy, overt foreign information activities, and
diplomatic and military operations and intentions abroad.The names of appropriate departments and agencies to be represented on
the panel referred to in subparagraph 3–a, will be recommended by the
NSC Staff in a separate
memorandum.Document
255.It is therefore recommended that the National Security Council approve
and issue the enclosed directive to the Director of Central
Intelligence.Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
EnclosureTop Secret. Paragraph 3 of this
draft was dropped in the final version and replaced by a paragraph
that made the Director of Central Intelligence responsible for
ensuring that psychological warfare operations were consistent with
U.S. foreign policy. See the attachment to Document 257.Washington, undated.
Draft Directive to Director of Central Intelligence
Hillenkoetter
The National Security Council, taking cognizance of the vicious
psychological efforts of the USSR, its satellite countries and
Communist groups to discredit and defeat the aims and activities of
the United States and other western powers, has determined that, in
the interests of world peace and U.S. national security, the foreign
information activities of the U.S. Government must be supplemented
by covert psychological operations.The similarity of operational methods involved in covert
psychological and intelligence activities and the need to ensure
their secrecy and obviate costly duplication renders the Central
Intelligence Agency the logical agency to conduct such operations.
Hence, under authority of Section 102 (d) (5) of the National
Security Act of 1947, the National Security Council directs the
Director of Central Intelligence to initiate and conduct, within the
limit of available funds, covert psychological operations designed
to counteract Soviet and Soviet-inspired activities which constitute
a threat to world peace and security or are designed to discredit
and defeat the United States in its endeavors to promote world peace
and security.In order to insure that such psychological operations are in a
manner consistent with U.S. foreign policy, overt foreign
information activities, and diplomatic and military operations and
intentions abroad, the Director of Central Intelligence is charged
with: Obtaining approval of all policy directives and major
plans for such operations by a panel to be designated by the
National Security Council.Coordination of operations with the senior U.S. diplomatic
and military representatives in each area which will be
directly affected by such operations.Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require the Central
Intelligence Agency to disclose operational details concerning its
secret techniques, sources or contacts.
254. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records
of the National Security Council, NSC
Minutes, 4th Meeting. Top Secret.Washington, December 15, 1947.Reference is made to NSC 4–A (Report
to the National Security Council by The Executive Secretary on
Psychological Operations) as distributed under date of 9 December
1947,Document
253. with particular reference to the proposed
Directive To The Director of Central Intelligence.In the event the subject project is implemented, it is requested that
consideration be given to rewording paragraph 3.b., of the proposed
Directive to The DCI as follows:
“b. The senior U.S. diplomatic representative in each area, and
the military commander in each occupied area, will be kept
informed of psychological operations being conducted in areas
under their jurisdiction.”
We feel the suggested rewording will satisfy the intent of the
original wording and will—Provide greater security to our organized covert operations,
andWill follow the existing interdepartmental agreement that the
senior U.S. representative in each foreign area is responsible
for the coordination of all overt intelligence
activities. RH Hillenkoetter Rear Admiral, USN
255. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary (Souers) to the National Security CouncilSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC Minutes, 4th Meeting. Top
Secret.Washington, December 16, 1947.
SUBJECT
Representation on the panel recommended in NSC 4–ADocument 253.
It is recommended that the panel referred to in paragraph 3–a of the draft
directive in NSC 4–A consist of one
representative from each of the following Departments: Department of StateDepartment of the ArmyDepartment of the NavyDepartment of the Air Force
At the suggestion of General Gruenther, it is also
recommended that the Joint Staff, Joint Chiefs of Staff, be invited to
designate are presentative who shall sit with the above panel as an
observer.
Sidney W. Souers
256. Department of State Briefing MemorandumSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Executive
Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351,
NSC 4. Top Secret. The date is
handwritten on the source text. The memorandum has neither an addressee
nor a sender, but presumably it was intended for Under Secretary
Lovett, who was Acting
Secretary at the time. The document is a briefing paper for the NSC meeting held December 17.Washington, December 17, 1947.
COORDINATION OF FOREIGN INFORMATION MEASURES (NSC 4) PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS (NSC 4–A)
I. Discussion
The NSC Staff has revised SANACC 304/11 (the psychological warfare
paper) and prepared two separate reports, one which plans the coordination
of foreign information
measures in overt operations (NSC 4), and
the other initiating steps working toward covert psychological operations
(NSC 4-A).
NSC 4 (Tab A),Document 252. which has the
approval of the Department as indicated in Mr. Sargeant’s memorandum (Tab B)proposes: The Secretary of State should be charged with formulating and
coordinating the implementation of all information measures designed
to influence attitudes in foreign countries in a direction favorable
to the attainment of US objectives and to counteract effects of
anti-US propaganda. It is assumed that these functions will be
exercised by the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs,
who should consult with an informal group composed of
representatives of other appropriate departments and
agencies.Appropriate departments and agencies should be instructed to
insure the most effective coordination and utilization of their
appropriate facilities, andThe Assistant Secretary should be assisted by a staff including
qualified full-time personnel detailed from each appropriate
agency.
NSC 4–A (Tab C)Document 253. entitled Psychological Operations provides that covert
psychological operations shall be conducted by the CIA and a draft directive
to the Director of CIA is enclosed with the report. This directive
authorizes CIA to initiate and conduct covert psychological operations
designed to counteract Soviet-inspired activity provided that the approval
of all policy directives and major plans are obtained from a panel to be
designated by the Council. This panel will probably consist of
representatives of State, Army, Navy, Air and perhaps the JCS.
In the memorandum, (Tab D),Not found. Mr.
Kennan indicates that whereas it
is desirable to establish the authority for the proposed operations, the
Council should be frankly informed that before giving our consent to any
such activities we would wish to consider most carefully the need therefor.
Furthermore, we would want to examine the situation in all its aspects in
case of any suggested operation, and to judge each case strictly on its
merits.
II. Recommendations
It is recommended:That you approve NSC 4 Coordination of Foreign Information Measures,
andApprove NSC 4–A Psychological Operations with the understanding that we
are only approving the establishment of the authority for the
proposed operations.That you indicate to the Council our views on such activities as
indicated above.
Tab BSecret.Washington, December 15, 1947.
Memorandum From the Deputy to the Assistant Secretary
of State for Public Affairs (Sargeant) to Acting Secretary of State Lovett
SUBJECT
Report to National Security Council on Coordination of Foreign
Information MeasuresThe attached reportNot attached.
Reference is to a draft of NSC
4, possibly Document 252. is a
revision of SANACC 304/11 drafted
by the NSC staff in the light of
comment at the second meeting of the National Security
Council.It is recommended that the report be approved by the
Department.Significant changes in the original SANACC paper have been made as follows:All reference to “psychological measures” has been
eliminated;Paragraph 6 provides for “the immediate strengthening and
coordination of all foreign information
measures of the U.S. Government….”Paragraph 8a assumes that the Assistant Secretary of State
for Public Affairs, acting for the Secretary of State, will
“consult with” rather than “be advised by” an informal group
composed of representatives of other appropriate departments
and agencies in formulating information policies and
coordinating the implementation of all information
measures.“Other appropriate departments and agencies” are not
specified in the report, but it is understood that they
shall include, initially, the Departments of Army, Navy, Air
Force, and the Central Intelligence Agency.The report contains no recommendation regarding implementation of
Paragraph 3b, which provides that “appropriate departments and
agencies should be directed to insure the most effective
coordination and utilization of their facilities . . . .”
Presumably, such a directive would be issued by the Committee of
Two. This point should be clarified, however, as the Secretary of
State would not be in a position to carry out his responsibilities
without a clear directive to the participating departments and
agencies.In the margin next to this
paragraph is the following handwritten note: “Secretary of State
would have authority to issue these directives under President’s
approval of the paper. S/S–H.W.
Moseley.”I understand Mr. Kennan has
briefed you on another aspect of this problem which will be
discussed at the National Security Council meeting. If possible, I
should like to discuss briefly with you the relationship between
these two aspects. HHS
257. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Souers) to
Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records
of the National Security Council, NSC
Minutes, 4th Meeting. Top Secret. Central Intelligence Agency records
contain a typescript copy that apparently was made from a signed copy;
it is identical to the source text. (Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–773, Job 83–00036, Box 5, Folder 8) Also
reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under
Harry Truman,
pp.173–175.Washington, December 17, 1947.
SUBJECT
Psychological Operations
REFERENCE
NSC 4–A
At its fourth meeting the National Security Council amended and approved the
draft directive to the Director of Central Intelligence contained inNSC 4–A.The NSC minutes for the Council’s 4th meeting
on December 17 refer only to NSC 4,
noting simply that it was adopted without change and subsequently
submitted to the President for approval. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC Minutes, 4th Meeting) There is no
mention of NSC 4-A in the minutes. The
amendment referred to in the undated directive to Hillenkoetter involved paragraph 3,
where the proposal for an advisory panel was eliminated. See the
enclosure to Document 253. Souers submitted NSC 4 to the President for approval under a
memorandum of December 17. Truman
approved NSC 4 on December 18. (National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National
Security Council, NSC Minutes, 4th
Meeting) The file contains no mention of the President’s approval of
NSC 4-A.
This directive, as approved by the National Security Council, is transmitted
herewith for appropriate action.
Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
AttachmentTop Secret.
National Security Council Directive to Director of
Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter
The National Security Council, taking cognizance of the vicious
psychological efforts of the USSR, its satellite countries and
Communist groups to discredit and defeat the aims and activities of
the United States and other Western powers, has determined that, in
the interests of world peace and U.S. national security, the foreign
information activities of the U.S. Government must be supplemented
by covert psychological operations.The similarity of operational methods involved in covert
psychological and intelligence activities and the need to ensure
their secrecy andobviate costly duplication renders the Central
Intelligence Agency the logical agency to conduct such operations.
Hence, under authority of Section 102(d)(5) of the National Security
Act of 1947, the National Security Council directs the Director of
Central Intelligence to initiate and conduct, within the limit of
available funds, covert psychological operations designed to
counteract Soviet and Soviet-inspired activities which constitute a threat to
world peace and security or are designed to discredit and defeat the
United States in its endeavors to promote world peace and
security.The Director of Central Intelligence is charged with ensuring that
such psychological operations are consistent with U.S. foreign
policy and overt foreign information activities, and that
appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government, both at home and abroad
(including diplomatic and military representatives in each area),
are kept informed of such operations which will directly affect
them.Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require the Central
Intelligence Agency to disclose operational details concerning its
secret techniques, sources or contacts.
258. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Assistant
Director for Special Operations (Galloway)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG-917, Job 83–00036,
Box 6, Folder 11. Top Secret.Washington, December 22, 1947.
SUBJECT
Foreign Information MeasuresThis Agency has been directed by the National Security Council to
supplement the foreign information activities of the U.S. Government by
covert psychological operations. Further, we have been charged with
insuring that such operations are consistent with U.S. foreign policy
and overt information activities, and that appropriate agencies of the
U.S. Government, both at home and abroad, are kept informed of such
operations which will directly affect them.It has been determined that the Office of Special Operations will be
the operational unit for the conduct of covert psychological operations
in accordance with the directive of the National Security Council to
this Agency.Attached hereto, for your information and guidance, is Copy No. 18 of
NSC 4.Document 252. This document
will be utilized as the basic policy directive for the operations
considered herewith.It is desired that you take immediate steps to prepare a plan for the
conduct of covert psychological operations, utilizing wherever
practicable existing facilities of your office and the other offices of
this Agency. Your recommendations reference the following specific
matters will be submitted at the earliest practicable date:Proposed Organizational Chart for a Foreign Information
Branch, Office of Special Operations.Proposed Table of Organization, Staff and Field, for the
conduct of covert psychological measures.Proposed plan of liaison with appropriate departments and
agencies ofthe Government.Estimate of funds required for fiscal years 1948 and
1949.R. H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Rear Admiral, USN
259. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) to the Under Secretary
of State (Lovett)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Decimal File 1945–49, 101.6/2–1748. Top Secret.Washington, February 17, 1948.
In connection with the decision of the National Security Council regarding
psychological warfare operation, I believe it would be advisable if you were
to tell Mr. Wisner, in the absence of
Mr. Saltzman, that the work of the SANACC Subcommittee on Special Studies and
EvaluationThe designation for the SANACC subcommittee that dealt with
psychological warfare. should be promptly brought to a conclusion
and the subcommittee dissolved. Because of security considerations, Mr.
Wisner should not be informed of
the reasons lying behind your instructions, but he can be told that this is
in response to higher level decision.
George F. Kennan
260. Office of Special Operations Directive No. 18/5 (Interim)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG-2154, Job 83–00739R, Box 3, Folder 19. Secret.
On February 24 Office of Special Operations Personnel Order No. 25
announced the designation of Thomas G.
Cassady as Chief of the Special Procedures Branch.
(Ibid., HS/CSG-2155, Job 83–00739R, Box 3, Folder 20) See the
Supplement.Washington, February 24, 1948.
ACTIVATION OF SPECIAL PROCEDURES BRANCH
In accordance with instructions of the Director of Central
Intelligence, and pending formal authorization, a Special Procedures
Branch within the Office of Special Operations was activated effective 1
January 1948.The Chief, Special Procedures Branch, will draft an appropriate
amendment to S.O. Directive No. 18,
setting forth the functions and responsibilities of the branch in
detail, which, when approved and published, will supersede and supplant
this directive.The Chief, Special Procedures Branch, will be directly responsible to
the Assistant Director for Special Operations. Alan R. McCracken
261. Memorandum From the Chief of the Special Procedures Group(Cassady) to the Deputy Chief of
the Special Procedures Group (Dulin)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG-609, Job 83–00036,
Box 4, Folder 10. Secret.Washington, March 11, 1948.
SUBJECT
Conversations with Mr. Charles Davies,Reference is probably to John P.
Davies. State DepartmentOn March 1, I visited Mr. Davies to state that we
had, after my discussions pro and con, arrived at the conclusion that
the most effective method of
penetrating the iron curtain would be via clandestine radio situated in
an artificially created sterile area of our occupied zone. Inasmuch as
the execution of this plan would involve considerable expenditure of
public funds, the hiring of personnel, etc., we did not want to
undertake such a commitment without clearing with State, for the reason
that State was soon to take over the administration of the American zone
in Germany. Aside from that fact, I further stated that we desired at
all times to cooperate with State in the prosecution of our new
endeavor.Mr. Davies called today to ask me to come over.
He apologized for being ten days in coming back to me and said finally
he had been able to get to Mr. CannonPresumably George
Kennan. who, as I understood it, had talked in
turn to Mr. Lovett pertaining to
this matter. Mr. Davies states that Mr. Lovett’s reaction was that he wanted to
know very little about our project but in principle he had no objection.
Mr. Cannon’s attitude was that we have the green
light but State wanted to be apprised of our progress and proposed
operations in order that they would not conflict with State’s policies.
This I agreed to do.
262. Memorandum From Secretary of Defense Forrestal to the Executive Secretary of the
National Security Council (Souers)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Policy Planning Staff Files 1947–53: Lot 64 D 563,
Pol amp; Psych Warfare 1948–50, Box 11. Top Secret. On March 30
Souers sent Forrestal’s memorandum to NSC members, noting that it would be on the
agenda of the April 2 meeting. (Ibid.) See the Supplement.Washington, March 26, 1948.
SUBJECT
NSC 4 Series (Coordination of Foreign
Information Measures)Several months have elapsed since the National Security Council
approved the NSC 4 Series, dealing with
foreign information activities. I believe that both the State Department
and CIA have begun setting up the staff organization to carry out their
respective responsibilities
under this program. Since the Council’s action the international
situation has become more critical and it is more important than ever
that our foreign information activities be effectively developed and
that they be coordinated with the other phases of our foreign and
military policies.Therefore, I recommend that the National Security Council assure
itself that the NSC 4 Series is being
satisfactorily implemented and that the programs thereunder are being
conceived and carried out in full accord with the intentions of the
National Security Council and in effective coordination with political
and military plans and activities. I request that this question be
placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the National Security
Council and suggest that at that time the Council direct the staff
consultants to look into this problem on its behalf and submit an early
report with my necessary recommendations.James ForrestalPrinted from a copy that
indicates Forrestal signed
the original.
263. Office of Special Operations Directive No. 18/5Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG-2154, Job 83–00739R, Box 3, Folder 19. Top
Secret.Washington, March 29, 1948.
ACTIVATION OF SPECIAL PROCEDURES GROUP
1. Authorization
In accordance with the authorization contained in the memorandum for the
Assistant Director for Special Operations from the Director of Central
Intelligence, dated 22 March 1948, Subject: “Additional Functions of the
Office of Special Operations,”Not found. A
draft of this memorandum, dated February 26, is in Central Intelligence
Agency Records, Job 83–00036, Box 9, Folder 16. the “Special
Procedures Group,” as activated 1 January 1948 under the name “Special
Procedures Branch,” is confirmed effective 22 March 1948.
2. Functions
The basic function of Special Procedures Group will be to engage in covert
psychological operations outside the United States and its possessions, for the purpose of (1) undermining
the strength of foreign instrumentalities, whether government,
organizations, or individuals, which are engaged in activities inimical to
the United States, and (2) to support United States’ foreign policy by
influencing public opinion abroad in a direction favorable to the attainment
of United States’ objectives.
3. Definition of Covert Psychological Operations
As used herein and as conducted within the Office of Special Operations,
covert psychological operations may include all measures of information and
persuasion short of physical in which the originating role of the United
States Government will always be kept concealed.
4. Chief of Special Procedures Group
In accordance with directives and policies of the Assistant Director for
Special Operations, the Chief of Special Procedures Group shall exercise
direction over all covert psychological operations outside the United States
and its possessions. In carrying out this responsibility, he will: Act as adviser to the Assistant Director relative to covert
psychological operations and submit to him, for approval, specific
directives on covert psychological operations for field
implementation through the facilities of the Chief of
Operations.As directed by the Assistant Director, make recommendations for
the final approval of all proposed covert psychological operations
from the standpoint of their conformity to United States’ foreign
policy, suitability of general program content and objectives, and
the commitment of funds.Exercise direct control and supervision over all personnel and
functions of the Washington office of Special Procedures
Group.Exercise general program and technical direction over all field
representatives engaged in covert psychological operations,
coordinating closely with the Chief of Operations who will exercise
operational field control over such representatives.Maintain close planning and operational liaison with the Chief of
Operations in connection with plans, directives, and other matters
relating to covert psychological operations which require
implementation through the facilities and resources of the Chief of
Operations.Provide for the development of program plans to implement policies
and directives applicable to the activities of Special Procedures
Group.Provide for all necessary operational action, including the
preparation of detailed operational directives, required for the
execution of approved program plans and projects developed by or
delegated to Special Procedures Group.Establish a project control over all field operations involving
covert psychological operations.Maintain, as directed by the Assistant Director, such liaison with
the Department of State, or other authority charged with formulation
of foreign policy, as may be necessary to obtain guidance on United
States’ foreign policy and objectives, as they affect the operations
of Special Procedures Group.Issue, with the approval of the Assistant Director, directives
defining the editorial and political policies to be followed in
conducting covert psychological operations in the field.Establish, for approval of the Assistant Director and on the basis
of United States’ foreign policy and aims, the basic program
objectives and targets for covert psychological operations.In accordance with liaison requirements and procedures of Budget
and Liaison Control, establish and control authorized liaison of
Special Procedures Group with other elements of Office of Special
Operations, Offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, and other
United States Departments and Agencies which provide for direct
liaison on secret operational matters.Develop and maintain, as directed by the Assistant Director, such
liaison with private individuals, organizations, or institutions in
the United States as may be necessary to the effective conduct of
covert psychological operations abroad, keeping Budget and Liaison
Control generally informed of such liaison.Insure that operations of Special Procedures Group do not conflict
with or overlap the open foreign informational activities of the
Department of State and, to that end, effect such liaison and
coordination with the Department of State as may be directed by the
Assistant Director.Coordinate with the Chief of Administrative Services to insure
full support of operations of Special Procedures Group by Office of
Special Operations administrative and supporting services.Insure adequate training for all personnel engaged in covert
psychological operations, using for such purpose the facilities of
the Training Staff of Office of Special Operations and, with
practical limits, making available to the Training Staff, for
lecture and other instruction in covert psychological operations,
experienced personnel of Special Procedures Group.Provide for the conduct of inspections of local activities of his
office and, when directed by the Assistant Director, of overseas
operational activities involving covert psychological operations,
effecting the necessary coordination with the Chief of
Operations.For the purpose of insuring proper policy and program coordination
in the field, take appropriate measures in coordination with the
Chief of Operations and through his field facilities, for keeping
the chief diplomatic representative in an area or the Chief United
States Commanding Officer in an occupied zone generally informed of
covert psychological operations.
5. Deputy Chief
Acts for the Chief of Special Procedures Group in his absence.Performs such duties as may be assigned by the Chief.Maintains over-all supervision of the activities of Special Procedures
Group to insure the proper execution of directives and policies relating
to Special Procedures operations.
6. Chief of Plans Section
As directed by the Chief of Special Procedures Group, the Chief of the Plans
Section:
In General
Shall be responsible for defining the program objectives of
covert psychological operations, developing programs in line
with such objectives and preparing directives defining the
editorial and political policy to be followed in the conduct of
field operations.
In ParticularShall, on the basis of United States’ foreign policy and
foreign objectives of the Central Intelligence Agency,
define and currently maintain the basic program objectives
and targets for covert psychological operations and prepare,
as required, field directives defining such objectives and
targets.Shall, on the basis of United States’ foreign policy and
aims, prepare field directives defining the editorial and
political policy, theme, and general line to be followed in
the conduct of covert psychological operations, insuring
that such directives are consistent with United States’
foreign policy as it affects covert psychological
operations.Shall initiate and develop, as directed by the Chief,
Special Procedures Group, programs, themes, and ideas for
covert psychological operations in the field.Shall, as a basis for evaluating and countering foreign
propaganda or other psychological activity directed against
the United States, conduct a continuing selective analysis
of foreign news and other informational sources, including
pertinent intelligence collected by Central Intelligence
Agency and other informational materials available to
Central Intelligence Agency.Shall conduct, for the purpose of developing background
data and information for covert psychological operations,
research relating to foreign news and events, international propaganda and the
psychological and political character of operational
targets, including individuals, groups, and
organizations.Shall initiate or develop, in response to requests from
authorized sources, editorial production, in complete or
substantive form, for transmission to overseas stations for
operational use.Shall analyze and evaluate, to the extent practicable, the
results of covert psychological field operations in terms of
their propaganda or psychological effectiveness.Shall assist in the training of personnel engaged in
covert psychological operations, insofar as training relates
to the functions of the Plans Section.
7. Chief, Operations Section
As directed by the Chief of Special Procedures Group, the Chief of the
Operations Section:
In General
Shall be responsible to the Chief of Special Procedures Group for
the operational aspects of covert psychological operations and
assure proper coordination between Chief of Operations, Office
of Special Operations, and Special Procedures Group in the field
implementation of policies and programs relating to covert
psychological operations.
In Particular
In carrying out these general responsibilities, the Chief of the
Operations Section:Shall prepare detailed plans and instructions and take
any other necessary, authorized action to implement
basic policies, programs and directives received from
the Chief of Special Procedures Group.Shall establish a project control over all approved
covert psychological operations to provide for the
controlled expenditure and proper accounting of funds
used for covert psychological operation and a constant
review of authorized projects, including assignments,
progress, cost and effectiveness of agents and informers
used in covert psychological operations.Shall inform the Chief, Administration and Services,
Office of Special Operations, of operational plans and
insure adequate joint planning with interested elements
of his offices to support the implementation of such
plans.Shall assist in the training of personnel engaged in
covert psychological operations insofar as such training
relates to the functions of the Operations Section,
Special Procedures Group.Shall coordinate with the Training Branch and the
Personnel Division, Office of Special Operations, the
training of new staff employees, advising both of the
detailed training requirements of Special Procedures
Group.Shall keep Budget and Liaison Control generally
informed of liaison with private individuals,
organizations, or institutions in the United States, as
referred to in c.(2)(j) below.
Liaison Responsibilities
The Chief, Operations Section, will conduct liaison and
coordinate with the Chief of Operations, Office of Special
Operations, on covert psychological matters requiring field
implementation through facilities and resources of his office
for the following purposes: GeneralIn the field implementation of covert
psychological operations, to make available to the
Chief of Operations, Office of Special Operations,
any required information, data, facilities, or
other services at the disposal of Special
Procedures Group.Within limits approved by the Chief of
Operations, Office of Special Operations, to
consult with operating elements of his office
concerning operational possibilities for covert
psychological operations, and the acquisition of
operational information required by Special
Procedures Group in the planning of such
operations.To insure that proposed plans and projects of
Special Procedures Group are operationally
practicable from the standpoint of field
capabilities and conditions.Particular
Specifically, the purpose of such liaison will be to effect, in
accordance with arrangements approved by the Chief of
Operations, coordination with the Deputy Chief of Operations for
Counter Espionage, the Deputy Chief of Operations for Plans and
Projects, and appropriate Foreign Branch Chiefs, on the
following matters relating to covert psychological operations of
Special Operations.
Development of agent cover and related possibilities in
connection with planned covert psychological
operations.Objectives, recruiting, engagement, and training of covert
personnel who will engage in covert psychological
operations.Briefing, assignment, and movement of covert psychological
operations. Such personnel will not be reassigned,
transferred, or moved in any manner inconsistent with their
current assignments, without prior approval of the Assistant
Director for Special Operations, except where emergency
conditions justify independent action in the field.Obtaining operational information and data for field
directives and for the development of methods, techniques,
and plans for use in connection with approved or planned
covert psychological operations.Providing guidance and assistance to field representatives
engaged in covert psychological operations, including useful
background information, comments, and criticisms on methods
and sources and technical advice.Obtaining reports from the field on the progress, results,
and status of covert psychological objectives.Establishing the program objectives and targets for covert
psychological operations.Following up action taken by the field on directives
pertaining to covert psychological operations.Developing long-range plans and projects for covert
psychological operations.Employment, on a covert basis, of individuals in the
United States, including American citizens and foreign
nationals, for information and other operational services in
connection with current or planned covert psychological
operations overseas.Security investigations of all personnel of Special
Procedures Group other than the staff to be used in the
Washington office.
8. S.O. Directive No. 18/5 (Interim), dated 24
February 1948,Document
260. is rescinded and superseded by this Directive.
Donald H. GallowayAssistant DirectorSpecial Operations
264. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs
(Allen) to Acting
Secretary of State LovettSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351, NSC 4, Box 4205. Top Secret.Washington, March 31, 1948.
SUBJECT
Coordination of Foreign Information Measures
At the National Security Council meeting on FridayApril 2. you may be pressed to agree to a
proposal by the Armed Services to set up immediately a psychological warfare organization. The more
enthusiastic representatives of the Armed Services would apparently like to
begin actual psychological warfare operations at the earliest possible
moment. I suggest that you go slow on any positive commitments along this
line until we can go into the matter further.
It is important to remember that psychological warfare is in its essence a
political activity and in Russia and Great
Britain among other places is and has been traditionally an instrument of
the Foreign Office. Under a National Security Council Directive of December
9, 1947 (NSC-4), it is clearly recognized
that the State Department has jurisdiction in the matter and this point
should be maintained. Claims which may be advanced by the War Department
that the State Department has been lax in taking any action under NSC-4 are exaggerated to say the least. We have
taken a good deal of action under this directive already as the attached
will indicate.
Following approval of NSC-4 by the President
on December 18th, 1947, letters were sent out on January 2nd, 1948, by Mr.
Lovett to the Secretaries of the
Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, requesting them to designate representatives to consult with Mr.
Allen, in order to carry out the
NSC-4 Directive.
The Central Intelligence Agency named its representative on January 5th, the
Air Force on February 4th, the Army on February 5th, and the Navy not until
March 9th.
On March 10th the first meeting of this informal Inter-departmental
Consultative Group was set for March 15th. Mr. Allen chaired this meeting, and called upon representatives
of the other Departments to prepare written memoranda on the overseas
activities of their Departments falling within the scope of NSC-4, and to name representatives to the
full-time Working Staff called for by NSC-4,
the duties of which were (1) to coordinate all federal foreign information
facilities, and (2) to initiate and develop for the approval of the
Assistant Secretary specific plans and programs in the foreign information
field.
Further meetings of the Consultative Group were held on March 18th and March
29th with Mr. Allen in the Chair each
time. At these meetings there was informal discussion of the functions of
the Consultative Group and of the full-time Working Staff, with a view to
carrying out NSC-4 as early as possible.
April 12th was agreed upon as the earliest target date by which the Working
Staff members would be designated by the other Departments and commence
activities. Appropriate office space and working facilities have been held
ready by the Assistant Secretary since March 15th. A member of Mr. Allen’s staff has also been ready since the
inception of the Consultative Group to serve as Executive Secretary of the
full-time Working Staff.
A list of proposed projects on which the Working Staff shall commence its
duties has been prepared; these are to be integrated with the projects of
the OIE, so as to avoid duplication or
overlapping.
265. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Information and
Educational Exchange (Stone) to Acting Secretary of State LovettSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Executive
Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351,
NSC 4. Top Secret. Following his
handwritten initials above the subject line Stone wrote: “(In the absence of George Allen.)”Washington, April 1, 1948.
SUBJECT
Proposed Creation of Psychological Warfare Agency
With reference to the question of foreign information activities which Mr.
Allen mentioned in his
memorandumDocument
264. to you yesterday, and which will come up for
discussion in the meeting of the National Security Council on Friday,April 2. there is additional information
which you should have as background:
I am informed that the Armed Services are again pressing to set up an
independent psychological warfare agency under the National Security Council
at the earliest possible moment. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have approved a
paper recommending such action. The paper which had gone to Admiral Leahy is in the form of an
amendment to an earlier report of the SANACC Subcommittee which has been studying future plans for a
wartime psychological warfare organization. If Admiral Leahy approves, the paper in question will come up
before the SANACC Committee at a meeting
next Wednesday, April 7, at which time the Department will have an
opportunity to state its position.
I have discussed this matter with George
Allen (who is in New York today) and checked with operating
division who are concerned in the Department. The consensus is that no new
organization should be set up at this time for the following reasons: 1)
Except in time of war, psychological warfare is essentially a political activity and the responsibility must
rest with the Secretary of State. 2) The National Security Council has
placed this responsibility with the Secretary in NSC-4, under which Assistant Secretary Allen is responsible for coordinating all
foreign information activities. Mr. Allen is now discharging this responsibility, operating
through a consulting group and working staff composed of representatives of
the Army, Navy, Air Forces and CIA. 3) The wartime plans prepared bySANACC Subcommittee have not been completed
and are not suitable for immediate application.
The above is for your information in the event this matter comes up at the
meeting of the National Security Council tomorrow.
WTS
266. Memorandum for the President of Discussion at the 9th Meeting of the
National Security CouncilSource:
Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files, Subject File. Top Secret.Washington, April 2, 1948.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 1 and 2, U.S. policy in Korea and
U.S. position on short-term assistance to China.]
3. Coordination of Foreign Information
Measures (Memo for the NSC from the
Executive Secretary, same subject, dated March 30, 1948.)See the source note, Document
262.
Mr. Lovett read memorandumDocument 264. from
Assistant Secretary Allen, stating
that the Department of State believed that no new psychological warfare
authorization should be set up now because in peacetime the State Department
should control this activity, as provided in NSC 4. Mr. Lovett also
described the steps that had been taken so far in implementation of NSC 4.
The National Security Council:The following paragraph constitutes NSC Action No. 42. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, Record of Actions, Box 55)
Directed the NSC Consultants to review the
implementation of certain aspects of NSC 4
series and to submit to the Council an early report with any necessary
recommendations.
[Here follows discussion of agenda item 4, internal security.]
267. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary (Souers) to the Members of the National Security CouncilSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 63 D 351, NSC 4, Box 4205. Top
Secret. In a May 10 note to Lovett, Kennan
referred to a report “made after the National Security Council
Consultants had met with the Director of Central Intelligence to review
the implementation of foreign information measures,” and he recommended
that he be authorized informally to tell Souers that the Department approved the Consultants’ two
recommendations. (Ibid., Policy Planning Staff Files, 1947–1953, Box
11A) See the Supplement. This referenced report is probably the source
text.Washington, April 26, 1948.
SUBJECT
Coordination of Foreign Information Measures
REFERENCES
NSC 4 SeriesNSC Action No. 42See Document
266.
Pursuant to directive by the National Security Council (Reference b), the
NSC Consultants have reviewed the
implementation by the Director of Central Intelligence of certain aspects of
the NSC 4 Series. Mr. George V. Allen, Assistant Secretary of
State for Public Affairs, participated in this review.
Taking into consideration the fact that only four months have elapsed since
the issuance of the initial directive to the Director of Central
Intelligence, and the difficulties of screening personnel both as to
security and qualifications for such duties the NSC Consultants and Mr. Allen feel that satisfactory progress has been made. They
also believe that existing organizational relationships both at home and
abroad appear to be developing satisfactorily.
At Mr. Allen’s suggestion, the
Director of Central Intelligence was advised to concentrate so far as
possible upon the use of anti-Communist democratic forces in foreign
countries, particularly those which are politically left of center. The
Director of Central Intelligence also was requested to project these
operations forward, both as to scope and area coverage, as rapidly as
possible.
The NSC Consultants recommend that the
National Security Council:Approve the above findings.Direct the NSC Consultants to
undertake a similar review and report in approximately two
months.
Sidney W. Souers
268. Memorandum by the Chief of the Special Procedures Group, Central
Intelligence Agency (Cassady)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–909, Job 83–00036, Box 6, Folder 11. Secret. No
addressee is indicated on the source text. A handwritten note on the
source text reads: “Approximate Date—1 May 48.”Washington, undated.
POLICY LIAISON FOR SPG
ACTIVITIES
Since black propaganda activities may have a direct relationship to
both the foreign policy of the U.S. and the responsibility of the
Director of CIA for conducting operations consistent with such policy,
it is recognized that close and continuing policy liaison must be
maintained between SPG and the proper
foreign policy authority of the U.S. Government. For its day-to-day
activities, it is recommended that SPG
rely on the Department of State as the primary outside source for policy
direction and guidance. In addition, it is possible that the National
Security Council may, from time to time, request CIA, through SPG, to undertake certain programs and
activities which may not have originated exclusively at the suggestion
of the State Department. However, any such programs or activities would
necessarily have to be consistent with foreign policy of the U.S. as
established by the State Department. Therefore, it would seem that the
primary source and authority for foreign policy and, consequently for
policy direction for SPG activities, is
the Department of State.Regarding the question of how policy direction from the proper level
at the Department of State can be transmitted to SPG, it is believed that this could be effectively achieved
by the following arrangement:Foreign policy of the U.S. Government, as reflected and
expressed in the overseas informational program of the U.S., is
already currently stated in policy directives issued by the CIE
(Voice of America) in the State Department to its foreign
informational offices throughout the world. It is understood
that these directives are issued on a weekly, and sometimes on a
daily, basis. They specifically state what the U.S. Government
seeks to achieve through its overseas informational program in
terms of our foreign policy and general objectives. They are,
therefore, both an expression of foreign policy and an
indication of how foreign policy is to be promoted through the
overseas informational media available to the U.S. Government.
It is recommended, therefore, that these informational
directives of CIE be likewise made available to SPG for policy guidance in
connection with its black propaganda activities. In making these
directives available to SPG, the
State Department would
be free to modify the directives, if necessary, so as to adapt
them better to the needs of black propaganda.As a channel for communicating these directives, and any additional
appropriate comment, from the State Department to SPG, it is proposed that SPG appoint a liaison officer for the
purpose of effecting the necessary liaison with the State Department in
this particular field. It is believed that liaison within the Department
of State should be made with a high ranking staff officer attached to
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. The rank and
position of this State Department officer should be such as to enable
him to obtain prompt and authoritative action on all policy matters
affecting SPG activities. He should
likewise be in a position to assist SPG
in obtaining information, data, material, etc., from OIE and from other branches of the State
Department which might be helpful to SPG. In this connection, the OIE has undoubtedly accumulated much information and data
concerning the overseas informational picture which would be of direct
interest to SPG, and this latter Group
should be in a position to draw freely on this material for its black
propaganda operations.In addition to the current directives issued by the State Department
for the foreign offices of OIE, it is
conceivable that the Department of State, through the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, will wish to transmit to SPG supplemental propaganda themes and
lines, and possibly even general target objectives. In such cases,
SPG would likewise be guided by such
supplemental directives and, to the extent possible within its
limitations, endeavor to implement such directives operationally.Moreover, general programs and general capabilities of the SPG would, under this liaison arrangement,
be brought by the SPG Liaison Officer to
the attention of his opposite number in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Public Affairs. The SPG
Liaison Officer would also bring to the attention of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, for State Department
consideration, any suggested propaganda themes and general programs
which might be originated by SPG and
which are not covered by the directives received from the Department of
State. SPG would not, however, reveal to
the Department of State operational methods and techniques, or other
classified operational details, involved in the conduct of black
propaganda activities. There is no objection to revealing to the State
Department the broad, general character of SPG programs and the general capabilities of SPG, but such specific operational details
as to how, by whom and specifically where and through what
channelsSPG activities will be
conducted should not be revealed in our liaison arrangement with State,
primarily because (1) of the highly secret nature of such operations and
(2)because the State Department, for its own protection, should remain
in ignorance of such details
so as to be in a position to deny knowledge thereof and thereby avoid
possible diplomatic embarrassment.Summed up, the foregoing liaison arrangement is one which can be
effected quickly and simply. U.S. foreign policy, as reflected in the
informational program of the U.S. Government, is already being currently
established in connection with the activities of OIE. This policy, in the form of OIE directives, is specifically stated on a day-to-day and
week-to-week basis. It would be a simple matter, through proper liaison
with the Office of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, to transmit
such directives, with any additional appropriate comment, to SPG for its basic policy direction. SPG would thereby be receiving approved
foreign policy directives of the U.S. Government which have been
authorized and issued at the proper policy making levels of the State
Department. This entire matter of policy liaison and direction for black
propaganda activities of SPG is just
that simple in its essence and solution. TG Cassady
269. Policy Planning Staff MemorandumSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC 10/2. Top Secret. No drafting
information appears on the source text. An earlier, similar version,
April 30, is ibid., RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Policy
Planning Staff Files 1944–47: Lot 64 D 563, Box 11. The Policy Planning
Staff minutes for May 3 state: “There was a discussion of the Planning
Staff Memorandum of April 30, 1948 on the inauguration of organized
political warfare. This paper was generally approved and Mr. Kennan will present it tomorrow for
discussion at a meeting of NSC
consultants.” (Ibid., Box 32)Washington, May 4, 1948.
The Problem
The inauguration of organized political warfare.
Analysis
1. Political warfare is the logical application of
Clausewitz’s doctrine in time of peace. In broadest
definition, political warfare is the employment of all the means at a
nation’s command, short of war, to achieve its national objectives. Such
operations are both overt and covert. They range from such overt actions as
political alliances, economic measures (as ERP), and “white” propaganda to such covert
operations as clandestine support of “friendly” foreign elements, “black”
psychological warfare and even encouragement of underground resistance in
hostile states.
2. The creation, success, and survival of the British Empire has been due in
part to the British understanding and application of the principles of
political warfare. Lenin so synthesized the teachings of
Marx and Clausewitz that the
Kremlin’s conduct of political warfare has become
the most refined and effective of any in history. We have been handicapped
however by a popular attachment to the concept of a basic difference between
peace and war, by a tendency to view war as a sort of sporting context
outside of all political context, by a national tendency to seek for a
political cure-all, and by a reluctance to recognize the realities of
international relations—the perpetual rhythm of [struggle, in and out of
war.]Although the following page of the
source text indicates in an unidentified hand that 3 lines were missing
from the bottom of the previous page, a comparison with the April 30
version of the memorandum cited in the source note above identified that
only the 6 words in brackets were missing.
3. This Government has, of course, in part consciously and in part
unconsciously, been conducting political warfare. Aggressive Soviet
political warfare has driven us overtly first to the Truman Doctrine, next to ERP, then to
sponsorship of Western Union [1–1/2 lines of source text
not declassified]. This was all political warfare and should be
recognized as such.
4. Understanding the concept of political warfare, we should also recognize
that there are two major types of political warfare—one overt and the other
covert. Both, from their basic nature, should be directed and coordinated by
the Department of State. Overt operations are, of course, the traditional
policy activities of any foreign office enjoying positive leadership,
whether or not they are recognized as political warfare. Covert operations
are traditional in many European chancelleries but are relatively unfamiliar
to this Government.
5. Having assumed greater international responsibilities than ever before in
our history and having been engaged by the full might of the
Kremlin’s political warfare, we cannot afford to
leave unmobilized our resources for covert political warfare. We cannot
afford in the future, in perhaps more serious political crises, to scramble
into impromptu covert operations [1 line of source text
not declassified].
6. It was with all of the foregoing in mind that the Policy Planning Staff
began some three months agoAlthough the
following page of the source text indicates that 3 lines were missing
from the bottom of the previous page, a comparison with the April 30
version of the memorandum cited in the source note above finds that no
words were missing. a consideration of specific projects in the field of covert operations,
where they should be fitted into the structure of this Government, and how
the Department of State should exercise direction and coordination.
7. There are listed below projects which have been or are now being suggested
by the Staff:
a.Liberation Committees.
Purpose: To encourage the formation of a public
American organization which will sponsor selected political refugee
committees so that they may (a) act as foci of national hope and revive a
sense of purpose among political refugees from the Soviet World; (b) provide
an inspiration for continuing popular resistance within the countries of the
Soviet World; and (c) serve as a potential nucleus for all-out liberation
movements in the event of war.
Description: This is primarily an overt operation
which, however, should receive covert guidance and possibly assistance from
the Government. It is proposed that trusted private American citizens be
encouraged to establish a public committee which would give support and
guidance in U.S. interests to national movements (many of them now in
existence) publicly led by outstanding political refugees from the Soviet
World, such as Mikolajczyk and
Nagy. The American Committee should be so selected
and organized as to cooperate closely with this Government. The functions of
the American Committee should be limited to enabling selected refugee
leaders [to keep alive as public figures with access to printing presses and
microphones. It should not engage in underground activities.]The words in brackets were taken from the April 30
version; see footnote 1 above.
What is proposed here is an operation in the traditional American form:
organized public support of resistance to tyranny in foreign countries.
Throughout our history, private American citizens have banded together to
champion the cause of freedom for people suffering under oppression.(The
Communists and Zionists have exploited this tradition to the extreme, to
their own ends and to our national detriment, as witness the
Abraham Lincoln brigade during the Spanish Civil
War and the current illegal Zionist activities.) Our proposal is that this
tradition be revived specifically to further American national interests in
the present crisis.
[1 heading and 2 paragraphs (21–1/2 lines of source text)
not declassified]
c.Support of Indigenous Anti-Communist Elements in
Threatened Countries of the Free World.
Purpose: To strengthen indigenous forces combatting
communism in countries where Soviet political warfare is a threat to our
national security.
Description: This is a covert operation again
utilizing private intermediaries. To insure cover, the private American
organizations conducting the operation should be separate from the
organizations mentioned in previous projects. [3 lines of
source text not declassified] This project is a matter of urgency
because the communists are reported to be planning the disruption of ERP
through labor disturbances in France. [2 lines of source
text not declassified]
d.Preventive Direct Action in Free Countries.
Purpose: Only in cases of critical necessity, to
resort to direct action to prevent vital installations, other material, or
personnel from being (1) sabotaged or liquidated or (2) captured intact by
Kremlin agents or agencies.
Description: This covert operation involves, for
example, (1) control over anti-sabotage activities in the Venezuelan oil
fields, (2) American sabotage of Near Eastern oil installations on the verge
of Soviet capture, and (3) designation of key individuals threatened by the
Kremlin who should be protected or removed
elsewhere.
8. It would seem that the time is now fully ripe for the creation of a covert
political warfare operations directorate within the Government. If we are to
engage in such operations, they must be under unified direction. One man
must be boss. And he must, as those responsible for the overt phases of
political warfare, be answerable to the Secretary of State, who directs the
whole in coordination.
9. [6–1/2 lines of source text not declassified]
10. The National Security Council Secretariat would seem to provide the best
possible cover for such a directorate. Such cover would also permit a direct
chain of command from the Secretary of State and be a natural meeting ground
for close collaboration with the military establishment.
Recommendations
11. There should promptly be established, under the cover of the National
Security Council Secretariat, a directorate of political warfare operations
to be known as the Consultative (or Evaluation) Board of the National
Security Council.
12. The Director should be designated by the Secretary of State and should be
responsible to him.
13. The Director should have initially a staff of 4 officers designated by
the Department of State and 4 officers designated by the Secretary of
National Defense.
14. The Board should have complete authority over covert political warfare
operations conducted by this Government. It should have the authority to
initiate new operations and to bring under its control or abolish existing
covert political warfare activities.
15. Specifically, (a) the four projects mentioned in paragraph 7 above should
be activated by the Board and (b) covert political warfare now under CIA and
theater commanders abroad should be brought under the authority of the
Board.
16. The coordination of the above covert operations with the overt conduct of
foreign policy should, of course, be accomplished through the offices of the
Secretary and Under Secretary of State.
270. Draft Proposed NSC DirectiveSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, NSC 10/2.Top Secret. No
drafting information appears on the source text. For another version,
see the draft NSC directive, May 4
(ibid.), in the Supplement.Washington, May 5, 1948.There is hereby established under the NSC the position of Director of Special Studies. The
Director shall be nominated by the Secretary of State and appointed by
the NSC.The Director should have initially a full time staff of four
representatives assigned from the Department of State and one
representative each from the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air
Force, and the CIA, and one member to be designated by the Secretary of
National Defense.For the purpose of coordinating covert operations as defined in this
paper, in the interest of national security, it shall be the duty of the
Director, under the direction of the National Security Council:To arrange for the preparation, by his own staff or other
agencies as appropriate, of plans for covert operations.To review all such plans, and if he approves them to arrange
for their execution by appropriate agencies.To review the execution of such operations to insure that they
are being conducted in accordance with approved plans, provided
that nothing contained herein shall require the disclosure of
secret intelligence sources and methods.To arrange for the development of a program for the conduct of
covert operations in time of war or national emergency to
include such matters as organization, training, equipment and
logistical support.The Director of Special Studies is charged with ensuring that such
covert activities are consistent with US foreign policies and overt
activities and that appropriate agencies of the US Government both at
home and abroad (including diplomatic and military representatives in
each area) are kept informed of such operations which will directly
affect them.The Director is charged with giving timely notification of intended
plans and operations to directly interested governmental agencies. Any
disagreements arising should be resolved by the staff of the Director in
their respective agencies, and in event of no resolution of important
features of the plans or operations, the matter shall be referred to the
NSC.Covert operations are understood to be all planned measures exclusive
of armed conflict by recognized military forces and overt information
emanating from a legitimate source designed to influence the thought,
morale, and behavior of a people in such a manner as to further the
accomplishment of national aims.
271. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records
of the National Security Council, NSC
10/2. Top Secret.Washington, May 5, 1948.Reference is made to the draft of the proposed NSC Directive establishing the functions of a Director of
Special Studies—as distributed this date.Document 270. This Agency
desires to place itself on record as follows: If it appears desirable, in the interest of national security,
to designate an individual responsible for the planning and
coordination of psychological warfare activities, this Agency
feels the individual should be the present chief of current
activities in that field. War-time activities in that field
should be a natural growth and expansion of peace-time
activities. The individual responsible for future planning
should be identical with the individual responsible for current
planning and operations.The existing operation and its liaison with the Department of
State is handicapped only by the absence of a State Department
officer having authority to represent the Department in regard
to over-all policies.It is assumed that the word “all”, in
the first line of paragraph 3 of the subject draft paper, is a
typographical error in view of the provisions of NSC 4–A and NSCID 5.If the National Security Council feels, in opposition to
subparagraphs a, b, and c, above, that a necessity still exists
for the appointment of a Director of Special Studies, it is
urgently recommended that one of two actions be taken, as
follows: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the proposed directive be
changed to read substantially as follows: “2. The Director should have initially only
the necessary clerical staff to perform his
designated functions.“3. For the purpose of planning covert psychological operations for
implementation by the operating Agency, in the
interest of national security, it shall be the
duty of the Director, under the Direction of the
National Security Council: “a. To develop a program for the conduct of
both overt and covert psychological operations in time of war or
national emergency.“b. To plan for emergency or war-time
organization, training, equipment and logistical
support.”Divorce the existing covert psychological operations from the control and
operation of CIA by the rescission of NSC 4–A and place it under
the control and operation of a new Agency. Security in
the conduct of this sensitive operation cannot be
maintained except through control by one Agency.It will be noted that the proposed draft directive provides
for the full control of covert
psychological operations without the responsibility. It is not believed this is the intent
of either the Congress or the National Security Council as
indicated in NSC 4–A, NSCID 5, and the National
Security Act of 1947. RH Hillenkoetter Rear Admiral, USN
272. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records
of the National Security Council, NSC
10/2. Top Secret.Washington, May 6, 1948.
Reference is made to the attached draft copy of a proposed NSC DirectiveMost
likely a reference to Document 270. to
be discussed by your Staff on 7 May 1948. We have advised our representative
to present our views on the subject paper, as follows: We feel the appointment of a Director of Special Studies for
purposes other than war-time planning is a dangerous duplication of
existing assigned functions.We desire to call attention to the fact that this Agency, acting
underNSC 4–A, has made
considerable strides in the subject field, has obligated itself to a
considerable expenditure of funds for equipment, transportation, and
experienced personnel, and has made firm commitments for clandestine
psychological operations outside the United States for a long period
of time. Interference with this activity infers a disruption of
current activities and the possibility of serious breaks in
security.We feel that paragraph 3 of the proposed directive, if issued,
should be changed to read as follows:
“3. For the purpose of planning for war-time or emergency
covert psychological operations, in the interest of national
security, it shall be the duty of the Director, under the
direction of the National Security Council: “a. To arrange for the preparation, by his own
staff or other agencies as appropriate, of plans for
war-time or emergency covert psychological
operations.“b. To be prepared to recommend area and material
priorities in the field of psychological warfare in
the event of emergency or state of war.“c. To develop a program for the organization,
training, equipment, and logistical support for
war-time or emergency covert psychological
operations.”
We must call attention to the fact that paragraph 4 of the
proposed directive is an exact duplication of this Agency’s
directive underNSC 4–A.We must call attention to the fact that paragraph 5 of the
proposed directive is an exact duplication of our present
arrangement under NSC 4–A.We feel that paragraph 6 of the proposed directive should either
be eliminated as being out-dated by events or that the word “psychological” be added after the word
“covert” in the first line of that paragraph and the words “and overt information emanating from a legitimate
source” be deleted.We feel that the proposed directive infers the necessity for a
rescission of NSC 4–A and the
reestablishment of covert psychological functions under an Agency
other than CIA. It is a step toward placing secret intelligence and
Special Operations (in the accepted international sense) under
separate agencies. We respectfully invite attention to our own
experience and the experience of other nations in this regard. There
is no question but that war-time operations require a division
between combat (or tactical) psychological warfare and strategic
psychological warfare. From the standpoint of national security, we
strongly urge a realistic understanding of our current needs as
balanced against our needs in the event of war.In view of the above, we again urgently recommend that the present
operations under NSC 4–A be not
jeopardized and that war-time planning be placed in the hands of the
facility conducting current activities in the subject field.
RH Hillenkoetter Rear Admiral, USN
273. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC-807, Item
22. Top Secret. The source text is a copy transcribed for the CIA
Historian in 1953. Also reproduced in CIA Cold War
Records: The CIA under Harry
Truman, p. 201.Washington, May 11, 1948.
SUBJECT
Psychological OperationsReference is made to the proposed NSC
Directive, as drafted 7 May 1948,The May 7
draft has not been found. pertaining to covert(psychological)
operations. This Agency has
several times, during the discussion phases of this proposed directive,
placed itself on record as opposed to the plan on which the proposed
directive is based. The proposed directive, if enacted, will establish a
staff function providing for Authority in a
delicate field of operation—without the Responsibility.This Agency again strongly urges that the provision of NSC 4–A, as written, be continued without
change. If the National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
feel the need for emergency and wartime planning in the covert
psychological warfare field, then we again suggest that advance planning
be made the responsibility of the facility currently in
operation.However, if the National Security Council approves this proposed draft
of 10 May 1948,Not printed. (National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National
Security Council, NSC 10/2) See the
Supplement. the Central Intelligence Agency, of course, will
cooperate to the best of its ability in an endeavor to make a going
concern of the proposed Special Studies organization.R. H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
274. Draft Report by the National Security CouncilSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC 10/2. Top Secret. Transmitted under a
covering note from Souers to
the NSC submitting the report for
consideration at an early meeting. For a May 10 draft of this report,
see the Supplement. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG
273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC 10/2)Washington, May 12, 1948.
NSC 10
DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL STUDIES
The Problem
1. To consider measures for the furtherance of covert operations in the
interest of our national security.
Analysis
2. The means employed by a nation in pursuit of its national objectives may
be both overt and covert. They range in time of peace from such overt
actions as political alliances, economic measures (as ERP), and “white”
informational activities, to such covert operations as unacknowledged
support of “friendly” foreign elements, “black” propaganda and encouragement
of underground resistance in hostile states.
3. Having assumed greater international responsibilities than ever before in
our history and having been engaged in a “cold war” by the full might of the
Kremlin, the United States cannot afford to leave
unmobilized or unemployed its resources for covert operations. The United
States cannot afford in the future, in perhaps more serious political
crises, to reply upon improvised covert operations as was done at the time
of the Italian elections.
4. In NSC 4–ADocument 257. provision was made
for the conduct of certain covert psychological (propaganda) operations. The
State–Army–Navy–Air Force Coordinating Committee has considered such matters
as utilization of refugees from the USSR in the United States national
interest (SANACC 395),The SANACC numbers
refer to series rather than to individual papers. plans for
evacuation of key foreign personnel (SANACC 396), demolition of oil facilities (SANACC 398), and psychological warfare
(SANACC 304).See, for example, Document
249. In connection with psychological warfare, the
views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concurred in by the State-Army-Navy-Air
Force Coordinating Committee, have been referred to the National Security
Council for consideration. It is the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
that from the military point of view “there should be established, as soon
as practicable, under the National Security Council, a Psychological Warfare
Organization, but with its peacetime scope and activities limited to that of
a working nucleus for planning and coordination” (SANACC 304/14).JCS memorandum for SANACC, undated (Central Intelligence
Agency Historical Files, HS/HC-291) and SANACC memorandum for the Executive Secretary of the
National Security Council, April 12. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC 10/2) See the Supplement for both; the
JSC memorandum is filed under date of January 1948. The Policy
Planning Staff of the Department of State has also recommended that covert
operations be immediately instituted under unified direction.See Document 269.
5. In the light of the above considerations, there is a need for an
organization which is designed to strengthen and extend current covert
operations in the interest of our national security and to provide for plans
and preparations for the conduct, in time of war, of covert operations and
of the overt phases of
psychological warfare. The establishment of such an organization will
require the revision of NSC 4–A.
Conclusions
6. The proposed National Security Council Directive in Annex A should be
approved, and if approved, the proposed revision of NSC 4–A in Annex B should be approved
Annex ATop Secret. The proposed directive
is a further revision of Document
270.
Proposed NSC
Directive
There is hereby established under the National Security Council
the position of Director of Special Studies. The Director shall be
nominated by the Secretary of State and appointed by the National
Security Council.The Director should have initially a staff of four members
assigned from the Department of State, one service member each from
the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and one member from the Central
Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense may assign a member if
he so desires. The staff members will act both as assistants to the
Director, in the performance of his duties, and as liaison between
him and their respective agencies.It shall be the duty of the Director, under the direction of the
National Security Council:To be responsible for the preparation by his own staff or
by other agencies, as appropriate, of plans for all covert
operations. It is intended that each operating agency will
develop the details of that part of a plan covering its own
operations.To review all such plans and, if he approves them, to
arrange for their execution by appropriate agencies.To review the execution of such operations to insure that
they are being conducted in accordance with approved plans,
provided that nothing contained herein shall require the
disclosure of secret intelligence sources and
methods.To develop an over-all program for the conduct of covert
operations and overt phases of psychological warfare in time
of war or when directed by the President, to include
organization, training, equipment and logistic support, and
to arrange for initiation of such training and preparations
in time of peace as necessary for the prompt initiation of
such a program.The Director is charged with: Giving timely notification of intended plans and
operations to each government agency represented on his
staff through the respective staff members and to other
government agencies which may be affected. Problems arising
in connection with the formulation of plans for or the
conduct of operations shall be resolved directly between the
Director and the agency or agencies involved.Insuring that such covert activities are consistent with
US foreign policies and overt activities and that plans for
war-time covert operations and psychological operations are
consistent with and complement Joint Chiefs of Staff
approved plans for military operations.The ends envisaged in this paper will require unvouchered funds
other than those already appropriated.As used in this directive “covert operations” are understood to be
all activities (excluding armed conflict by recognized military
forces, espionage and counter-espionage) which are conducted or
sponsored by this government against hostile foreign states or
groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which
are so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility
for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and if uncovered the
US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.
Specifically, such operations shall include any covert activities
related to propaganda; preventive direct action, including sabotage,
anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion
against hostile states, including assistance to underground
resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups; and
support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened
countries of the free world.“Overt psychological warfare” referred to herein shall be
construed to mean information programs designed to facilitate the
development of an informed and intelligent understanding at home and
abroad of the status and progress of any war effort in which the
United States may be engaged and of the war policies, activities and
aims of the Government.
Annex BTop Secret.
Draft Revision of NSC
4–A
The National Security Council, taking cognizance of the vicious
psychological efforts and covert operations of the USSR, its
satellite countries and Communist groups to discredit and defeat the
aims and activities of the
United States and other Western powers, has determined that, in the
interests of world peace and US national security, the overt foreign
activities of the US Government must be supplemented by covert
operations.The similarity of operational methods involved in covert
operations and covert intelligence activities makes the Central
Intelligence Agency an appropriate agency to conduct such
operations. Therefore, under the authority of Section 102 (d)(5) of
the National Security Act of 1947, the National Security Council: Directs the Director of Central Intelligence to continue,
within the limit of available funds, such covert propaganda
operations as may be arranged with and approved by the
Director of Special Studies in accordance with the latter’s
directive from the National Security Council.Authorizes the Director of Central Intelligence to conduct
such other covert operations as may be arranged by the
Director of Special Studies in accordance with the latter’s
directive from the National Security Council.The Director of Central Intelligence is charged with ensuring that
appropriate agencies of the US Government, both at home and abroad
(including diplomatic and military representatives in each area),
are kept informed of such operations which will directly affect
them.Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require the Central
Intelligence Agency to disclose operational details concerning its
secret intelligence techniques, sources or contacts.
275. Memorandum From the Intelligence Survey
Group to the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Souers)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Records of the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351, NSC 4. Top Secret. The NSC
appointed the Survey Group in February 1948 to evaluate the performance
of the Central Intelligence Agency and the intelligence system
generally. Its members were Allen
Dulles, who served as chairman, Mathias F. Correa, and William H. Jackson.Washington, May 13, 1948.
SUBJECT
Interim Report No. 2: Relations between Secret Operations and Secret
Intelligence
In connection with our study of the intelligence operations of the
Government, particularly those of CIA, we have been informed that a plan for developing certain other
covert operations is being submitted to the NSC. As we understand it, such operations would be directed
particularly towards affording encouragement to the freedom-loving elements
in those countries which have been over-run by Communism and toward
combating by covert means the spread of Communist influence.
We understand that it is suggested that a Director of Special Studies, to be
nominated by the Secretary of State, and appointed by the NSC, with a staff of nine members assigned from
the Department of State, the armed services and CIA, be given the
responsibility to develop and give general direction to a program of covert
operations as indicated above, including work in the covert psychological
field, which under NSC 4a has already been
initiated in CIA.
The question of policy involved in these measures is not directly within our
terms of reference. However, these projects have an important bearing on the
future of the intelligence operations of CIA, and, for this reason, we feel
justified in commenting on this phase of the subject.
We suggest, in particular, that further attention should be given to the
means for the carrying out of the special operations contemplated and the
relation between these operations and the proper conduct of secret
intelligence.
A central planning and coordinating staff, as proposed in the new plan, is
essential, but the centralized control of operations is equally important.
In this delicate field, actual control must be exercised by the Director,
who should be in intimate touch not only with plans and policies but also
with the details of the operations. We do not believe that these types of
operation can be “farmed” out to various existing agencies of the Government
without jeopardizing their effectiveness and involving serious security
risks. In particular, it would be dangerous to have several unrelated and
uncorrelated clandestine operations carried out in such sensitive areas as
those behind the Iron Curtain. There would be duplication of effort,
crossing of wires in the use of clandestine agents, and serious risk for the
chains and agents used in the respective operations. In our opinion, the
Director and staff, if removed from actual operations, as apparently
contemplated under the proposed NSC
directive, would not be able to control this situation.
In carrying out these special operations, the Director and his staff should
have intimate knowledge of what is being done in the field of secret
intelligence and access to all the facilities which may be built up through
a properly constituted secret intelligence network. Secret operations,
particularly through support of resistance groups, provide one of the most
important sources of secret intelligence, and the information gained from
secret intelligence must immediately be put to use in guiding and directing
secret operations. In many cases it is necessary to determine whether a
particular agent or chain should primarily be used for secret intelligence or for secret operations,
because the attempt to press both uses may endanger the security of
each.
The special operations contemplated will require a staff operating abroad
both under State Department and other cover, as in the case of secret
intelligence. Unless the personnel for both operations is under one overall
control in Washington, even though a measure of insulation is provided in
the field, there is likely to be overlapping of activities and functions in
critical areas which will imperil security.
The Allied experience in the carrying out of secret operations and secret
intelligence during the last war has pointed up the close relationship of
the two activities. The British, for example, who had separate systems
during the war, have now come around to the view that secret intelligence
and secret operations should be carried out under a single operational head
and have reorganized their services accordingly.
We recommend:
That a Director, subject to appropriate policy guidance as suggested
in the proposed NSC directive, should be
made responsible for all forms of covert activities, including secret
intelligence, secret operations, clandestine psychological work and such
other covert operations as may be assigned to the Director by the NSC.That each branch of these covert activities should be under a chief
reporting to the Director.That the Director should be immediately responsible to the NSC or to the Director of CIA as the NSC might determine.
The practical effect of the decision reached under point 3 would be to
determine whether CIA should continue to be charged with the collection of
secret intelligence. It would, in any case, continue to be the recipient of
all intelligence collected by the Director of Special Studies, and even if
secret intelligence were removed from its control, CIA might be used as a
“cover” agency for the new operations.
It had been our intention to reserve for our final report our recommendations
as to whether the collection of secret intelligence should or should not continue to be a
function of the CIA, as we had wished to complete our survey of the entire
intelligence set-up before dealing with this key question.
However, if the NSC should now determine that
a program of secret operations is to be undertaken, and desires any further
views from us as to how this would affect the handling of secret
intelligence, we shall be glad to submit a report on this subject.
276. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) to the Under Secretary
of State (Lovett) and
Secretary of State MarshallSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Policy Planning Staff Files 1947–53: Lot 64 D 563. A May 11 version of
this memorandum (ibid.), is in the Supplement.Washington, May 19, 1948.
Attached is an NSC paper, Director of Special Studies, dated May 10, 1948.Document 274. This is
an important matter—expansion of covert activities and establishment of a
central directorate over all such activities. I would be glad to explain it
personally to you, if you wish.
The underlying paper has been cleared with Bohlen but
not with other offices of the Department because it intimately involves
NSC 4–A, a document knowledge of which
for security reasons has been limited to you, Assistant Secretary Allen, and the Policy Planning Staff. It
is, however, based largely on and adheres to the fundamental principles of
one prepared by this Staff, entitled “Political Warfare”.Document 269. Our
paper on political warfare was made available to Mr.
Bohlen, Mr. Allen, and the four geographical offices. They either gave
affirmative approval or indicated no objection. I therefore feel that the
attached NSC paper would be generally
acceptable to them.
Outside of this Department, the underlying NSC paper has been cleared by the other consultants to the
NSC and, I understand, it has been
approved in principle by Mr. Forrestal and the JCS.
The recommendation that the Director of Special Studies (covert operations)
be directly under the NSC does not represent
the ideal solution sought in the attached NSC paper. Organizationally, the ideal solution would be to
place the Director of Special Studies, for cover and intelligence reasons,
under the Director of CIA. S/P did not recommend this solution because, at
the present time, the CIA set-up in respect both to personalities and
organization is not favorable to such a development and it is not likely
that there will be any material change in this situation in the near future.
We therefore reluctantly decided to let the CIA sleeping dog lie and
recommend a separate organization which might at a later date be
incorporated in CIA.
Subsequent to approval of the attached paper by the NSC consultants, I received a copy of a memorandum to Admiral Souers from the Survey Group
headed by Allen Dulles (Tab A).Document
275.Dulles hits the
organizational problem head on, recommending (a) removing secret
intelligence from CIA and placing
it, with covert operations, under a separate director or (b) placing covert
operations under CIA—which we feel should not be done at this time. I have
high regard for Dulles’experience and
knowledge in this field and, therefore, attach great weight to his
recommendations. But the implications of his recommendations are so
far-reaching that I think they should be discussed by you and Mr. Forrestal rather than in the lower levels
of NSC.
Meanwhile, time is running out on us. If we are to engage effectively in
intelligent, organized covert activities, appropriations must be obtained
from the Congress. Congress, however, is soon to adjourn. Therefore, if we
are to get into operation in this field before the end of summer, Congress
must be approached immediately with a request for the necessary funds.
Recommendations:There is
no indication on the source text that Marshall approved or disapproved the
recommendations.
It is recommended that :You approve the principle underlying the attached NSC paper that this Government expand
and bring under unified direction its covert activities;You propose to Mr. Forrestal that together, in your discretion, you
invite Dulles either to (a)
replace Hillenkoetter as
Director of CIA, with covert operations under him, or (b) assume
directorship of covert operation and secret intelligence under
Hillenkoetter, or (c)
accept the position of Director of Special Studies as recommended in
the attached NSC paper;If Dulles accepts, you ask
him (a) to present for your and Mr. Forrestal’s approval his plans for covert operations
and (b) immediately to approach Congress for the funds necessary to
conduct these operations;If Dulles declines, you ask
him to recommend a Director of Special Studies as proposed in the
underlyingNSC paper.
George F. KennanPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
277. Memorandum for the President of Discussion at the 11th Meeting of the
National Security CouncilSource:
Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files, Subject File. Top Secret. Prepared on May 21.
According to the minutes of the 11th meeting, the following persons were
present: Secretary of State Marshall; Secretary of Defense Forrestal; Secretary of the Army
Royall; Secretary of the Navy
Sullivan; Secretary of the
Air Force Symington; NSRB Chairman Hill; Under Secretary of State Lovett; DCIHillenkoetter; NSC Executive Secretary Souers; and Assistant Executive
Secretary Lay.
(Ibid.)Washington, May 20, 1948.
[Here follows discussion of agenda item 1, U.S. position on support for
Western Union and other related free countries.]
2. Director of Special Studies
(NSC 10)For
the draft of NSC 10, see Document 274.
Mr. Lovett said that the subject
report is intended to provide for an expansion of our covert activities. He
said that he had not had time to match up the subject report with the
comments of the Dulles survey group.
He would, therefore, like further time to study this matter.
Secretary Royall said that he was
opposed to creating new organizations. He asked why CIA could not direct
these activities instead of setting up a Director of Special Studies.
Mr. Lovett said that from the
beginning of the National Intelligence Authority it was the general feeling
that CIA should have no police duties for fear that it would become a
Gestapo. He was afraid that if CIA undertook to conduct these covert
operations, the Congress might be afraid that it was becoming a gestapo.
Secretary Royall felt that setting up
another organization would merely result in duplication of what CIA is
doing.
Secretary Forrestal noted that one
important consideration is that, if intelligence activities are to be
effective, they must be secret.
Mr. Souers noted that comments of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff had not yet been received.
Mr. Lovett said that although the
JCS comments would be interesting, it
must be remembered that we are not talking about wartime activities but
rather about activities to be conducted at the present time. He noted,
however, that the covert operations were of a type which the State
Department could not conduct.
Secretary Forrestal said that these
operations must not be conducted on an ad hoc personal basis as in the
past.
Mr. Lovett said that he had talked
with Senator BridgesSenator Styles Bridges, Republican-New
Hampshire. who had at one time offered to appropriate $50,000,000
for this type of operation.
Admiral Hillenkoetter noted that the
Director of Special Studies could not properly conduct sabotage and
counter-sabotage. He felt that current operation should be done as at
present by CIA but should be taken over by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in
wartime.
Mr. Lay explained the background of
this report. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had proposed the creation of a
nucleus psychological warfare operation immediately. SANACC concurred in this proposal and
submitted it to the NSC for consideration.
The Policy Planning Staff of the Department of State had proposed an
organization to conduct political warfare. The NSC Staff considered both of these proposals and prepared the
subject report which envisaged a Director of Special Studies under the
NSC who would control, but not conduct,
all covert operations. The Dulles
survey group on the other hand proposed that both covert operations and
secret intelligence activities be performed by a single Agency, either under
CIA or directly under the NSC.
The National Security Council:The following paragraph constitutes NSC Action No. 47. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, Record of Actions, Box 55)
Deferred action on this report until the next meeting of the Council.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 3–8, protection of intelligence
sources and methods from unauthorized disclosures, scheduling of NSC meetings, documents resulting from
conversations with the British regarding the Eastern Mediterranean and the
Middle East, U.S. policy on atomic warfare, review of the world situation as
it relates to the security of the United States, and NSC status of projects.]
278. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the National Security CouncilSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC 10/2. Top Secret. The memorandum was
originally addressed to Souers
and was readdressed for circulation to the members of the Council. The
only other difference between the original and the circulated version
was the addition of footnote 2 below to the
latter.Washington, May 24, 1948.
SUBJECT:
Covert (Psychological) OperationsWith regard to the discussions at the National Security Council
meeting the other afternoon on this subject, I wish to present the
following idea which I think possesses many advantages. I believe a plan
worked out, as suggested below, would overcome almost all of the
objections raised, and I believe it would be in consonance with
theDulles-Jackson-Correa paperDocument 275. and would satisfy the
State Department’s demands for a directing hand in what forms of
propaganda are to be used and what underground resistance movements are
to be supported. Furthermore, the suggested plan would be in consonance
with NSC 4–A and would answer the
objections of the Secretary of the Army regarding the establishment of a
new Agency and regarding making the National Security Council an
operating body. Also, I believe this suggested plan would receive the
warm support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and certainly would be in line
with the intent of Congress as derived from conversations with both
Senators and Representatives.To begin with, in the proposed paperNSC 10. [Footnote in the source
text.] on a Director of Special Studies, as presented, it is
necessary to divide “Covert Operations” into two sections: (1) those
operations that will be carried out in peace time and (2) those that
will be carried out only during war time or during a period when the
outbreak of war is imminent. The first group of such operations, those
to be carried out in peace time, will involve black propaganda,
including morale subversion, assistance to underground movements, and
support of resistance movements. The second group, which it is very
obvious that the United States would not perform except in relation to
war or when war was so close that it was felt it could not be avoided,
are the positive operations involving sabotage, anti-sabotage,
demolition, subversion against hostile states, guerrilla support, and
evacuation. The above division appears to be a most logical one inasmuch
as it is very difficult to believe that we would send in parties to
accomplish physical destruction in any phase of a “cold” war.To carry out this concept, it is suggested that a paper be prepared to
set forth the following points:To provide in the State Department a high-level liaison
officer for covert operations. This officer should be of
sufficient stature to have the authority to pass on the forms of
propaganda to be employed and to tell the Central Intelligence
Agency that it is the policy of the United States to support
such-and-such an underground or resistance movement and to deny
such support to another underground or resistance movement. (It
has been the lack of any such liaison with authority that has
really caused the present discussions.)Covert operations of the first group, involving black
propaganda, assistance to underground movements, and support of
resistance movements, to be carried on in peace time, shall be
conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency in accordance with
NSC 4–A and in accordance
with the policies derived from the liaison officer mentioned in
(a) above.Covert operations of the second group, involving sabotage,
anti-sabotage, demolition, etc., which are not to be carried on
in peace time but only in war time or in a state of emergency,
to be considered and planned now by a
committee under the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with members from the
Armed Services and the Central Intelligence Agency. It is to be
emphasized that only “planning” is to be done now for this
second group of operations.Both groups of operations in war time or emergency will
naturally fall under the military commander. Upon the outbreak
of war or in a state of emergency, the organization conducting
covert operations in (b) above should be lifted bodily from the
Central Intelligence Agency and placed under the Joint Chiefs of
Staff in relation to the plans for the covert operations
mentioned in (c) above.The Joint Chiefs of Staff will be kept informed by the Central
Intelligence Agency of the measures undertaken under (b) above,
in order that the transition from a peace time status to a war
time status can be made smoothly and efficiently. RH Hillenkoetter
279. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) to the Under Secretary
of State (Lovett)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Policy Planning Staff Files, 1947–53: Lot 64 D 563, Box 719, Pol &
Psych Warfare. Top Secret.Washington, May 25, 1948.
We are concerned here in the Staff about the political warfare question. If
the Executive Branch does not act soon to firm up its ideas as to what
should be done along these lines, the possibility of getting secret funds
out of Congress for covert operations will be lost. If this is not done now,
it will mean that this Government has given up hope of conducting effective
political warfare activities for the duration of this administration.
If nothing is done along the lines recommended in NSC 10, this Staff will have to recommend that the State
Department press for the abrogation of NSC
4–A, which is not working out well.
If you want further information on the background of this project, I would
suggest that you talk with Davies, John P. Davies, Jr. of my
staff, who is thoroughly familiar with it.
I understand that Allen Dulles is
arriving in Washington on Thursday and will be here through Saturday
morning. He is fully acquainted with the NSC
10 project and it is our hope that he will head the organization. During his
stay here, he will make himself available for discussion and comment on
NSC 10. We are informed by Mr. Forrestal’s office that Mr. Forrestal is so strongly in favor of
implementation of NSC 10 that he is prepared
to come over to the Department to discuss the problem with you and Mr.
Dulles if you wish.Next to this paragraph a handwritten annotation from
Lovett reads: “I think we
ought to meet with Forrestal
promptly. L”
GFK
280. Memorandum of MeetingSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records
of the National Security Council, NSC
10/2. Top Secret. Drafted on June 1 presumably by Blum. For background information on this
meeting, see Document 279.Washington, May 28, 1948.
MEMORANDUM ON A MEETING HELD IN MR. FORRESTAL’S OFFICE ON FRIDAY, 28 MAY 1948 TO CONSIDER NSC-10
“DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL STUDIES”
PRESENT
Messrs. Forrestal, Lovett, Allen Dulles and Blum; also for the first part of the meeting, General
Gruenther and Admiral Hillenkoetter; for the latter part of the
meeting, Mr. Souers
Admiral Hillenkoetter briefly
reviewed the CIA view regarding NSC-10,
pointing out particularly that a distinction should be made between covert
operations in time of peace, which should be assigned to CIA, and those
covert operations which would only be carried out in time of war, and
responsibility for the planning of which should be assigned to the JCS.
General Gruenther reviewed the informal view of the
JCS as developed at their Wednesday
meeting. He said that the JCS seemed to
favor, in principle, having secret operations as well as secret intelligence
in CIA, but said that they had questions as to CIA’s ability to handle this
task. He asked whether Hillenkoetter
would be prepared to accept the idea of an advisory panel (as in NSC-10) if the operations were placed in CIA.
Hillenkoetter replied in the
affirmative.
After Admiral Hillenkoetter and
General Gruenther had left the meeting, the discussion
continued and the following agreement was reached by Mr.Forrestal and Mr. Lovett.
The present head of the Office of Special Operations in CIA should be
replaced.Responsibility for both secret intelligence and secret operations
should be assigned to CIA under the new head appointed under (1).This new office should have considerable autonomy within CIA, and its
head should be authorized to appeal directly to the National Security
Council in case of differences arising between him and the Director of
Central Intelligence.Allen Dulles, present at the
meeting, was asked whether he would accept the new post. He replied tha
the did not think so, but that he would give his final decision in a few
days.Names of other persons who might fill the new post were
reconsidered.
281. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary (Souers) to the National Security CouncilSource: Truman
Library, Papers of Harry S.
Truman, President’s Secretary’s File, Subject File. Top
Secret. Attached to another copy of this document is an earlier draft of
the proposal with handwritten changes. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC 10/2)Washington, June 2, 1948.
SUBJECT
Establishment of a Special Services Unit in CIA
REFERENCE
NSC 10
The enclosed proposal on the above subject, which is suggested as a possible
alternative to the Conclusions in NSC 10,
represents the results of an informal discussion between the Secretary of
Defense, the Under Secretary of State, and Mr.Allen W. Dulles.Document 280.
At their request the enclosure is submitted herewith for consideration by the
National Security Council in connection with NSC 10, which is scheduled as Item 1 on the Agenda for the
NSC 12th Meeting on Thursday, June
3.See Document
283.
Sidney W. Souers
EnclosureTop Secret.
Proposal Submitted to the National Security
Council
ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIAL SERVICES UNIT IN THECENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Further consideration of the problem of developing our activities in the
field of covert political warfare leads to the following points which,
it is suggested, should serve
as a basis for the further consideration of this problem by the National
Security Council.
CIA provides the legal structure within which covert political activities
can be conducted and it is already charged under NSC 4–A with the conduct of covert psychological operations
abroad. In addition, CIA is already charged by National Security Council
Directive No. 5 with conducting espionage and counter-espionage
operations abroad, which operations are by their nature very closely
related to covert political activities as contemplated in NSC 10. It, therefore, seems desirable for
legal, as well as operational reasons, not to create a new agency for
covert political activities, but to place the responsibility for this
work within the legal structure of the Central Intelligence Agency and
closely relate it to secret intelligence.
The principal objection to this proposal arises out of doubt as to
whether CIA is presently so constituted that it can effectively handle
this problem which is so different from CIA’s primary task of
coordinating intelligence activities and correlating and evaluating
intelligence relating to the national security. There is also fear lest
covert operations develop in a manner inconsistent with our foreign and
military policies.
These considerations lead to the following general conclusions and recommendations:Responsibility for both secret intelligence and secret
operations, including covert psychological activities, should be
placed in a new Special Services unit to be created in
CIA.This unit should have a considerable measure of autonomy
within CIA and its directors should be authorized to appeal
directly to the National Security Council in case of differences
arising between him and the Director of Central
Intelligence.A highly qualified person recruited from outside the present
ranks of CIA and approved by the National Security Council
should be appointed to head the new unit in CIA.Provision should be made so that the chief of the newly
created unit has access to and receives policy guidance from the
Department of State and the Military Establishment.It is understood that this is a provisional arrangement
subject to review at a later date.
The following actions should be taken if the National Security Council
approves in principle the foregoing points:The Department of State, the National Military Establishment,
and CIA should jointly request funds for the proposed
operation.The Executive Secretary, National Security Council, should be
directed to prepare a detailed directive covering the above
points for approval by the Council.
282. Memorandum From George H.
Butler of the Policy Planning Staff to the Under Secretary of
State (Lovett) and
Secretary of State MarshallSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Policy Planning Staff Files 1947–53: Lot 64 D 563. Top
Secret.Washington, June 2, 1948.
The text of the paper regarding the establishment of a Special Services unit
in CIA, attached to the June 2nd memorandum from the Executive Secretary of
the National Security Council,Document 281. conforms with my
understanding of Mr. Lovett’s views
as a result of his conversation with Mr. Forrestal and Mr. Dulles.
The Policy Planning Staff suggests that the detailed directive referred to in
the final paragraph (b) of the paper be drafted in the first instance by a
representative to be designated by the Secretary and one to be designated by
Mr. Forrestal. Mr.
Davies of the Policy Planning Staff has been
following this subject for the Department. He is temporarily abroad on an
official mission. Mr. Butler of the
Planning Staff is handling this part of Mr. Davies’
work.
George H. ButlerPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
283. Memorandum for the President of Discussion at the 12th Meeting of the
National Security CouncilSource:
Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files, Subject File. Top Secret. Prepared on June
4.Washington, June 3, 1948.
The following notes contain a brief summary of the discussion at the 12th
meeting of the National Security Council on June 3, 1948.
1. Director of Special Studies
(NSC 10)
Mr. Lovett explained the proposal
which resulted from discussion between Messrs. Forrestal, Lovett and
Dulles, at which General Gruenther and Admiral
Hillenkoetter were also heard.See Document 280. Mr. Lovett said that this proposal was a
possible method of meeting the problem to enable the Council to move rapidly
in getting the necessary funds.
Admiral Hillenkoetter noted the
statement that the principal objection was whether CIA could handle this
job. He said that no protest or doubts had been expressed up to the present.
The Office of Special Operations in CIA is practically autonomous now.
However, Admiral Hillenkoetter
thought that the proposed right of appeal to the Council by the Director of
that office was totally wrong. Admiral
Hillenkoetter stated that CIA now has qualified people. The
man heading this work is a Mr. Cassidy who worked with
General Donovan in France. Admiral Hillenkoetter, therefore, did not
see the need to put in another man who could get necessary policy guidance.
Admiral Hillenkoetter wondered
why he himself could not be given such guidance.
Mr. Lovett said that the Dulles recommendations revolved around
having secret intelligence, covert operations and psychological warfare all
under one man who in turn would be under Admiral Hillenkoetter. Mr.Lovett drew a distinction between the overall function of
CIA and these covert operations which were a specialized extra curricular
activity.
Secretary Forrestal said that the
proposals also took account of the criticisms that CIA should not be an
operating organization. These would be answered in part by making a separate
unit for covert operations from the parts of CIA which discharged its
coordinating and evaluating functions. SecretaryForrestal said that the real thing to face is the feeling
that a military organization cannot deal with the political subtleties in
this activity. He felt that we must have a very able man with a civilian
type of mind.
Mr. Lovett pointed out that CIA is
intended to be a civilian agency.
Secretary Forrestal said that it comes
down to getting a man who will be acceptable to Admiral Hillenkoetter, the type such as Mr. Dulles.
Admiral Hillenkoetter said that he
had started carrying out NSC 4–A by getting
Mr. Cassidy who was recommended by General Donovan and by David
Bruce. Mr. Cassidy is a broker and
banker from Chicago.
Mr. Lovett said that another point
about the right of appeal arose in part from the feeling that it might be
necessary, because of the multiplicity of military interests, for the NSC to compose any differences that arise.
Mr. Souers pointed out that NSC 4–A originally proposed an advisory panel
which was stricken out. The result has been that there has been no authoritative guidance. If no official
tie-in is established, there is the danger that this activity will be celled
off.
Admiral Hillenkoetter said that the
organization chart provided a tie-in with State, but it was not official
enough.
Secretary Royall said that he agreed
with Admiral Hillenkoetter’s
comments. Secretary Royall had no
faith in the proposed right of appeal. He felt that if you gave a man
responsibility, you should give him the full authority to run it.
Mr. Hill agreed with
SecretaryRoyall.
Secretary Forrestal said that he was
confident Mr. Cassidy could do the job. Admiral Hillenkoetter agreed and said that
Mr. Cassidy came with the best recommendation.
Mr. Lovett said that he certainly
could not ask for more than CIA had done [less than 1 line
of source text not declassified].
Mr. Whitney said that there were many
papers on this subject. He pointed out that there is a JCS paperNot
found. along the lines of Admiral
Hillenkoetter’s view which had been monitored by General Vandenberg who feels quite
strongly on this subject.
Mr. Lovett said that the wording of
the second principle in the Forrestal-Lovett
proposals did not adequately convey their thought. They had understood that
the Director of the special unit would only be authorized to report to the
NSC on matters which affected the
interests of other agencies in this activity.
Admiral Hillenkoetter felt that this
still has the same objectionable features.
Mr. Souers pointed out that part of
this activity is extra curricular to CIA. Secret intelligence is all right,
but the other activities envisaged are not normal CIA functions.
Admiral Hillenkoetter felt that the
other activities should be either in CIA or set up entirely separate.
Secretary Forrestal said that their
proposals were an effort to preclude setting up a separate agency but still
to recognize the complexities in this field. He said that they were trying
to deal with the realities arising out of the criticisms in Congress and
elsewhere on this subject. He agreed that Admiral Hillenkoetter must be allowed to keep his finger on
this activity, but felt there should still be a channel to the NSC.
Secretary Royall said that this
activity carried a lot of responsibility since it is felt to be questionable
morally in some quarters. He didn’t see how the NSC could give responsibility without authority.
Secretary Forrestal said that giving
it completely to CIA would not meet the criticisms regarding military
influence.
Secretary Royall felt that if CIA was
not civilian in nature, it was the fault of the NSC because CIA is supposed to be above the military. If it is
not, he felt that the NSC should correct the
situation. His first choice is to give it to CIA. The second choice would be
to create a separate organization. His third and last choice would be to
retain the right of appeal.
Mr. Lovett noted that the Dulles recommendations were that this
activity be placed either under the NSC or
under CIA as the NSC desires. He understood
that the Dulles point would be met by
a tightly knit unit under CIA, but he was concerned because this goes beyond
CIA legislative authority. There is no legal authority for this activity
except that residing in the NSC. He,
therefore, felt it was necessary to have an umbilical cord to the NSC.
Mr. Souers noted that Mr. Kennan had made the point that State wants
to work with partisan groups in this country. He was afraid that this
activity would be destroyed if they had to work with an intelligence agency.
Mr. Souers pointed out that in
peacetime State has the biggest stake. [1 line of source
text not declassified] When this is not done the operations are
likely to go astray. There must, therefore, be a direct channel to State for
policy guidance.
Admiral Hillenkoetter pointed out
that CIA has a channel to State and that CIA can operate properly if State
will indicate what it wants.
Mr. Lovett said that the proposed
activity goes beyond the type of work done [less than 1
line of source text not declassified]. He felt there must be some
way, if funds are to be obtained, to show that NSC authority flows directly into this unit.
Mr. Souers said this means that
there must be an advisory group which can come up to the NSC when it is not satisfied.
Secretary Royall said that he doesn’t
want any Army representative to have anything to do with this activity. He
felt it was no concern of the military in peacetime.
Secretary Forrestal pointed out that
the military were in the middle of the activities [less
than 1 line of source text not declassified].
Secretary Royall felt that they
shouldn’t have been unless they were called in. In wartime the military
should run it. He felt that the military should stay out of the political
field, which includes this activity.
Mr. Lovett noted that the Army is
already in political activities regarding bases and other questions.
Secretary Royall said that the
military only presented their views to State on this subject. He thought the
military should give advice only.
Mr. Lovett said that no Department,
and certainly not State, should have any part in the conduct of the covert
operations. State, however, must
be consulted and he thought that there would probably also be some military
aspects.
Secretary Forrestal said that there
were two practical aspects regarding obtaining necessary funds. First, it is
not clearly legal for CIA to conduct these activities. Secondly, they must
be tied into the State Department.
Mr. Lovett said that, if funds are to
be obtained, the NSC must move quickly. He
suggested that the proposal should be altered to delete the right of appeal.
Instead, all authority would be vested in the head of CIA who would have an
advisory panel which could report directly to the NSC if they disagreed with Admiral
Hillenkoetter.
Admiral Hillenkoetter suggested, and
Mr. Lovett agreed, that this panel
might be modeled on the Intelligence Advisory Committee. Admiral Hillenkoetter noted, however, that
the relations of this new panel with IAC
would have to be carefully defined.
Mr. Lovett said that it was hard for
the NSC to define the specific organization.
He suggested, therefore, that the Council refer NSC 10 back to the Staff to prepare a new paper, reflecting the
approach discussed in the meeting. He felt this paper should bring in the
views of Secretary Royall and
Admiral Hillenkoetter.
The National Security Council:The paragraph that follows constitutes NSC Action No. 56. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, Record of Actions, Box 55)
Referred NSC 10 back to the NSC Staff for the preparation of a substitute
report reflecting the discussion at the meeting.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 2–8, preparations for demolition of
oil facilities in the Middle East, handling of SANACC papers submitted for consideration by the NSC, U.S. position regarding the use of
military power in Greece, NSC status of
projects, U.S. position with respect to Soviet-directed world communism,
policy on atomic warfare, and trade with Eastern Europe.]
284. National Security Council MemorandumSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC 10/2. Top Secret. No drafting
information appears on the source text but it was probably prepared by
the NSC staff on the basis of the
discussion at the preceding day’s meeting of the Council.Washington, June 4, 1948.
PRINCIPLES TENTATIVELY APPROVED BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL
Responsibility for both secret intelligence and secret operations,
including covert psychological activities, should be placed in a new
special services unit to be created in CIA.This unit should have a considerable measure of autonomy within
CIA.A highly qualified person recruited from inside or outside the present
ranks of CIA and approved by the National Security Council should be
appointed to head the new unit in CIA.Provision should be made so that the chief of the newly created unit
has access to and receives policy guidance from the Department of State
and from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to the extent that
military questions are involved.It is understood that this is a provisional arrangement subject to
review at a later date.
285. Memorandum From the Assistant Executive Secretary of the National
Security Council (Lay)
to Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records
of the National Security Council, NSC
10/2. Top Secret.Washington, June 7, 1948.
Attached is the proposed NSC Directive which
is based upon your paper of June 4, 1948 on the establishment of an Office
of Special Services.Not printed.(Ibid.) See the
Supplement.
As indicated in our phone conversation this morning, the attached will be
discussed at an NSC Staff meeting at 10:00
a.m. tomorrow in Room 224, Old State Building.
James S. Lay, Jr.Printed from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
AttachmentAlthough there were editorial
changes and some rearrangement of paragraphs, this draft closely
follows the text of the CIA draft mentioned in the covering
memorandum and footnote 1 above. The
major difference between the two versions is that the NSC reworking broadens the authority of
the Operations Advisory Committee and gives its members a right of
appeal to the NSC in disputes with
the Director of Central Intelligence.
PROPOSED NSC DIRECTIVE
The National Security Council, taking cognizance of the vicious
psychological efforts and covert operations of the USSR, its
satellite countries and Communist groups to discredit and defeat the
aims and activities of the United States and other Western powers,
has determined that, in the interests of world peace and US national
security, the overt foreign activities of the US Government must be
supplemented by covert operations.The Central Intelligence Agency provides the legal structure
within which all covert activities can be conducted and it is
already charged under NSC 4–A with
the conduct of covert psychological operations abroad. In addition,
the Central Intelligence Agency is already charged by the National
Security Council with conducting espionage and counter-espionage
operations abroad. These latter operations are by their very nature
closely related to covert operations. It therefore seems desirable,
for legal as well as operational reasons, not to create a new agency
for covert operations, but to place the responsibility for this
mission within the legal structure of the Central Intelligency
Agency and closely relate it to espionage and counter-espionage
operations under the overall control of the Director of Central
Intelligence.Therefore, under the authority of Section 102(d)(5) of the
National Security Act of 1947, the National Security Council hereby
directs that: Responsibility for the conduct of covert operations,
including covert psychological operations conducted pursuant
to NSC 4–A, in peacetime and for
planning for such operations in time of war or national
emergency, shall be placed in a new Office of Special
Services to be created within the Central Intelligence
Agency.The Office of Special Services shall have, for security
reasons, a considerable measure of autonomy within the
Central Intelligence Agency.A highly qualified person recruited from either inside or
outside the Central Intelligence Agency, nominated by the
Director of Central Intelligence and approved by the
National Security Council, shall be appointed to head the
Office of Special Services.The Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible
for ensuring that: Covert operations are consistent with US foreign
and military policies and with overt activities, and
that plans for wartime covert operations are
consistent with and complement Joint Chiefs of Staff
approved plans for military operations.Appropriate agencies of the US Government, both at
home and abroad (including diplomatic and military
representatives in each area), are kept informed of
such operations which will directly affect
them.To assist the Director of Central Intelligence in
discharging the responsibilities in d above, there shall be
established an Operations Advisory Committee composed of one
representative of the Secretary of State and one
representative of the Secretary of Defense. These
representatives may have such assistants and staffs as are
required by them. The functions of this Committee shall be: To furnish authoritative policy guidance on covert
operations to the Director of Central
Intelligence.To assist the Director of Central Intelligence in
the preparation of all plans for such operations.
Where disagreement arises between the Director of
Central Intelligence and one or more members of the
Operations Advisory Committee over such plans, the
matter shall be forwarded to the National Security
Council for decision.Supplemental funds for the conduct of the proposed
operations for fiscal year 1949 shall be immediately
requested. Thereafter operational funds for these purposes
will be included in normal Central Intelligence Agency
Budget requests.As used in this directive, “covert operations” are understood to
be all activities (excluding armed conflict by recognized military
forces, espionage and counter-espionage) which are conducted or
sponsored by this Government against hostile foreign states or
groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which
are so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility
for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and if uncovered the
US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.
Specifically, such operations shall include any covert activities related to
propaganda; preventive direct action, including sabotage,
anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion
against hostile states, including assistance to underground
resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups; and
support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened
countries of the free world.This Directive supersedes the directive contained in NSC 4–A, which is hereby
cancelled.
286. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff(Kennan) to the Under Secretary
of State (Lovett)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Policy Planning Staff Files 1947–53: Lot 64 D 563, Box 719, Pol &
Psych Warfare. Top Secret. The source text contains the handwritten
annotation, “Contents presented orally 6/8/48.”Washington, June 8, 1948.
The Staff of the National Security Council has under discussion the attached
paperThis memorandum has two attachments,
Documents 284 and 285. relating to secret operations. It is our
understanding that the paper represents the results of discussions which
took place at a full Council meeting on June 3.
This is a project which I believe emanates largely from the initiative of the
Policy Planning Staff, which has been trying for several months to help
devise some means by which this Government could conduct political warfare
as an integral part of its foreign policy.
The proposal embodied in the attached paper does not appear to us to meet
this need, and we feel that the arrangements which it envisages might easily
operate to cause embarrassment to this Government.
It is our view that these things, if they are to be done at all, must be done
under the intimate direction and control of this Department. If this cannot
be arranged (and I understand the difficulties which stand in the way), I
think it would be better to withdraw this paper entirely and to give up at
this time the idea of attempting to conduct political warfare.
This is a heavy decision to take, because our policy in Europe, in
particular, will remain severely hampered in application unless it is
supplemented in this way. But two
of the most important elements of our European policy: namely, the
administration of the ERP, and the control of policy with respect to
Germany, have already passed largely out of the hands of this Department;
and rather than have a third major factor of European policy handled
elsewhere in the Government, I think it would be better not to have it
handled at all.
I therefore ask permission to inform Mr. Souers that the State Department wishes to withdraw this
paper.There is no indication in the source
text whether the recommendations were approved or
disapproved.
I further recommend that this Department request the cancellation of NSC 4, which is not operating
satisfactorily.
Should you not wish the enclosed paper to be withdrawn from the agenda of the
NSC, I would appreciate it if you would
let me know whether there are any modifications of it you would wish to have
made before it comes before the Council for final approval.
George F. Kennan
287. Letter From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Assistant
Executive Secretary of the National Security Council(Lay)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC-807, Item 25. Top Secret. The source text is a copy transcribed
for the CIA Historian on March 26, 1953. Also reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, pp.
203–205.Washington, June 9, 1948.
Dear Jimmy: The attached
represents our general thinking about the new draft.Reference is to a draft NSC directive of June 8 not found but referred to in the
enclosure. I should like to suggest that, since State evidently
will not go along with CIA operating this political warfare thing in any
sane or sound manner, we go back to the original concept that State
proposed. Let State run it and let it have no connection at all with us. It
seems to me that this is the only
thing that will satisfy State in any way and rather than try to keep a
makeshift in running order, subject to countless restrictions which can only
lead to continued bickering and argument, I think maybe the best idea is to
go back and make the OSP work for State alone.
I am sending this letter for your own information and, of course, for
Admiral Souers and have made it
separate in order that it need not be forwarded with our comments on the
last draft.
Sincerely,
R. H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
AttachmentTop Secret. The source text is
a copy transcribed for the CIA Historian on March 26,
1953.Washington, June 9, 1948.
Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence
Hillenkoetter to the
Assistant Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council(Lay)
SUBJECT
Proposed NSC DirectiveThe draft directive of 8 June 1948 is considered much weaker and
less satisfactory than that of last Friday, 4 June.See Document
285. Further, the latest draft is much more
inconsistent and much less organizationally sound than the 4 June
paper.For example, in para. 2 of the draft of 8 June, reasons are stated
why the new office should be placed under the Central Intelligence
Agency—then along in para. 3c are stated a number of restrictions on
what can and cannot be done, all of such restrictions leading to
confusion and chaos. Suppose the Director of Central Intelligence is
out of town, then does the work of the Special Projects stop, does
it “free wheel”, or does it work with the Acting Director of Central
Intelligence? All of this
remains in doubt by the statement “the head of the Office of Special
Projects shall report directly to the Director of Central
Intelligence.”In the present set-up of the Central Intelligence
Agency, the head of any branch can see the Director of Central
Intelligence any time desired—the door is always open. It would seem
that a new branch should come in, in a similar manner. The need for
special measures, security or otherwise, exists as much for our
present Office of Special Operations as it would for the new Office
of Special Projects, and the present set-up does not seem to hamper
the Office of Special Operations, nor can I see why a similar set-up
should hamper the Office of Special Projects.Also, what is meant by “to the maximum degree consistent with
efficiency, the Office of Special Projects shall operate
independently of other components of Central Intelligence Agency”?
Does this mean that the Office of Special Projects will have its own
administrative staff, its own budget staff, its own communications
net, its own services, etc. and etc? And, who is to decide what is
the “maximum degree consistent with efficiency”—the Director of
Central Intelligence, the Chief of Office of Special Projects, the
National Security Council, or who? This paragraph cannot be accepted
as is. I should much prefer the working of the corresponding
paragraph (3b) in the draft of 4 June.It would seem that either the National Security Council has
confidence in the operation of the Office of Special Projects by the
Central Intelligence Agency or it has not. If such confidence
exists, then the Central Intelligence Agency should be directed to
operate the new office subject to a general declaration of policy by
the National Security Council. If such confidence does not exist,
then the Central Intelligence Agency should not be expected or
directed to operate the Office of Special Operations in any
manner.R. H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
288. Note by the Executive Secretary (Souers) to the National Security
CouncilSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the
National Security Council NSC 10/2. Top
Secret. Addressed to the Secretaries of State, Defense, Army, Navy, and
Air Force and the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board. The
typed date on the cover sheet of June 18 has been changed by hand to
June 15.Washington, June 15, 1948.
NSC 10/1
OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
Reference: NSC 10
At its 12th meeting the National Security Council referred NSC 10 back to the NSC Staff for the preparation of a substitute report reflecting
the discussion at that meeting.See Document 283.
Pursuant to the above action, the enclosed draft National Security Council
Directive, prepared by the NSC Staff as a
substitute for NSC 10, is submitted for
consideration by the National Security Council at its 13th meeting to be
held on Thursday, June 17, 1948.
Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
EnclosureTop Secret. The draft directive
closely resembles an earlier version, dated June 10, which was sent
to the NSC Consultants for comment
in a June 11 memorandum from James S.
Lay, Jr., the Assistant Executive Secretary.
(National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records of
the National Security Council, NSC
10/2) See the Supplement.
PROPOSED NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
The National Security Council, taking cognizance of the vicious
covert activities of the USSR, its satellite countries and Communist
groups to discredit and defeat the aims and activities of the United
States and other Western powers, has determined that, in the
interests of world peace and US national security, the overt foreign
activities of the US Government must be supplemented by covert
operations.The Central Intelligence Agency is charged by the National
Security Council with conducting espionage and counter-espionage operations abroad. It
therefore seems desirable, for operational reasons, not to create a
new agency for covert operations, but in time of peace to place the
responsibility for them within the structure of the Central
Intelligence Agency and correlate them with espionage and
counter-espionage operations under the overall control of the
Director of Central Intelligence.Therefore, under the authority of Section 102(d)(5) of the
National Security Act of 1947, the National Security Council hereby
directs that in time of peace: A new Office of Special Projects shall be created within
the Central Intelligence Agency, and under the policy
guidance of an Operations Advisory Committee to be
established shall plan and conduct covert operations; and in
coordination with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall plan and
prepare for the conduct of such operations in
wartime.A highly qualified person, nominated by the Secretary of
State, acceptable to the Director of Central Intelligence
and approved by the National Security Council, shall be
appointed as Chief of the Office of Special Projects.The Chief of the Office of Special Projects shall report
directly to the Director of Central Intelligence. For
purposes of security and of flexibility of operations, and
to the maximum degree consistent with efficiency, the Office
of Special Projects shall operate independently of other
components of Central Intelligence Agency.There shall be established an Operations Advisory
Committee composed of one representative of the Secretary of
State and one representative of the Secretary of Defense.
These representatives shall be provided assistants and
staffs as necessary by their respective Secretaries. The
functions of this Committee shall be:To furnish authoritative policy guidance on covert
operations to the Director of Central
Intelligence.To assist in the preparation of all plans for such
operations. In disagreements arising between the
Director of Central Intelligence and a member of the
Operations Advisory Committee over such plans, the
matter shall be referred to the National Security
Council for decision.The Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible
for: Ensuring through the Operations Advisory Committee
that covert operations are planned and conducted in
a manner consistent with US foreign and military
policies and with overt activities, and that plans
for wartime covert operations are also drawn up with
the assistance of a representative of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and are accepted by the latter as
being consistent with and complementary to approved
plans for wartime military operations.Informing, through appropriate channels, agencies
of the US Government, both at home and abroad
(including diplomatic and military representatives
in each area), of such operations as will affect
them.Covert operations pertaining to economic warfare will be
conducted by the Office of Special Projects under the
guidance of the departments and agencies responsible for the
planning of economic warfare.Supplemental funds for the conduct of the proposed
operations for fiscal year 1949 shall be immediately
requested. Thereafter operational funds for these purposes
shall be included in normal Central Intelligence Agency
Budget requests.Covert operations, in time of war or emergency when the President
directs, shall be conducted under appropriate arrangements to be
recommended by the Office of Special Projects in collaboration with
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by the National Security
Council.As used in this directive, “covert operations” are understood to
be all activities (except as noted herein) which are conducted or
sponsored by this Government against hostile foreign states or
groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which
are so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility
for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if
uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any
responsibility for them. Specifically, such operations shall include
any covert activities related to: propaganda; economic warfare;
preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage,
demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile
states, including assistance to underground resistance movements,
guerrillas and refugee liberations groups, and support of indigenous
anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.
Such operations shall not include armed conflict by recognized
military forces, espionage, counter-espionage, and cover and
deception for military operations.This Directive supersedes the directive contained in NSC 4–A, which is hereby
cancelled.
289. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) to the Under Secretary
of State (Lovett) and
Secretary of State MarshallSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Policy Planning Staff Files 1947–53: Lot 64 D 563, Box 719, Pol &
Psych Warfare. Top Secret.Washington, June 16, 1948.
Attached is the draft of NSC 10/1See the enclosure to Document
288. on the subject of covert activities. It has been
drawn up to meet the requirements contained in the 4-point statement
approved by the NSC on June 4, 1948.Document
284.
Since this paper was prepared on the basis of a top-level NSC decision, it has not been circulated in the
Department for clearance.
I do not think that this arrangement will meet the more important needs of
this Government for the conduct of political warfare, as urged by
John Foster Dulles, Anne O’Hare
McCormick and many other people. It draws too sharp a
distinction between operations and planning. It is too remote from the
conduct of foreign policy. And we will not be likely to find a suitable
person to head it.
Nevertheless, I think we had better accept the paper. My reasons are these: It is probably the best arrangement we can get at this
time.It is important that some funds be obtained
from Congress this year for minor activities of this nature.We will at least know where we stand in these matters.
You will note that as the paper is now drafted, it would be up to the
Secretary of State to nominate the person to be appointed Chief of the
Office of Special Projects under the Director of Central Intelligence.
George F. KennanPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
290. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) to the Under Secretary
of State (Lovett) and
Secretary of State MarshallSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Policy Planning Staff Files 1947–53: Lot 64 D 563, Box 719, Pol &
Psych Warfare. Top Secret.Washington, June 17, 1948.
With further reference to the draft of NSC
10/1See the enclosure to Document 288. which is on the agenda of
today’s meeting of the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff
have now examined this paper and have asked that paragraph 4 be re-drafted
as follows:
“4. In time of war or national emergency or when the President
directs, all plans for covert operations shall be coordinated with
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the execution of covert operations in
military theaters shall be under the control of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.”
I find this wording reasonable and appropriate, from the standpoint of this
Department.
George F. KennanPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
291. Memorandum for the President of Discussion at the 13th Meeting of the
National Security CouncilSource:
Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files, Subject File. Top Secret. Prepared on June 18.
According to the minutes of the 13th meeting, the following persons were
present: Forrestal, Lovett, Royall, Sullivan,
Symington, Hill, Hillenkoetter, Souers, and Lay.
(Ibid.)Washington, June 17, 1948.
[Here follows discussion of agenda item 1, trade relations with Eastern
Europe.]
2. Office of Special Projects (NSC 10/1)See the
enclosure to Document 288.
Mr. Souers read the comments of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff,Not found. which
proposed a change in paragraph 4 of NSC
10/1.
Secretary Royall said he had the same
doubt as at the last meeting concerning paragraph 3d. He said that he still
hates to see any part of the National Military Establishment given the
responsibility for policy guidance on such activities during peacetime.
Mr. Lovett recalled that at the last
meeting the Council had discussed the choice between the Secretary of
Defense or the Joint Chiefs of Staff to represent the military point of
view. He thought the Council had agreed upon representation by the Secretary
of Defense.
Mr. Souers stressed his belief that
the State Department must dominate these activities in peacetime.
Mr. Lovett agreed, but also felt that,
as long as we have military and naval attachés, the Agency conducting these
activities must have military advice on long-range plans.
Secretary Forrestal recalled that the
current proposal was based upon the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Secretary Royall said that he would
prefer that military representatives merely be kept advised of these
activities but not given responsibility for them as the subject paper
appears to do.
Mr. Lovett felt that we would only be
kidding ourselves if we think that either the political or military agencies
can be relieved of the responsibility.
Secretary Symington thought that there
was a great deal in what Secretary Royall said. Secretary Symington felt that the wording concerning policy guidance
was very broad and tended to give the military broad responsibility in the
field in peacetime. He thought that the National Security Council was the
place where the State Department tells the military what our foreign
policies are.
Mr. Lovett did not agree with this
view. He felt that the NSC was a work room
to reconcile advice to the President from both political and military points
of view.
Secretary Royall thought that the
reference to an Operations Advisory Committee should be stricken from the
paper and a general paragraph substituted therefor.
Mr. Lovett expressed the firm belief
that the National Security Council would be held responsible for these
activities regardless of the language in this directive.
Secretary Royall thought that CIA
should ask for advice when it needed it and that the military should give
this advice only when military questions were involved.
Secretary Forrestal said that this
activity must represent a composite of both political and military
interests.
Secretary Royall said that in
peacetime this is not a proper field for military operation.
Mr. Lovett believed that the military
does have responsibility and must, therefore, be tied in.
Secretary Royall felt that to make the
military responsible for covert operations gets into a dangerous field.
Secretary Symington agreed with
Secretary Royall. Secretary Symington expressed the fear that these
activities would be made public and there would be a tendency to discredit
the military agencies more than the civilian.
Mr. Lovett pointed out that the
military agencies are now involved in the NSC in the relation of four to one. He believed that the
military should be represented on a staff planning level even if they were
not in the line of authority. Mr. Lovett pointed out that, if any future Pearl Harbor occurs,
it cannot be said that State did not tell the military what was going on.
There is now complete interchange of advice through the National Security
Council and all members thereof will be held responsible if any future Pearl
Harbor occurs.
Mr. Lay suggested, and the Council
approved, the deletion of paragraph 3d and amendments in paragraphs 3a and
e.
The National Security Council:The following paragraph and note constitute NSC Action No. 65. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, Record of Actions, Box 55)
Approved the directive in NSC 10/1, subject
to deletion of paragraph 3d and amendments to paragraphs 3a and e and 4.
Note: Amended directive subsequently issued as NSC 10/2.Document 292.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 3–6, Turkish arsenal aid, U.N.
temporary commission in Korea, review of the world situation as it relates
to the security of the United States, and NSC status of projects.]
292. National Security Council Directive on Office of Special
ProjectsSource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National
Security Council, NSC 10/2. Top Secret.
Although undated, this directive was approved by the National Security
Council at its June 17 meeting and the final text, incorporating changes
made at the meeting, was circulated to members by the Executive
Secretary under a June 18 note. (Ibid.) See the Supplement. NSC 10/2 and the June 18 note are also
reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under
Harry Truman, pp.
213–216.Washington, June 18, 1948.
NSC 10/2
The National Security Council, taking cognizance of the vicious covert
activities of the USSR, its satellite countries and Communist groups to
discredit and defeat the aims and activities of the United States and
other Western powers, has determined that, in the interests of world
peace and US national security, the overt foreign activities of the US
Government must be supplemented by covert operations.The Central Intelligence Agency is charged by the National Security
Council with conducting espionage and counter-espionage operations
abroad. It therefore seems desirable, for operational reasons, not to
create a new agency for covert operations, but in time of peace to place
the responsibility for them within the structure of the Central
Intelligence Agency and correlate them with espionage and
counter-espionage operations under the over-all control of the Director
of Central Intelligence.Therefore, under the authority of Section 102(d)(5) of the National
Security Act of 1947, the National Security Council hereby directs that
in time of peace:A new Office of Special Projects shall be created within the
Central Intelligence Agency to plan and conduct covert
operations; and in coordination with the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to plan and prepare for the conduct of such operations in
wartime.A highly qualified person, nominated by the Secretary of
State, acceptable to the Director of Central Intelligence and
approved by the National Security Council, shall be appointed as
Chief of the Office of Special Projects.The Chief of the Office of Special Projects shall report
directly to the Director of Central Intelligence. For purposes
of security and of flexibility of operations, and to the maximum
degree consistent with efficiency, the Office of Special
Projects shall operate independently of other components of
Central Intelligence Agency.The Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for:
Ensuring, through designated representatives of the
Secretary of StateAccording
to an August 13 memorandum from
Davies to Kennan, Kennan was
subsequently appointed as the representative of the
Secretary of State. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of
State, Policy Planning Staff Files 1947–53: Lot 64 D
563) See the Supplement. and of the Secretary
of Defense, that covert operations are planned and
conducted in a manner consistent with US foreign and
military policies and with overt activities. In
disagreements arising between the Director of Central
Intelligence and the representative of the Secretary of
State or the Secretary of Defense over such plans, the
matter shall be referred to the National Security
Council for decision.Ensuring that plans for wartime covert operations are
also drawn up with the assistance of a representative of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and are accepted by the latter
as being consistent with and complementary to approved
plans for wartime military operations.Informing, through appropriate channels, agencies of
the US Government, both at home and abroad (including
diplomatic and military representatives in each area),
of such operations as will affect them.Covert operations pertaining to economic warfare will be
conducted by the Office of Special Projects under the guidance
of the departments and agencies responsible for the planning of
economic warfare.Supplemental funds for the conduct of the proposed operations
for fiscal year 1949 shall be immediately requested. Thereafter
operational funds for these purposes shall be included in normal
Central Intelligence Agency Budget requests.In time of war, or when the President directs, all plans for covert
operations shall be coordinated with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In
active theaters of war where American forces are engaged, covert
operations will be conducted under the direct command of the American
Theater Commander and orders therefor will be transmitted through the
Joint Chiefs of Staff unless otherwise directed by the President.As used in this directive, “covert operations” are understood to be
all activities (except as noted herein) which are conducted or sponsored
by this Government against hostile foreign states or groups or in
support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned
and executed that any US Government responsibility for them is not
evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the US Government
can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them. Specifically, such
operations shall include any covert activities related to: propaganda,
economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage,
anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against
hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance
movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of
indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free
world. Such operations shall not include armed conflict by recognized
military forces, espionage,
counter-espionage, and cover and deception for military
operations.This Directive supersedes the directive contained in NSC 4–A, which is hereby cancelled.
293. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Chief of
Naval Operations (Denfeld)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–605, Job 83–0036,
Box 4, Folder 10. Top Secret. The source text is a transcript made for
the CIA Historian in December 1952.Washington, June 18, 1948.
SUBJECT
Project for high level balloon research and developmentThe Central Intelligence Agency has developed an effective method of
penetrating the Iron Curtain with the use of high level balloons.Naval officers with special technical training and essential
background of upper air conditions are required to effectively carry out
this project. It is requested that the Chief of Naval Operations issue
the necessary directive to implement this project as discussed and
approved verbally between representative of this office and Admiral Denfeld, Vice Admiral
PriceProbably Vice
Admiral J. D. Price, the Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations (Air). and Rear Admirals CassadyProbably Rear Admiral John H. Cassady, the
Assistant Chief of Naval Operations for Air. and Inglis. Liaison officers are prepared
to furnish detailed information for use in preparation of necessary
details.U.S. Air Force participation will be required and approval for such
participation has been given by the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force. This
will include full cooperation with the Navy in implementing the project
upon receipt of an official request from the Chief of Naval
Operations.You will appreciate the fact that because of the nature of this
project this letter should be shown only to those officers who “need to
know.”
294. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) to the Under Secretary
of State (Lovett)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Policy Planning Staff Files 1947–53: Lot 64 D 563, Box 11A. Top
Secret.Washington, June 30, 1948.
The following are my suggestions, in the order named, for persons whom the
Secretary could nominate as Chief of the Office of Special Projects under
the Central Intelligence Agency: Frank WisnerMathias F. CorreaIrving Brown (representative of A.F. of L. in
Paris and a very able and active citizen)Norris Chipman (Foreign Service Officer in
Paris)Francis Stevens (now Chief of the Russian
Division)John Davies (member of my Staff)
I am told there is little likelihood of getting Correa. I have no information as to
Brown’s availability and feel that this would have
to be considered a political appointment to be discussed first with
William Green.
I have placed Wisner at the head of
the list on the recommendations of people who know him. I personally have no
knowledge of his ability, but his qualifications seem reasonably good, and I
should think that it would be relatively easy to spare him for this
purpose.
George F. Kennan
295. Memorandum From the Chief of the Special Procedures Group (Cassady) to Director of Central
Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–615, Job
83–00036, Box 4, Folder 10. Secret. Sent to Colonel Donald H. Galloway, the Assistant Director for
Special Operations, for Hillenkoetter. The source text is a transcript made for
the CIA Historian in December 1952.Washington, June 30, 1948.
SUBJECT
Covert Propaganda to Exploit Tito-Cominform
DisputeThe Cominform denunciation of Marshal Tito, and
his firmly defiant stand, constitutes the first major open break in the
satellite front which the Soviet Union has established in Central
Europe.The situation arising therefrom tends to arouse dissension and
confusion in the world structure of Communism and invites exploitation
by prompt, effective propaganda measures through every available medium,
with the idea of achieving:A lessening of Moscow control over satellite
governments.An increase of friction between leading Communist groups and
individuals, with consequent decline in the effectiveness of
world Communism as an agency of Soviet expansion.Conditions more favorable to the overthrow of Communist
governments in satellite nations and to the strengthening of
non-Communist governments.The propaganda opportunities of the
Cominform–Tito dispute were recognized in the
counter-statement issued by the Yugoslav Central Committee.The situation finds the United States and the Marshall Plan nations unable to take
full advantage of the propaganda openings which are presented. [4 lines of source text not declassified]
[14 paragraphs of source text (37–1/2 lines of source text)
not declassified]
296. Memorandum From Commander Robert Jay
Williams to the Chief of the Special Procedures Group
(Cassady)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–606, Job 83–00036, Box 4, Folder 10. Secret.
The source text is a transcript made for the CIA Historian in December
1952. Williams was the chief of “Project Ultimate,”
which appears to be the same as the plan discussed in Document 293.Washington, July 23, 1948.
SUBJECT
Project Ultimate, Critical Delay inIn the original plan for Project Ultimate as submitted to this agency
by Captain Orville, it was indicated that it would be desirable to
initiate operations in the European theatre as soon as possible. For
this reason every effort was made to complete technical development by 1
July and to be prepared for operations not later than 1 August.Continuing delay in implementation of this project is jeopardizing
whatever success it might have. A study of weather conditions in the
proposed operating area has revealed that many factors will work against
the project after 1 November. These factors include increased risk in
launching due to unfavorable ground conditions; less favorable wind
conditions which may result in depositing the load over neutral
territory, and considerably less effect in the target areas due to
difficulty of finding the leaflets on snow-covered ground.When all of these factors are considered together, it may be concluded
that the value of this project after 1 November may be so little as to
argue against its inception during the winter months. It is, therefore,
requested that every effort be made to obtain permission to start the
project immediately in order that satisfactory weather conditions
anticipated in September and October may be taken advantage of to insure
an effective operation.
297. Memorandum for the Record by the Chief of the Special Procedures
Group (Cassady)
Washington, August 6, 1948.[Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–607, Job 83–00036, Box 4, Folder 10. Secret. 1 page
of source text not declassified.]
298. Memorandum of Conversation and UnderstandingSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/CSG–771, Job 83–00036, Box 5, Folder 8. Top Secret. The source text
is a transcript prepared for the CIA Historian on March 27,
1953.Washington, August 6,
1948.
SUBJECT
Implementation of NSC 10/2Document
292.
The following is a memorandum of conversation had and understanding arrived
at at a conference in Mr. Souers’
office on the morning of Friday, August 6, 1948. Present at the meeting were
Messrs. Souers, Kennan, Blum, Wisner,
Admiral Hillenkoetter, and
Colonel Yeaton.
Mr. Kennan opened the meeting
with a statement that the conference had been requested in order to
clarify certain points and to make certain that there was general
understanding and agreement concerning the manner in which the
contemplated implementation of NSC 10/2
would be carried out. He stressed the fact that political warfare is
essentially an instrument of foreign policy and accordingly that the
activity which serves this aim must function to the fullest extent
possible as a direct instrumentality of the Departments of State and of
the National Military Establishment. It is recognized that because of
certain of its attributes this activity should be placed within the
framework of CIA and must therefore be conducted with due deference to
the organizational requirements of that body. It must nevertheless be
recognized that it must take
its policy direction and guidance from the Departments of State and the
National Military Establishment and for this purpose the operating chief
of the new Office of Special Projects must have the fullest and freest
access to representatives of these two Departments who have been
designated by them as their respective points of contact. Mr. Kennan further stated that it must be
considered that the activity is a major political operation and that it
must have special recognition as such, as well as the greatest
flexibility and freedom from the regulations and administrative
standards governing ordinary operations. Finally, Mr. Kennan made the point that as the State
Department’s designated representative he would want to have specific
knowledge of the objectives of every operation and also of the
procedures and methods employed in all cases where those procedures and
methods involve political decisions.Mr. Souers indicated his
agreement with Mr. Kennan’s
thesis and stated specifically that it has been the intention of the
National Security Council in preparing the documentReference is to NSC
10/2. that it should reflect the recognition of the principle
that the Departments of State and National Military Establishment are
responsible for the conduct of the activities of the Office of Special
Projects. (The Department of State taking pre-eminence in time of peace
and the National Military Establishment succeeding to the pre-eminent
position in war time.) Mr. Souers expressed the view that this principle is
manifest in the document.Admiral Hillenkoetter
expressed the opinion that the new activity would be given sufficient
scope and flexibility to accomplish its objectives by the contemplated
setup within the organization of CIA. He pointed to the fact that the
present Office of Special Operations also enjoys a large measure of
freedom and autonomy within CIA, and that it has many special
privileges. Admiral
Hillenkoetter agreed with Mr. Kennan’s statement that the political warfare activity
should be conducted as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy and subject
in peacetime to direct guidance by the State Department. He insisted
that it was essential for the State Department to accept the political
responsibility, giving decisions in regard to individual projects, and
he was critical of the fact that at times in the past the handling of
individual cases had been turned over to him by the State Department
without any political guidance. (Mr. Kennan agreed that it was necessary that the State
Department assume responsibility for stating whether or not individual
projects are politically desirable and stated that as the State
Department’s designated representative he would be accountable for
providing such decisions.)Admiral Hillenkoetter pointed
out that the organization being set up is to some extent parallel to the
British arrangement, except that the British Chiefs of Staff have made military units available to
their special operations people. There was some discussion as to who
would be responsible for organizing and training units for special
military operations, and Colonel Yeaton said that a
JCS paper on this subject is in
process of completion. It was agreed that the Office of Special Projects
should propose and take a continuing interest in the necessary
preparation and training of military units.Mr. Wisner said that it would
be necessary that the head of the new Office of Special Projects have
continuing and direct access to the State Department and the various
elements of the military establishment without having to proceed through
the CIA administrative hierarchy in each case. Admiral Hillenkoetter agreed to this
point, but said that it would be necessary that he be kept informed in
regard to all important projects and decisions. Mr. Wisner concurred. It was agreed that
the designated representatives of the State Department and the National
Military Establishment would be kept informed of all problems and that
they would attempt to reconcile any differences between their respective
Departments concerning political and military guidance and advice given
to the Office of Special Projects. In the event that the two
representatives are unable to resolve their differences, the matter
would be referred to the Secretaries of State and of the National
Military Establishment.Mr. Blum raised the question as
to what would happen to Mr. Raymond Murphy under
the new arrangement. Mr. Kennan
said that he thought Mr. Murphy should come under
the Chief of the new office. Admiral
Hillenkoetter doubted whether this was desirable, but
said that he would be willing to leave that up to the Chief of the new
office.The question was raised as to possible difficulties in dealing with
foreign nationality groups in the United States for the purpose of
developing operations abroad. Mr. Blum said that he had the impression that CIA was
experiencing difficulties in its dealings with foreign nationality
groups because of the restrictions imposed by the FBI. Admiral
Hillenkoetter replied that although it was necessary to
secure FBI approval for all contacts,
this had not been too difficult a problem for CIA.Mr. Kennan said that it might
be desirable for the new operation to be able to work through some kind
of public “American freedom committee” in dealing with foreign
nationality groups in the United States. It was pointed out that there
had been a number of suggestions for setting up some kind of committee
of this nature.Mr. Wisner said that the head
of the new office would require broad latitude in selecting his methods
of operations, for example, as to whether he would use large numbers of
Americans working abroad or whether he would work primarily through
foreign groups. He did not think the new chief should be committed to
any existing methods of
operations. Admiral
Hillenkoetter agreed to this statement. Mr. Wisner also pointed out that the new
position would also require considerable assistance from other
Government Departments and agencies, including State and the National
Military Establishment, and he raised the question whether the necessary
help would be available. Admiral
Hillenkoetter said that he felt there was a general
spirit of cooperation in all the departments. It was agreed that Mr.
Kennan and Colonel
Yeaton would be responsible for soliciting the
help of the State Department and the National Military Establishment
respectively and that if any major troubles arose in obtaining
cooperation from other departments, the problem could be referred to the
National Security Council.Mr. Wisner stated to Admiral Hillenkoetter that there were
a number of internal organizational matters concerning which he felt
there should be some discussion and clarification, but that these might
be more appropriately discussed in a separate meeting between himself
and Admiral Hillenkoetter.
Admiral Hillenkoetter agreed
that this was important and suggested an early meeting for this
purpose.It was agreed that a memorandum of the conference should be prepared
and circulated to all who attended for their concurrence. Mr. Wisner undertook to prepare this
memorandum in consultation with Mr. Blum and Colonel Yeaton, who had
likewise taken notes on the discussion.Frank G. WisnerPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
August 12, 1948.
The individuals whose names appear below and opposite the spaces provided
for their respective initials, being all of the participants in the
conversation hereinabove referred to, acknowledge that this memorandum
comprises an accurate record of the conversation and further that the
views therein set out correspond to their conception of the manner in
which the activity shall operate.None of
the names has been initialed on the source text.
Rear Adm. R.H. Hillenkoetter
Colonel Ivan D. YeatonMr. Robert BlumMr. George KennanMr. Sidney W.
SouersMr. Frank G. Wisner
299. Memorandum for the President of Discussion at the 18th Meeting of the
National Security CouncilSource:
Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files, Subject File. Top Secret. Prepared on August
20.Washington, August 19, 1948.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 1–3 regarding Berlin, U.S. internal
security and SANACC.]
4. Office of Special Projects (NSC 10/2)Document 292.
Mr. Souers reported on the action
taken in implementation of NSC 10/2. He
stated that the Department of State, with the concurrence of the Director of
Central Intelligence, had nominated Mr. Frank G.
Wisner for the position of Director of the Office of Special
Projects. He also reported that, as provided in NSC 10/2, the Secretary of State had designated Mr. George F. Kennan as his representative for
NSC 10/2 affairs and the Secretary of
Defense had designated Colonel Ivan D. Yeaton both as
his and the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s representative. Mr. Souers reported further that a method of
operation has been agreed upon by the representatives of the Secretary of
State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of Central Intelligence
with respect to the initial procedures of the Office of Special
Projects.
The National Security Council:Paragraphs a–c constitute NSC Action No. 95. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, Record
of Actions, Box 55)Approved the nomination by the Department of State, with the
concurrence of the Director of Central Intelligence, of Mr.
Frank G. Wisner as
Director of the Office of Special Projects.Noted the designation of representatives of the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff as
provided in NSC 10/2.Noted that a method of operation has been agreed on by the
representatives of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director of Central
Intelligence.
[Here follows discussion of agenda item 5 regarding Palestine.]
300. Central Intelligence Agency General Order No. 10Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–2155, Job 83–00739R, Box 3, Folder 20.
Secret.Washington, August 27, 1948.
SUBJECT
OrganizationThe activation of the Office of Policy Coordination, effective 1
September 1948, is hereby announced.Mr. Frank G. Wisner is
announced as Assistant Director for Policy Coordination.Detailed directives reference the functions of the Office of Policy
Coordination will be the subject of separate orders.For the Director of Central Intelligence:E. K.
WrightBrigadier General,
USA Deputy Director
301. Letter From Acting Secretary of State Lovett to Secretary of Defense ForrestalSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 101.61/10–148. Top Secret. Drafted by Kennan on September 30. Sent to
Lovett for signature under
cover of a September 30 note from Kennan that reads: “Mr. Wisner is going to encounter, as one of his first major
obstacles, the problem of cooperation with the Army in Germany. He has
asked us to give him a boost in this respect. Here it is.”
(Ibid.)Washington, October 1, 1948.
My Dear Mr. Secretary: As you know, the Office of
Policy Coordination of the Central Intelligence Agency, established under
NSC 10, is preparing to discharge its
mandate to conduct political warfare. This political warfare program in
Europe will be effective only if it receives the whole-hearted cooperation
of the United States military authorities in Germany. Among other things, it may be necessary
for the Director of the Office of Policy Coordination to make certain
requests of these authorities concerning (a) political activity among
refugees from the Soviet world and (b) handling of bona fide political
refugees and deserters from the Soviet Zone. There may be other requests of
this nature which will have to be made.
The Department of State considers that political warfare will be an important
factor in the implementation of United States policies in the coming period.
If effectively conducted, it may affect materially the possibilities for the
achievement of United States objectives by means short of war.
For this reason, considerations of foreign policy require, in the view of
this department, that every effort be made to assist the Director of the
Office of Policy Coordination in the implementation of his programs. In
particular, it hopes that he will have the full cooperation of the United
States military establishment in Germany which is a key territory from the
standpoint of political warfare.
It will be appreciated if you will instruct the American Military Governor in
Germany, General Clay, in the sense of the
foregoing.
Sincerely yours,
Robert A. LovettPrinted from a copy that
indicates Lovett signed the
original.
302. Memorandum From Acting Director of Central Intelligence Wright to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records
of the National Security Council, OCB 10/2–10/5. Top
Secret.Washington, October 8, 1948.
Reference is made to your MemorandumNot
found. of 8 October 1948, addressed to the Director of Central
Intelligence and pertaining to the
action of the National Security Council in amending our directive in
connection with NSC 29.Not printed. NSC 29, a
paper entitled “Security of Strategically Important Industrial
Operations in Foreign Countries,” was approved by the NSC at its 19th meeting on September 2. At
that meeting the Council expressed concern over the vulnerability of
Venezuelan petroleum installations to hostile action and instructed the
Director of Central Intelligence to refer to the Office of Special
Projects the preparation of a plan for the security of the facilities.
(Memorandum of discussion at the 19th meeting of the NSC, September 3; Truman Library, Papers of Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files, Subject File) At its 23d meeting on October 7, the
NSC amended this decision to provide
that it should be carried out by the CIA but not by the Office of
Special Projects. (Memorandum of Discussion at the 23d meeting of the
NSC, October 8; ibid.)
It would be appreciated if this Agency could be informed of the
considerations which prompted the decision of the Security Council to amend
their original directive. The implementation of our functions in connection
with NSC 29 can best be accomplished if we
have full knowledge of any new considerations brought to the attention of
the Council.
It is strongly recommended that Central Intelligence be represented at
Security Council meetings when matters pertaining to CIA operations are
discussed.
E. K. WrightPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Brigadier General, USA
303. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Souers) to
Acting Director of Central Intelligence WrightSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records
of the National Security Council, OCB 10/2–10/5. Top
Secret.Washington, October 11, 1948.
SUBJECT
Amendment of Directive to the Director of Central Intelligence re
NSC 29
REFERENCE
Memo for Executive Secretary, NSC,
from Acting Director of Central Intelligence, same subject, dated
October 8, 1948 (CIA 22896–a)Document 302.
In response to the reference memorandum, the main consideration mentioned in
the NSC meeting which prompted the amendment
of the original directive on this
subject, was the fact that this directive placed an excessive burden on the
recently organized Office of Special Projects which was not commensurate
with the other more urgent and important projects for which this Office was
created. The point was also made that the NSC 29 project was not necessarily an appropriate function of
the Office of Special Projects, since many of the activities required by
this project might be overt in nature.
The propriety of having the Council tell the Director of Central Intelligence
which part of his organization he should use for a given project was
discussed. In this connection it was pointed out that, whereas the
intelligence organization of CIA was created by statute under the control of
the Director of Central Intelligence, the Office of Special Projects, which
is not truly an intelligence operation, was created by the NSC itself to operate independently of other
components of CIA to the maximum degree consistent with efficiency.
Incidentally, this independence of operation of the Office of Special
Projects is also recognized more specifically in a “Memorandum of
Conversation and Understanding” which the Director of Central Intelligence
has initialled.Document
298.
The principle that CIA should be represented at NSC meetings when matters pertaining to CIA operations are
discussed is recognized by the Council, as indicated by the attendance of
the Director of Central Intelligence at all Council meetings when he is in
Washington. No provision was made for such representation at the last
meeting, since it was not anticipated that CIA operations would be on the
agenda for that meeting.
Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
304. Letter From Secretary of Defense Forrestal to Acting Secretary of State LovettSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49,
101.61/10–1348. Top Secret.Washington, October 13, 1948.
My Dear Mr. Secretary: I have received your letter
of 1 October 1948,Document
301. which brings to my attention the need for
obtaining the cooperation of the United States military authorities in
Germany in order that the Office of Policy Coordination of the Central
Intelligence Agency may effectively discharge its mandate to conduct
political warfare.
I wish to assure you of my wholehearted agreement with you in regard to the
importance of political warfare and the desirability of obtaining the full
cooperation of the United States military authorities in Germany with
respect to those measures, mentioned in your letter, which will support the
political warfare program.
With my approval, Mr. Wisner, Director
of the Office of Policy Coordination, has discussed this problem with the
appropriate authorities in the Department of the Army. They have expressed
complete agreement with the proposals in your letter and are transmitting
their views to General Clay. Mr. Wisner will be informed of General
Clay’s comments and of further developments in this
matter.
Sincerely yours,
Forrestal
305. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) to the Under Secretary
of State (Lovett)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Policy Planning Staff Files 1947–53: Lot 64 D 563, Pol & Psych
Warfare. Top Secret.Washington, October 29, 1948.
A cardinal consideration in the establishment of Wisner’s office under NSC
10/2 was that, while this Department should take no responsibility for his operations, we should
nevertheless maintain a firm guiding hand.
If we are to do this, a small body of personnel—perhaps no more than five
men—who have Foreign Service and Departmental experience must be designated
to guide Wisner’s operation, both
from within this Department and within Wisner’s own office.
I realize the necessity of this and Wisner is genuinely anxious to have this type of help. But
we have both met with stubborn resistance from our own personnel people.
This resistance is caused in part by the fact that our personnel, necessarily
uninformed of NSC 10/2, do not understand
the overriding importance of the assignments which we request. Consequently,
with no sense of proportion they resist the release of officers who are
assigned to functions of relatively minor importance and their appointment
to the job which Wisner and I wish
them to take.
Because of the high security classification of NSC 10/2, it is impossible for me to reason with our personnel
people on this score. I am therefore reluctantly persuaded that the only way
to cut the gordian knot is to ask Peurifoy to instruct the personnel division chiefs along the
lines of the attached memorandumReference is to
an October 29 memorandum from Lovett to Peurifoy, not printed. See the Supplement.
prepared for your signature.
George F. Kennan
306. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Policy Coordination
(Wisner) to Director
of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–2155, Job
83–00739R, Box 3, Folder 20. Secret. Also reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, pp.
241–242.Washington, October 29, 1948.
SUBJECT
OPC Projects
REFERENCES
National Security Directive 10/2Memorandum of 28 October 1948 from the Director to ADPC re: Fiscal Year 1949 BudgetNot found.During your absence, OPC has been
holding a series of meetings of an Advisory Council which consists of
high-level, security-cleared representatives of Army, Navy, Air Force,
JCS and State. These representatives
were nominated by the respective Secretaries to assist in formulating
and coordinating policies for OPC in
accordance with the charter outlined in reference (a). Although this
preliminary planning has not yet been completed, the overall program is
beginning to take shape along the following general lines of clandestine activity:Functional Group I—Psychological WarfareProgram A—Press (periodical and non-periodical)Program B—RadioProgram C—Miscellaneous (direct mail, poison pen,
rumors, etc.)Functional Group II—Political WarfareProgram A—Support of Resistance (Underground)Program B—Support of DP’s and RefugeesProgram C—Support of anti-Communists in Free
CountriesProgram D—Encouragement of DefectionFunctional Group III—Economic WarfareProgram A—Commodity operations (clandestine preclusive
buying, market manipulation and black market
operation)Program B—Fiscal operations (currency speculation,
counterfeiting, etc.)Functional Group IV—Preventive Direct ActionProgram A—Support of GuerrillasProgram B—Sabotage, Countersabotage and
DemolitionProgram C—EvacuationProgram D—Stay-behindFunctional Group V—MiscellaneousProgram A—Front OrganizationProgram B—War PlansProgram C—AdministrationProgram D—MiscellaneousUntil the overall plans and policies were formulated, it was obviously
impossible to present an accurate or realistic outline for budgetary
allocations as set forth in reference (b). However, the senior staff
officers of OPC are currently working on
such specific plans which I shall be in a position to review with you in
the very near future.In the meantime, we have had no alternative but to accept certain
sub-projects which have been literally thrust upon us, such as the old
Umpire ProjectA plan for broadcasting to
the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe from the U.S. Zone of
Germany. which was inherited from SPG, and Dr. Hilger, Czech Refugee
Group. You may be sure that we have done everything possible to hold
such emergency assignments to a minimum. In those instances where we had
no alternative, we have limited our commitments and have set up
ear-marked funds to control expenditures.Frank G. WisnerPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
307. Memorandum for the FileSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–453, Job
83–00036, Box 3, Folder 4. Secret.Washington, November 16, 1948.
SUBJECT
Relationship and proposed course of dealing as between OPC and ECA; memorandum of conversation between H1, H2 and FGWThe
identities of H1 and H2 are conjectural, although they are obviously
senior officials of the Economic Cooperation Administration and/or
the ECA representation in Europe.
Among possible identifications are Paul G.
Hoffman, the ECA
Administrator; W. Averell
Harriman, the U.S. Special Representative in Europe;
and David K.E. Bruce, the head of the ECA mission in Paris.On the afternoon of November 16, I had a very extensive conversation
with H1 and H2 at their office and the following are some of the most
important features of this conversation.I explained generally our significance and I mentioned a few of the
thoughts which we have had in connection with our possible usefulness to
the mission of ECA in Europe. H2 wanted
to know whether we would be handling the ECA counterpart fund arrangement in Italy and I told him
that we would take this over as soon as we were in a position to do so.
He then spoke of France, saying that the situation there was most
critical and that he believed that everything should be done by way of
giving support to the anti-communist elements of French labor. [28 lines of source text not declassified] H1
having reentered the room the conversation broadened out to a detailed
discussion of the situation in general within France. H1 and H2 are both
of the opinion that the Marshall
Plan is less successful, less understood and less appreciated in France
than in any other Western European nation. They are very concerned about
this and they proposed that a fully coordinated all out effort should be
made to regain control of the situation which has slipped so badly. They
requested me to take the lead in working out an overall plan for [1 line of source text not declassified] building
up the Marshall Plan in France
and combating the communist efforts to wreck it. H2 is very keen about
this and wants to follow up early next week. I suggested that as the
first step he and I should meet with George
Kennan to discuss this problem and to block out the work.
I further stated that by the time this meeting occurs, I would endeavor
to have ready in rough form a memorandum raising the various
possibilities which had occurred to me. [2 lines of
source text not declassified] They both stressed that time is
of the essence and that matters have taken such a serious turn in France
that no effort should be spared. H1 said that he had been devoting some
thought to various types of overt publicity and H2 said that his people in Paris had
also been thinking about this but with the general conclusion so far
that obviously self-serving and American financed publicity might do
more harm than good. He was not satisfied with this conclusion and
agreed with H1 that it was a matter of method and presentation. H1 then
suggested that it might be possible to use ECA counterpart funds for the publication of a “report” on
the Marshall Plan aid,
mentioning quantities and the uses to which the aid had been put. [3 lines of source text not declassified] H2
undertook to cable Al FriendlyChief of
Information in the office of the U.S. Special Representative in
Europe. to get his reaction. H2 then stated that he believed
the military should be interested in this overall program since the
situation in France is crucial to their plans for Western European
defense. If France falls out of line, the whole military defense program
(Western Union Military Alliance) will crumble. H1 then stated that
moving picture might be employed. He thought that what the French need
most is a rejuvenation of spirit and he believed that an extensive
showing of the recently released “Joan of Arc” might have an
electrifying effect upon French psychology. He asked me to send a
qualified person to see this movie and to give him a report on its
possible effect upon the French people.The conversation having turned toward the subject of French morale and
its effect upon the political situation, I then asked H2 for his view
about the prospects of deGaulle’s accession to
power. He replied at length stating that although this appears to be an
odds-on bet, he felt that it would be very bad and that it might well
result in an impossibility of dealing constructively with the French on
either military or economic matters. [3 lines of
source text not declassified] I mentioned that certain very
competent observers of the French political situation had become
convinced that deGaulle’s accession to power was
inevitable and had suggested that we should start laying our plans with
a view to establishing a basis of dealing with
deGaulle. I wondered what H2 thought of this.
He first replied that it would be “playing with fire”. Later on,
however, he seemed to modify his position by stating that we should
certainly establish better contacts with deGaulle
and his people than we now have. Moreover, toward the close of the
conversation and in commenting upon the overall program, H2 was at pains
to make it clear that this should be done on a completely “non-partisan”
basis. H1 agreed with H2 that the whole emphasis should be laid upon
French economic recovery and the successful working of the Marshall Plan. I was left in some
doubt as to the strength of H2’s conviction in regard to the
deGaulle business.
[2 paragraphs (14 lines of source text) not
declassified]
F.G.W.Printed from a copy that bears
these typed initials.
308. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff, Department
of State (Kennan) to the
Assistant Director for Policy Coordination, Central Intelligence Agency
(Wisner)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–759, Job 83–00036, Box 5, Folder 8, Top
Secret.Washington, January 6, 1949.
Mr. Wisner:
I have examined carefully the volume entitled “OPC Projects Fiscal 19–9–1950”.Not
found.
In my opinion, this presentation contains the minimum of what is required
from the foreign policy standpoint in the way of covert operations during
the coming year. There may be one or two instances in which we will have to
ask you to add to the list of functions set forth in this
representation.
As the international situation develops, every day makes more evident the
importance of the role which will have to be played by covert operations if
our national interests are to be adequately protected.
George F. Kennan
309. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Policy Coordination,
Central Intelligence Agency (Wisner) to the Chief of the Economic Cooperation
Administration Mission in France (Bruce)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–2065, Job 83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 12. No
classification marking. The source text is annotated with somewhat
confusing marginalia, which suggest that another version of this
document may exist.Washington, April 26, 1949.
[6 paragraphs (19 lines of source text) not
declassified]
The Department of State has instructed Mr. Caffery to
take up with the French Prime Minister the question of removing the ration
on newsprint in France and making
it freely available so that at least part of the pre-war large Paris
information press could get going again. Mr. Caffery
has not yet reported the results of his démarche, if any, to the French
Prime Minister, but a telegram has gone forward to him in the last few days
requesting him to please press the matter. If this is not successfully
completed by the time you get back to Paris, I should be grateful if you
would do what you can to press it.
F. G. WisnerPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
310. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Policy Coordination,
Central Intelligence Agency (Wisner) to Members of His
StaffSource: Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–342, Job 83–00036, Box 2,
Folder 11. Secret. Addressed to “Messrs. Offie,
Frank [and]
Lindsay.” There is no typed or written
signature on the memorandum but the level of the conversation and the
context of the file in which the source text was found point to
Wisner as the
drafter.Washington, June 1, 1949.
SUBJECT
Conversation with Mr. John
McCloyLast night I talked for about forty-five minutes with Mr. McCloy pursuant to the suggestion
which had been made to Mr. McCloy on my behalf by Mr. Robert
Murphy. I explained to Mr. McCloy the general significance and origin of OPC and then I took up with him certain
aspects of our present and prospective operations in Germany. In the
latter regard I mentioned in particular the conversations and exchange
of communications which I had had with General Clay
in regard to the radio broadcasting activity from Germany. In this
connection I filled him in on the background and significance of the
developments regarding the formation of the various refugee national
committees and the New York Committee, pointing out that General
Clay had said that he saw no problem in allowing duly authorized
representatives of “really responsible and broadly representative”
national committees of refugees to enter Germany and there to arrange
for broadcasts. I also told him of our current rather modest activities
in Germany today, emphasizing the point that up until the present time
our people have had no authorization from us to engage in any activities
aimed at targets within the U.S., British or French zones. In this
connection I said that the British were a bit ahead of us and that we
were considering bringing ourselves abreast of their activities, at
least to the extent of authorizing our people to undertake on a
selective basis—fully approved from here in advance—campaigns calculated
to discredit the communist activities and leadership within our
zone.Mr. McCloy stated that he
thought he understood the nature of our program and he seemed to be
impressed by my statement that the original architects of the whole deal
included Messrs. Lovett,
Harriman, Forrestal, Kennan, Marshall, et al. He wanted to know whether and to what
extent he would be kept informed of our activities in Germany and what
precautions would be taken to make certain that our activities there
would not interfere re conflict with his responsibilities for policy and
administration. I told him that we would be prepared to keep him as
fully advised as he might deem desirable—but that we felt he would
probably arrive at the conclusion that he would not want to know the
minutiae of our business. He replied that he wanted to be kept generally
informed but he wanted to make certain of this. I said that we were
looking forward to getting to Germany soon a top level representative
who would be of such stature and caliber as to be able to represent our
activities to him.
311. Memorandum From Robert P.
Joyce of the Policy Planning Staff to the Counselor of the
Department of State (Kennan)[Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–761, Job 83–00036,
Box 5, Folder 8. Top Secret. 2 pages of source text not
declassified.]Washington, September 7, 1949.
312. Memorandum From Secretary of Defense Johnson to Director of Central Intelligence
HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/CSG–2051, Job 83–00739R, Box 2, Folder 12. Top
Secret.Washington, October 6, 1949.
SUBJECT
Support of Covert Operations of CIA
With reference to your memorandum request for supply bases, dated 11 May
1949,Not found. I have received the
views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and give you herewith the position of the
Department of Defense with respect to the principles on which we will
support covert operations of CIA. These principles of operation will
generally apply regardless of the particular form of the organization to
conduct various covert operations and are given without reference to present
or future organizational structure.
As Secretary of Defense I recognize the importance of covert foreign
operations under present world conditions, and I intend to take measures to
support such operations. I have great concern, however, regarding the proper
location of administrative responsibility for these operations and, pending
further study, I reserve my position with respect to whether this
responsibility should reside in your Agency. Since these operations
effectively conducted constitute one of the best ways of supporting our
national defense in time of peace and contribute importantly to success in
war, I am proceeding to state herein the reasonable conditions on which the
Defense Department will cooperate in the planning and conduct of such
operations.
There are two very important factors which I believe must be emphasized as
this organization for covert operations develops. First, the organization
must assume autonomous responsibility and be so effectively obscured as to
assure that neither the President nor the Secretaries of State or Defense
will be placed in a position of having to answer publicly for its
activities.
The second factor, and this derives partially from the first, concerns
financial support of these operations. As indicated in NSC 10/2, operational funds are hereafter to be
provided out of the CIA budget. As we reduce expenditures and personnel
within the Department of Defense, you and your Assistant Directors must
understand that there may be less money and manpower available to contribute
to these and other functions of
your Agency unless such contributions are of substantial value to U.S.
national security.
With the foregoing in mind the following principles will constitute the basis
for Department of Defense support of covert operations.
We recognize that the equipment which will be required to carry out covert
operations, either in peace or in war, should be available in the areas in
which required. There are, however, certain differences between the
peacetime scope and the wartime scope of Department of Defense participation
in and support for such operations of the Office of Policy Coordination,
Central Intelligence Agency. NSC 10/2
directs the Office of Policy Coordination in time of peace “to plan and
conduct covert operations” and “in coordination with the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to plan and prepare for the conduct of such operations in wartime.” In
addition, NSC 10/2 states that “in time of
war or national emergency, or when the President directs, all plans for
covert operations shall be coordinated with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
execution of covert operations in military theaters shall be under the
control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”
Peacetime and wartime differences are not involved in the currently
prescribed method of financing covert operations. NSC 10/2 states that after fiscal year 1949 “operational funds
for these purposes shall be included in normal Central Intelligence Agency
budget requests.” It is, therefore, expected that the Department of Defense
will be reimbursed by transfer of funds from the Central Intelligence Agency
for most of the material and services furnished.
As a general rule, covert operations planned and conducted by the CIA in time of peace should not be inconsistent with the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and United States military policies, and should not be
undertaken if specifically disapproved by the Department of Defense. The
participation of the Department of Defense therein will be subject to the
following general conditions: Captured enemy equipment at the disposal of the Department of
Defense and equipment which has been or may be declared surplus will
be made available upon request by CIA without reimbursement, except
for expenses incident to rehabilitation, packing, crating,
transportation and any storage costs incurred through utilization of
other than military facilities;Subject to consideration of other requirements, military equipment
and supplies in stock in the several Departments will be made
available on a reimbursable basis upon request of the CIA. In this
connection, military equipment and supplies with distinctive
markings which would indicate the Department of Defense as their
source will not be transferred unless such markings can be altered
or obliterated to prevent such identification;Military type supplies not available under a. and b. will, upon
request by the CIA be procured by the Department of Defense on a
reimbursable basis;Personnel, supplies, and equipment will be transported to overseas
storage points under military control and supplies and equipment
will be stored and protected at such points without reimbursement
where additional, extraordinary expenses to the Department of
Defense are not involved. Details regarding the designation of
storage points and the storage, protection, readying for use, and
release of supplies and equipment must be arranged locally with the
United States military commander of the area (including unified
commands) who must first receive appropriate military instructions
from the appropriate Executive Agent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Where the Service incurs additional, extraordinary expenses in
providing transportation or establishing and maintaining at overseas
points dumps for covert operations, the CIA must make reimbursement
therefor. However, military commanders may provide, to the extent
that they are able to do so without adversely affecting normal
military operations, necessary military personnel at overseas
storage points without reimbursement for services, such personnel to
be available for normal military duty only; andPeacetime movement of supplies and equipment from military
overseas storage points to areas in which or from which covert
operations are to be launched will be the responsibility of the CIA.
The Department of Defense would expect further that very special and
effective precautions would be taken by the CIA to insure that such
operations cannot be attributed to the Department of Defense.
Where the Department of Defense requests or embraces particular operations in
covert support of specific military missions (e.g., the establishment of
escape and evasion organizations), special arrangements for support and
reimbursement will be made in each instance.
With respect to plans and preparations for covert operations to be conducted
in military theaters in time of war, the Joint Chiefs
of Staff are of the opinion, with which I concur, that, consistently with
NSC 10/2, the following conditions and
limitations must apply:The operations for which military equipment and supplies are to be
stocked must first be integrated in the war plans of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and any actual preparations must be specifically
approved by them;Military supplies and equipment for wartime covert operations will
be made available from stock or procured on a reimbursable basis
subject to consideration of other requirements. Special arrangements
may be necessary in the procurement of highly specialized supplies
for such operations; andAll details regarding the integration of military personnel for
technical, security, and other purposes, in connection with covert
operations, and all
details regarding dumps of operational supplies, aircraft and
aircraft equipment (including location of these supplies and
equipment), must, after integration in each instance with war plans
indicated in a. above, and with Joint Chiefs of Staff policy
guidance, be locally coordinated with and agreed to by the
representatives of the CIA and of the Executive Agent of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff of the theater concerned.
It should be pointed out that the foregoing views do not cover the actual
conduct of covert operations in military theaters under JCS control in time of
war since this is more properly an integral part of war plans.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that detailed arrangements for the matter
discussed herein can be made through designated representatives of the
Department of Defense until such time as a military organization to work
with the CIA on covert operations is established.
If the above arrangements are satisfactory to you, I will issue the necessary
directives to the Services to execute them. Please let me have your views at
early convenience.
Louis JohnsonPrinted from a copy that
indicates Johnson signed the
original.
313. Letter From Secretary of Defense Johnson to Secretary of State AchesonSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC 10/2. Top Secret. Copies were sent to
the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the Executive Secretary of the NSC, and the Director of Central
Intelligence.Washington, October 7, 1949.
My Dear Mr. Secretary: At our luncheon on September
23, 1949, we discussed the location and various aspects of certain special
activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. I expressed to you my very
great concern at the present situation, and we both agreed that on an
interim basis we should make special and direct arrangements to provide
policy guidance for these activities.
I am familiar with your arrangements in the State Department whereby Mr.
Kennan serves as your adviser on
these activities, and in accordance with our understanding I am designating
Brigadier General John Magruder,
U.S. Army (Retired), as my special adviser on these activities. He will be
particularly concerned with the subject contained in NSC 10/2, but in addition, and for the purpose of providing the
necessary integration of other interrelated matters, he will concern himself
on my behalf with NSC 4 and NSC 43 series. Your Department and mine under
this arrangement can then proceed to guide these activities in a direction
that we deem mutually desirable, and likewise to seek agreement respecting
an appropriate organizational setting for the activities comprised in NSC 10/2.
The designation of General Magruder
as my policy representative does not alter the previous arrangements for the
Joint Chiefs of Staff representation in NSC
10/2 and NSC 43 matters.
I am also informing the three Secretaries of the military departments, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Executive Secretary, National Security
Council, of my action.
Sincerely yours,
Louis JohnsonPrinted from a copy that
indicates Johnson signed the
original.
314. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Policy Coordination,
Central Intelligence Agency (Wisner) to Joseph A. Frank of
the Office of Policy CoordinationSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–2301, Job
83–00764R, Box 1, Folder 9. Top Secret.Washington, October 13, 1949.
SUBJECT
Recommended Lines of Thought for Operational Planning
1. At the weekly meeting in Mr. Webb’s
office Tuesday afternoonOctober 11. I
covered practically all of the subject matter upon which I had been briefed by yourself and the others
who attended the morning briefing session, and a considerable amount of
interest was shown on the part of Mr. Webb and General
Magruder, in particular. Toward the conclusion of the
session, Mr. Webb began to spark off
a number of ideas and as he warmed to his subject, he began to produce some
very useful thoughts. All of the others present at the meeting were much
impressed about his grasp of the significance and operational possibilities
of the OPC activity, and General Magruder was especially
enthusiastic in his comment upon Mr. Webb’s suggestions.
2. In view of the fact that Mr. Webb
has taken this degree of personal interest and has gotten to the point of
generating some lines of policy guidance to us, I believe that we would be
well advised to do what we can to develop some refinements, and ultimately
to produce some plans and projects along the lines of Mr. Webb’s recommendations. We will surely be asked from time to time in the future what
we are doing about his proposals, and in addition there is no doubt that he
has got hold of some useful thoughts.
3. The first line of thought developed by Mr. Webb originated with a discussion of the situation in
Yugoslavia, and the fact that Tito’s performance and
the Tito heresy are causing the Cominform more
disturbance and woe than any single thing which has occurred since the war.
[20 lines of source text not declassified]
4. Mr. Webb went on from this to
propose that we should put considerable effort into spreading the story of
the Tito heresy, and moreover that we should endeavor
to induce similar developments in other Communist areas and within the
Communist Parties of free areas. [9 lines of source text
not declassified]
[1 paragraph (6–1/2 lines of source text) not
declassified]
6. Mr. Webb made reference to the
article on Tito by Hamilton Fish
Armstrong in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly magazine, and whereas he agreed that it could not
be effectively used in its present form because of its American origin and
authorship—he said that we should draw material from it which should be
caused to appear in disguised forms.
[1 paragraph (39 lines of source text) not
declassified]
FGW
ADDENDUM
You will recall that in the talk which Mr. Kennan gave in Q Bldg. this morning, he listed as the
first and perhaps the most serious weakness in the international
position of the U.S. the inadequate and unsatisfactory character of the
situation as regards Germany and Japan. In this connection he stated specifically that
for the improvement of the German situation, it is absolutely essential
that the German people be able to see the prospect of a position for
themselves as full-fledged members of the Western European community,
and that this will require the development of a better understanding
between the German people and the peoples of the Western European
countries. (These may not be his exact words but it is the sense of what
he said.) I believe that this serves to reinforce Mr. Webb’s suggestion as outlined in
paragraph 7 of the foregoing memorandum and that we may therefore with
confidence proceed to work up the outlines of one or more projects
calculated to accomplish the desired result.
I believe that it would be useful for you to make this memorandum
available to your senior staff officers.
315. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to Secretary of
Defense JohnsonSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC 10/2. Top Secret. The source text
indicates that a copy was sent to the Executive Secretary of the NSC.Washington, October 18, 1949.
SUBJECT
Support of Covert Operations of CIA
REFERENCE
Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense, above subject, 6 October
1949Document
312.The reference memorandum reduces to four basic principles the supply
support of CIA covert operations by the Department of Defense:The Department will expect reimbursement from CIA for the
costs of supplies and their storage and transportation when
additional or extraordinary costs to the Department are
involved, unless such expenses are unmistakably associated with
particular operations requested or embraced by the Department of
Defense in covert support of specific military missions.Operations should be consistent with U.S. military policies
and approved by the Department of Defense prior to
implementation in time of peace, support details to be arranged
with the local U.S. military commander concerned.Precautions should be taken to insure against identification
of the Department of Defense with operations in process.Operations, planned to be conducted in military theaters in
time of war, should be in accordance with plans integrated in
the war plans of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and should have local
coordination and agreement in the theater concerned.These principles are generally agreeable to this Agency and are
accepted subject to:Any deviations which may be directed by the President or the
National Security Council.Any modifications agreed to in specific instances between the
Department and CIA. (For example, at this time, the presence of
additional conventional American equipment in China and on the
Greek frontier would create no security risk.)It would appear that the best hope for the smooth, prompt, and, where
necessary, flexible implementation of the arrangements you detail lies
in the creation of the “military organization to work with the CIA on
covert operations,” to which you refer in the next to the last paragraph
on page 4 of the reference memorandum. I, therefore, urge that this
organization be brought into being as soon as possible and recommend
that it be vested with such discretionary power as will contribute to
smooth relations between CIA and the Department of Defense. R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
316. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Policy Coordination,
Central Intelligence Agency (Wisner) to Mr. Miller of His
StaffSource: Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/CSG–2066, Job 83–00739R, Box 2,
Folder 12. Secret.Washington, June 21, 1950.
SUBJECT
Conversation with Mr. Averell
Harriman
1. In my conversation of recent date with Mr. Harriman (which took place immediately following your talk
with him) he made a number of points which I considered to be worth
recording, and I believe that the appropriate members of your staff should
know about it.
[2 paragraphs (19–1/2 lines of source text) not
declassified]
4. Mr. Harriman expressed concern
about the American position at the moment in the cold war and strongly
emphasized the fact that it is essential for this Government to recapture
the peace mantle from the Russians. The emphasis in official statements of
all kinds as well as our unofficial activities should be concentrated on the
theme “Peace–Peace–Peace” even though we get tired of hearing ourselves say
it. He does not feel that the situation in France at the moment is quite as
serious as reported by Mr. Bruce, although he does
acknowledge that unless we can change our apparent position, it may become
so. He considers that it would be difficult to overcome the pacifism and
neutrality of the editors of Le Monde by any ordinary
efforts. He stated that Messrs. Bruce and
Bohlen have been working on certain of these
people, but without noticeable success. [2–1/2 lines of
source text not declassified]
F.G.W.Printed from a copy that bears
these typed initials.
Hillenkoetter’s Tenure as Director of
Central Intelligence
Introduction
Rear Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter
became Director of Central Intelligence on May 1, 1947. His appointment had
been decided upon by the National Intelligence Authority the preceding
February. The Central Intelligence Agency’s first Historian, Arthur Darling (who had access to “oral
tradition” as well as documents) believed that it was the Department of
State’s “turn” to nominate a candidate for the job, but that the military
services were unwilling to entrust the post to a civilian at a time when the
pending national security legislation indicated that the post would become
more important than before. Accordingly, Admiral Leahy’s influence prevailed and a naval officer was
appointed. (Darling, The Central
Intelligence Agency, pages 194–195)
According to an account recorded many years later by Ludwell L. Montague (then a State
Department officer detailed to CIG, later a
senior CIA official, and still later a historian of the period), he was told
of Hillenkoetter’s appointment when
he went to the White House on February 26, 1947, to consult with the
President’s Naval Aide, Admiral
Foskett, on another matter:
“Foskett asked me what I
would think of Admiral
Hillenkoetter as DCI
in succession to General
Vandenberg. I had never heard of Admiral Hillenkoetter. Foskett explained who he was.
From Foskett’s conversation
it was evident that the only question had been what admiral should succeed Vandenberg. Souers had been an admiral;
Vandenberg was an Army
general (albeit an Army Air Force one); an Army–Navy alternation as
DCI was just assumed to be the
order of nature. I took a dim view of that. Foskett made it clear that
Hillenkoetter had
already been selected.” (Memorandum for the record by L.M.
Montague, April 7, 1970; Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–400, Item 8, Job 84T00286R, Box 2, Folder
12) See also Document 188.
In any case, Hillenkoetter came to
office with certain advantages. He was in many respects more qualified than
his predecessors in terms of intelligence experience. Both Souers and Vandenberg had served tours in intelligence before becoming
Director of Central Intelligence, but Hillenkoetter had had considerably more intelligence
experience than either, albeit at less senior levels. He had served three
tours of duty as assistant naval attaché or naval attaché at Paris and one
tour with the U.S. Embassy at Vichy in 1940–1941, where Leahy came to have a high regard for his
abilities as an intelligence officer. During World War II, Hillenkoetter had served as intelligence
chief on the staff of the Commander in Chief, Pacific Ocean Area, Admiral Nimitz.
Hillenkoetter also came to office
with the advantage of becoming the first Director of Central Intelligence to
serve as a statutory official; unlike his predecessors, he would head an
agency established by law and enjoying regular appropriations.
At the same time, Hillenkoetter
inherited most of the controversies that General Vandenberg had begun. These might well have arisen
in one form or another in any case. But Vandenberg had been so energetic and aggressive and had
served so briefly that most of the uproar he provoked was at full strength
when Hillenkoetter took over; for
example, his designation as “executive agent” of the NIA, his substantial expansion of the CIG’s analytical and research work, and his efforts to define
strategic and national policy intelligence in ways that would enhance the
authority of the Director of Central Intelligence.
Because such issues involved the basic definitions and ground rules of the
national intelligence structure, they often tended to obscure some of the
less spectacular progress that was taking place. During Hillenkoetter’s directorship, for example,
there were continued (and sometimes painful) efforts to develop a scientific
intelligence capability, the Atomic Energy Commission became a member of the
IAB, the program of basic intelligence
known as the National Intelligence Survey came into being, the working level
continued to struggle with the problem of intelligence estimates and managed
to produce a number of them, and in general the daily work of correlating
and analyzing information went forward.
At the senior levels, however, the main intelligence issue continued to be
the line of demarcation between the Central Intelligence Group/Central
Intelligence Agency and the departmental intelligence organizations. At the
time Hillenkoetter took office,
there were two items on the agenda of the Intelligence Advisory Board
related to this fundamental question. One was a draft national intelligence
directive on the coordination of intelligence production (in effect a
companion piece to the earlier directive on coordination of intelligence
collection) which proposed to allocate by agency the responsibility for
production of finished intelligence. The other was a proposal to define and
spell out the Intelligence Advisory Board’s procedures and prerogatives.
Before either of these issues had come to a head, Hillenkoetter, at his first formal meeting
with the National Intelligence Authority on June 26, 1947 (Document 319), asked the NIA to withdraw the delegation of power given to his
predecessor at the Authority’s last meeting in February, under which the
Director of Central Intelligence functioned as the “agent” of the
Secretaries of State, War, and Navy on matters within his jurisdiction.
(Document 185) This was a conciliatory
gesture, intended to improve relationships with the departmental (especially
armed services) intelligence chiefs and to ease some of the other
controversies with and within the Intelligence Advisory Board.
The nub of the argument over Intelligence Advisory Board procedures was the
enduring debate over whether the IAB was a
“board of directors” with independent authority of its own or whether it was
created primarily as a sounding board for the Director of Central
Intelligence, who could accept or disregard its advice as he chose. At the
14th meeting of the IAB on July 17, 1947,
representatives from the Central Intelligence Group, Department of State,
and Naval Intelligence frankly exchanged quite different views on the
subject. (Document 320)
Eventually, an agreement was reached and on September 16, the NIA, in one of its last official acts before
going out of existence, approved National Intelligence Authority Directive
No. 11, which provided that recommendations to the Authority by the Director
of Central Intelligence would be submitted first to the IAB and that any statements of non-concurrence
would accompany the recommendation onward to the NSC. The directive also provided: “Any recommendation two or
more IAB members believe should be submitted
to the NIA (NSC) will be submitted by the Director of Central Intelligence
in such form as to set forth his recommendation and the comments of the
IAB members.” (Document 325)
With the coming into effect of the National Security Act of 1947, the
Intelligence Advisory Board ceased to exist, or so it would appear, since
the legislation made no mention of such a body. The issue revived, however,
in the context of Hillenkoetter’s
proposals for changes in the intelligence structure to reflect the new
statutory authority. As we have seen (the section on the National Security
Act), in a memorandum of September 11, 1947, to the National Intelligence
Authority (Document 220), Hillenkoetter recommended that the
existing NIA directives be continued in
force for 60 days while new versions were prepared; that the National
Security Council establish a subcommittee consisting of the Secretaries of
State and Defense “to furnish the active direction of the Central
Intelligence Agency”; and “while I believe it presumptuous and awkward on my
part to suggest,” that he attend all meetings of the National Security
Council. He also notified the Council (and the Departmental intelligence
chiefs) that he proposed to establish an Intelligence Advisory Committee
“which will to all intents and purposes continue in existence the
Intelligence Advisory Board established under the National Intelligence
Authority.” (Document 222) He accompanied his
recommendation with a proposed charter for the committee which included the
provisions of NIA Directive No. 11
concerning the committee’s right to submit differing views to the National
Security Council.
The National Security Council at its first meeting approved Hillenkoetter’s recommendations concerning
the continuance in force of NIA Intelligence
Directives for 60 days and agreed to his attendance at meetings of the
Council. The Council took no action on his proposal for a supervising subcommittee of the NSC to oversee the CIA, but soon approved
Souers’ amended version, which
deleted the part of his recommendation that would have carried over the
provisions of NIA Directive No. 11. (Document 325)
The disputes between the Director of Central Intelligence and the
departmental intelligence heads resumed in earnest in November, when
Hillenkoetter put before them
the proposed revisions of the National Intelligence Authority directives
(henceforth to be known as National Security Council Intelligence Directives
or NSCIDs). The NSCIDs, like their predecessors, would be, under the
legislation, the basic charters for the national intelligence system, and as
such they offered considerable possibility for controversy. The State
Department’s intelligence chief, W. Park
Armstrong, for instance, thought Hillenkoetter’s drafts went “beyond the intent of Congress,”
which “was not … to establish a single head for all Federal intelligence
agencies.” (Document 331)
At a meeting between departmental representatives and Hillenkoetter on November 20, 1947, the
discussion of the proposed directives was contentious. (Document 332) An ad hoc working group established at the meeting
prepared a revised set of directives which were unacceptable to Hillenkoetter. By December 8, however, the
air had cleared sufficiently so that at a follow-on meeting, Hillenkoetter and the departmental
intelligence heads reached agreement on the first batch of directives. What
happened in the meantime to bring about this change is not documented, but
according to Darling (The Central
Intelligence Agency, page 215) the precipitating event was
Secretary of the Army Royall’s letter
of November 26, 1947, to Souers
(Document 230) concerning Souers’ amended version of Hillenkoetter’s recommendation for an
Intelligence Advisory Committee. Royall objected that the new arrangement failed to follow
the old in not requiring the Director of Central Intelligence to submit all
proposed recommendations to the NSC through
the IAC in order to obtain the latter’s
views.
According to Darling’s account, this finally led
Hillenkoetter to seek a meeting
with Forrestal, who in turn summoned
the Army and Navy Secretaries and intelligence chiefs to his office. At that
session, Hillenkoetter presented his
view of how the intelligence system should function under the National
Security Act, and Forrestal then
simply instructed the intelligence chiefs that they were not to interfere.
(Darling, The Central
Intelligence Agency, pages 215–216)
There appears to be no way of knowing whether or not this is a complete and
accurate account. In any case, at the National Security Council meeting on
December 12, 1947, the issue also arose in the context of an oral report
that Hillenkoetter gave on
“organization, activities and plans” of the Central Intelligence Agency.
(Document 335) According to the spare account
in the minutes, “Secretary Forrestal
said, and the other members
agreed, that there was no question as to the coordinating authority of the
Director of Central Intelligence. Secretary Forrestal said that Admiral
Hillenkoetter tells the Departments what he needs for
collation and evaluation and the Departments are required to provide it.”
(Ibid.)
Although a truce of sorts appeared to have been declared, Hillenkoetter’s problems were just
beginning. A month after the NSC had seemed
to give him a vote of confidence, it decided that “two or three specially
qualified individuals not in the Government service should make a
comprehensive, impartial, and objective survey of the organization,
activities, and personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency.” (Document 336) Within another month, the
Intelligence Survey Group, or Dulles
committee, had come into being, consisting of Allen Dulles as chairman, Mathias F. Correa, and William
H. Jackson.
There is some uncertainty about the origins of the Dulles Survey, although the common
denominator in all accounts is Secretary of Defense Forrestal. Souers, writing some years later, placed the origin in
discussions he had with Forrestal
(presumably around the time the National Security Act came into effect) on
how the NSC would discharge its
responsibilities for supervising the Central Intelligence Agency. Forrestal proposed that Souers exercise oversight on behalf of
the Council. When Souers demurred,
the two agreed “to appoint a committee to make a survey so that the N.S.C. members would be able to carry out their
responsibilities by obtaining the independent judgment of a committee whose
members were reasonably qualified to advise the Council.” (Souers to Montague, October 30, 1969; Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files No. 206106, Job 84T00286R, Box 2, Folder 12; see also
Souers to Montague, August 13, 1970; CIA Historical
Files No. 206102)
Montague thinks that the real impetus
came from Robert Blum of Forrestal’s staff, who had a watching brief
over intelligence and was strongly influenced by published criticism of the
intelligence machinery. (Montague,
General Walter Bedell
Smith as Director of Central Intelligence, pages
39–41) Darling believes that Blum and a colleague on Forrestal’s staff, John Ohly, were the
architects of the investigation but also notes that Hillenkoetter himself had proposed to
Forrestal in the fall of 1947
that at the start of the new system under the National Security Act of 1947,
it was a good time to take stock in the intelligence field.
(Darling, The Central
Intelligence Agency, pages 298–301) Others may have shared
Hillenkoetter’s idea.
Whatever the source of Dulles’ inquiry
(and all of the above accounts may be correct), there seems to have been an
uneasiness about the intelligence system. The controversies that had
engrossed the intelligence agencies were not purely bureaucratic struggles.
They represented strongly held differences of view in which there was often
merit on more than one side of the
case. Some of the criticism also seems to have come from within CIA,
reflecting internal differences about how the agency should function.
Perhaps more than anything else, whether justified or not, there was
impatience and concern over a perceived lack of “intelligence success,” a
sense that the U.S. intelligence system was inadequate and its
accomplishments limited at best, and a feeling that the resources invested
had not produced commensurate results.
In April 1948, the survey group’s executive secretary expressed some of this
thinking when he complained that the “CIA has not performed well or not
performed at all its two functions of coordinating government intelligence
activities and of correlating the evaluation of intelligence. CIA’s mission
and actual operations within both these fields are uncertain, undefined and
subject to much controversy and bitterness,” and he agreed with other
government agencies’ “criticisms that CIA is organized as a top heavy
bureaucracy and is hampered by a predominance of military personnel in key
positions.” (Document 344)
The Dulles survey group seems to have
taken a fairly activist approach from the beginning. As noted earlier,
Kennan consulted Dulles about the psychological warfare
problem in April 1948, and in the following month, under the stimulus of
NSC debate on covert operations, the
survey group produced an “interim report” on the relationship between secret
intelligence and secret operations. Later in May, Forrestal and Lovett invited Dulles
to meet with them to discuss the subject and in the course of the
conversation offered him the job of heading up covert operations under the
emerging “autonomous” arrangements. Dulles declined. (See the section on Psychological and
Political Warfare)
In another memorandum of June 4, 1948, the Dulles inquiry’s executive secretary argued that the group
must decide on the type of report it wished to submit to the National
Security Council, and continued:
“In deciding this we must know more clearly the premises that
underlie our work. For example, it now appears that even though it
is generally recognized that Admiral
Hillenkoetter is not entirely satisfactory as
Director of Central Intelligence there is no readiness to replace
him at present. On the other hand, there is a willingness
approaching enthusiasm to dispense with the services of Wright (and presumably certain
others with him) and Galloway. If this is the case, then we may want to
work directly with Hillenkoetter in bringing about necessary reforms
within CIA and in the relations between CIA and other agencies.”
(Document 346)
There was also a separate inquiry into intelligence in 1948 by the Hoover Commission’s Committee on National
Security Organization (also known as the Eberstadt committee). Moreover, in the aftermath of the
Bogota riots of April 1948, which broke out during the Inter-American
Foreign Ministers Conference, a Congressional investigation into the
handling of intelligence on the disturbances led to recriminations between the Department of State
and CIA and to widespread press allegations of an “intelligence
failure.”
Although the Intelligence Advisory Committee was fairly quiescent during
1948, this seems to have been mainly because it met so few times during the
year. This may have reflected in part a sense that the Dulles inquiry presaged major changes, but
it is also possible that Hillenkoetter was simply trying to reduce frictions by
convening the committee as little as possible. A number of unsettling
questions persisted, however. One of the most serious was the vexing issue
of “strategic and national policy intelligence.” The Department of State in
its presentation to the Dulles survey
group strongly criticized CIA for duplicating departmental intelligence
analysis rather than exercising its coordinating function by using the
departmental agencies as part of the national intelligence process. (Document 354) This issue was to break out again
next year with renewed vigor after presentation of the Dulles report.
Although a considerable amount of source material is available on the
1947–1948 period, the same tendency toward formal bureaucratic documentation
noted earlier is even more evident. At a good many key junctures, there is
no written record that takes the reader behind the scenes into the policy
process. Compared to 1946 and 1947, when the IAB met fairly often, the absence of IAC minutes from the fall of 1947 through the end of 1948
eliminates one of the major sources for intelligence history during this
period. Some of the material connected with the Dulles inquiry gives a sense of what lies behind the more
formal documentation, but in general much reading between the lines is
required.
From the beginning of 1949 to the outbreak of the Korean war in June 1950,
the national intelligence system was preoccupied with the Dulles Report and its aftermath, the effort
to put into effect the survey group’s recommendations on the organization
and management of the national intelligence effort. Although the
intelligence structure continued to develop and take shape at the working
level, there is an inescapable sense that at the policymaking levels this
was a period of drift and uncertainty, in which there was a marked inability
to resolve conflicts or to solve problems.
The Dulles Report was a long and
complicated document covering a wide span of activities by the Central
Intelligence Agency and the departmental intelligence elements. Overall, the
Dulles survey group criticized
the Central Intelligence Agency for failure to perform its coordinating
functions adequately, for failing to fulfill its assigned responsibilities
to produce national intelligence, and for poor management of both itself and
its interdepartmental responsibilities. The report made no recommendations
for changes in existing legislation and agreed that the National Security
Council was the proper supervising body for the Central Intelligence Agency.
But it urged much closer liaison between the Agency and the Secretaries of State and Defense. (An
extract from the report is printed as Document
358; the entire report is in the Supplement.)
The Dulles Report was particularly
critical of the Central Intelligence Agency’s management of the intelligence
process. On the “most vital problem of coordination of intelligence
activities,” for example, it “emphasized that coordination can most
effectively be achieved by mutual agreement among the various agencies. With
the right measure of leadership on the part of the Central Intelligence
Agency, a major degree of coordination can be accomplished in that manner.”
(Document 358) On national intelligence
(intelligence estimates), the Dulles
committee was similarly blunt: “With one or two significant exceptions,
whose occurrence was largely fortuitous, the Central Intelligence Agency has
not as yet effectively carried out this most important function.”
(Ibid.)
The report went on to recommend that the Central Intelligence Agency should
draw the departmental agencies more deeply into the estimative process and
replace its Office of Reports and Estimates (whose performance the survey
group criticized) with a small estimates division which would synthesize the
estimative contributions of the other agencies. Finally, the Dulles Report proposed that the
Intelligence Advisory Committee be revitalized so as to consider and pass
upon all estimates and to become collectively responsible for them.
In the chapter on “The Direction of the Central Intelligence Agency,” the
report was harsh in its criticisms. While acknowledging the difficulties of
the CIA’s work, the strong pressures to show results, and the short period
of time which the Agency had to “demonstrate substantial accomplishments,”
the survey group nonetheless complained that the “directing staff of the
Central Intelligence Agency has not demonstrated an adequate understanding
of the mandate of the organization or the ability to discharge that mandate
effectively,” and it proceeded to detail the CIA’s unsatisfactory working
relations with other departments. Finally, on the question of whether the
Director of Central Intelligence should be a military officer or a civilian,
the report declared “that the Director should be civilian because we are
convinced that continuity of tenure is essential and complete independence
of Service ties desirable for carrying out the duties of the Director. The
post cannot properly be filled as a mere tour of duty between military
assignments. Unless there is such continuity of service and complete
independence of action, the Director will not be able to build up the esprit
de corps, the technical efficiency, the loyalty of home staff and field
workers, which are essential to the success of the enterprise.” (See the
Supplement)
Given the nature of the Dulles report,
and in particular its strong criticism of the management and direction of
the Central Intelligence Agency, Hillenkoetter’s position as Director of Central Intelligence
had obviously become a difficult
one. He was certainly aware that senior officials at the Department of State
and elsewhere believed that he should be replaced. The adoption of NSC 10/2 by the NSC 6 months earlier had been, in a sense, a limited vote of
no-confidence in Hillenkoetter. The
Dulles Report signified more
explicit vote of disapproval. Nonetheless, Hillenkoetter remained as Director of Central Intelligence
for another 22 months after its submission. During this period his
effectiveness in the position was reduced, and there was an impasse over the
reform of the intelligence system. But, for whatever reason, Hillenkoetter remained in office.
The Central Intelligence Agency comments on the Dulles Report were submitted to the Executive Secretary of
the National Security Council on February 28, 1949. (Extracts are printed as
Document 371; the full text is in the
Supplement) The tone was set in the first paragraph, which stated: “The
observations of the Committee are, in general, accurate, and its objectives
are sound; its conclusions, however, are, in many respects, faulty, and the
recommendations for their attainment are, in many cases, impracticable.”
(Document 371) In general, the CIA’s
memorandum of comments, which rejected most of the Dulles Report’s basic findings, was as
sharp in the tone of its defense as the Dulles Report had been in its criticisms. The report’s
criticism of the Agency’s performance in the field of national intelligence
estimates drew a particularly strong rejoinder, perhaps because the report
had been highly specific in its proposals for remedies, most of which were
unacceptable to the Agency.
The CIA also rejected the Dulles
Report’s proposal that the Intelligence Advisory Committee assume collective
responsibility for national intelligence estimates. It claimed instead that
“the Central Intelligence Agency has sole responsibility for its estimates …
and does not share this responsibility collectively with the members of the
Intelligence Advisory Committee.” (Ibid.) The comments further charged that
the “Report does not reflect a clear understanding of this vital aspect of
the coordination theory. To the Committee, ‘national’ intelligence is merely
‘coordinated’ intelligence, and coordinated intelligence is joint
intelligence, at the mercy of departmental bias.” (Ibid.)
At only one point in the CIA memorandum is there a glimpse of the personal
feelings that must have been engendered by the situation. Concurring with
the Dulles committee’s statement that
continuity of service was required for the Director of Central Intelligence,
the CIA memorandum elaborated on the deleterious effects on employee morale
and productivity resulting from changes of directors and organization. This
harm, it added with scarcely veiled sarcasm, “was particularly noticeable
last Fall just before election when literally dozens of rumors were extant
in Washington that one of the Committee members was to become Director of
Central Intelligence as soon as the election was over.” (Ibid.)
The Navy and the Department of State also reacted to the Dulles Report. Admiral Inglis, Director of Naval Intelligence,
reasserted in a memorandum of March 4, 1949, his long-held position that the
Intelligence Advisory Committee should be explicitly reconstituted as a
board of directors superior to the Director of Central Intelligence. (See
the Supplement)
The Department of State recommendations emphasized other changes that
reflected the Department’s major concerns and objectives in the intelligence
field at the time: active IAC participation
with the Director of Central Intelligence “in the continuing coordination of
intelligence activities and in the production of finished estimates;” CIA
utilization of “the facilities of the IAC
members who should assume collective responsibility for them;” integration
of secret operations and secret intelligence “in a single self-administered
office within CIA;” and appointment of a civilian “of considerable stature
and prominence, possessing the requisite qualifications of experience and
willingness to serve,” as Director of Central Intelligence. (Document 378)
When the National Security Council met to consider the Dulles findings on April 7, 1949, it was
confronted not only with a bulky report consisting of lengthy analyses and
many complex recommendations, but also with a number of papers from the
intelligence agencies offering comments, observations, or dissents. It was
manifestly impossible for the NSC itself to
sort out such a large volume of proposals and recommendations and it was
decided that the Secretaries of State and Defense, as the two members of the
Council most directly affected, should arrange for the preparation of a more
concise document for further Council consideration. (Document 380) The two Secretaries designated General
Joseph T. McNarney (an adviser to the Secretary of
Defense) and Carlisle H. Humelsine
(Executive Secretary of the Department of State) for this purpose.
The resulting document, formally designated as NSC 50 and more familiarly known as the
McNarney Report, was submitted to the NSC on July 1, 1949. (Document 384) In effect, it reduced the Dulles Report to its recommendations
(omitting most of the analysis and commentary) and commented on them,
endorsing some, disagreeing in whole or in part with others, and proposing
alternative or modified courses of action. For example, the
McNarney Report agreed that the IAC should be more active in intelligence
coordination and proposed that the Director of Central Intelligence should
be formally designated the chairman of the IAC. It also endorsed the criticism of deficiencies in national
intelligence, but rejected the proposal for the collective responsibility of
the DCI and the IAC in the estimative process (apparently equating this with
requiring unanimous agreement). Instead, the McNarney
Report recommended a procedure under which all intelligence estimates would
either be concurred in by the
IAC or, in those cases where agreement
could not be reached, there would be concurrent submissions of dissenting
views with the estimate.
NSC 50 further proposed that CIA “should
interpret and follow the NSC Intelligence
Directives so as to refrain as far as possible from competitive intelligence
activities in the production of research intelligence estimates,” and it
concurred only in part in the Dulles
committee’s criticism about military officers in key CIA positions,
recommending instead that the matter be worked out by the DCI in collaboration with the Secretaries of
State and Defense. On the question of the directorship,
McNarney agreed on the importance of continuity,
suggesting that the director should be a civilian or, if a military or
foreign service officer, either retired or serving a final tour of duty.
Finally, the McNarney Report gave a limited endorsement
to the Dulles Report’s overall
strictures on CIA’s leadership, while softening the criticism and labeling
it “too sweeping.”
The aftermath of the Dulles and
McNarney Reports extended over the following year
and beyond. In a series of documents known as the “Four Problems,” the
Department of State proposed an enhancement of the IAC through the strengthening of its Standing Committee and its
secretariat; agreed ground rules governing the production of national
(estimative) intelligence; and a general curtailment of research and
analytical activity by CIA in favor of the Departments. In general, the
thrust of the paper was to structure the estimative process along lines that
would increase the participation of the Departmental intelligence components
in the process and carefully define CIA’s coordinating and synthesizing
role. (Document 393)
CIA rejected most of the Department of State proposals as well as the
Dulles Report’s recommendations
concerning the mechanism for producing estimates. In May 1950, a joint
State–Defense proposal (the Webb
Report or Webb–Magruder Report) on the organization of
work on national estimates was presented, again proposing detailed rules
governing the estimative process and defining a more limited central role
for the CIA in the production of estimates. It was not forwarded to
Hillenkoetter until July,
however. By then the Korean war had broken out, which distracted attention
from these proposals, and by October, Hillenkoetter had returned to the Navy and General Walter Bedell Smith had become Director of
Central Intelligence. Most of the intelligence problems with which the
government had been grappling in the period since the Dulles Report was submitted were still
unresolved. But the war and the marked differences in style (and situation)
between Hillenkoetter and Smith would create a new environment for
dealing with them.
317. Central Intelligence Group Paper No. 24/1Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–276. Confidential. Attached to a May 13 memorandum from Earman to the members of the
Intelligence Advisory Board, which noted that it was circulated at the
request of the Director of Central Intelligence as an alternative to
CIG 24 (Document
189).Washington, undated.
INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD PROCEDURES
The Problem
To establish procedure for the Intelligence Advisory Board.
Facts
Although certain basic policies are established by the President’s letter of
22 January 1946 and by subsequent N.I.A.
Directives, no procedure has been formally agreed upon for the
accomplishment of the mission of the
I.A.B.
Discussion
In accordance with N.I.A. Directive No.
1,Document
141. paragraph 3, all recommendations to the N.I.A., initiated by the Director of Central
Intelligence and related to the coordination of such of the activities of
the intelligence agencies of the departments as related to the national
security, are referred to the I.A.B. for
concurrence or comment before submission to the N.I.A.
At its 9th meeting, the N.I.A. established
the procedure it desired for the implementation of N.I.A. Directive No. 5, paragraph 3.Document 160. Paragraph 3
reads “the Director of Central Intelligence is hereby authorized and
directed to act for this Authority in coordinating all Federal foreign
intelligence activities related to the national security to ensure that
the over-all policies and objectives established by this Authority are
properly implemented and executed.” The reference to the procedure
established at the NIA’s 9th meeting is
to the NIA’s approval of Vandenberg’s recommendation that the
Director of Central Intelligence should “operate within his jurisdiction
as an agent of the Secretaries of State, War and the Navy.”
The I.A.B. has itself agreed upon an
acceptable procedure for implementation of N.I.A. Directive No. 1, paragraph 6, which relates to
intelligence reports prepared by the Central Intelligence Group.
Recommendations requested of the Director of Central Intelligence by the
N.I.A. are not considered as falling
into the pattern provided in N.I.A.
Directive No. 1, paragraph 3. Nor is it considered that it was the intent of
the President or of the N.I.A. that all
reports, papers, and statements
prepared by the Director of Central Intelligence for presentation to the
N.I.A. be first submitted to the I.A.B. for advisory opinion. The Director of
Central Intelligence as a member of the N.I.A. can not correctly make the I.A.B., which was created solely for the purpose of advising
him, privy to all matters before the N.I.A.
Similarly as the agent of the N.I.A. he can
not make the I.A.B. privy to all of his
relations with the N.I.A.
Since it is not the current practice of the N.I.A. to formalize agenda in advance of its meetings, it is
impossible for the Secretary, N.I.A., to
undertake to supply N.I.A. agenda to the
I.A.B. At such time as the N.I.A. may formalize such agenda, distribution
thereof will necessarily be determined by the N.I.A. and not by the Director of Central Intelligence or the
I.A.B.
After careful consideration, it is believed that no procedure should be
established which requires the I.A.B.–D.C.I.–N.I.A.
channel for the presentation of opinions by an Intelligence Chief to his
respective departmental head. No such procedure appears contemplated by the
President’s letter nor subsequent N.I.A.
Directives. This opinion is further borne out by the absence of any
provision requiring the submission to the N.I.A. by the Director of Central Intelligence of any
recommendation, paper, etc. originated elsewhere than with him. Thus it
would appear that any recommendation originated by a member of the I.A.B., even though it may receive concurrence
of all other I.A.B. members, can not
properly be submitted to the N.I.A. by the
Director of Central Intelligence unless it is accepted by him as a
recommendation from him. Any such recommendation would apparently have to be
submitted individually by each I.A.B. member
to his respective N.I.A. member.
Conclusion
It is concluded that a formalization of I.A.B. procedures is appropriate.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Intelligence Advisory Board adopt the following
procedures for its consideration of recommendations properly coming before
it for advisory opinion: All recommendations envisaged by paragraph 3b of the President’s
letter of 22 January 1946 will be submitted by the Director of
Central Intelligence to the I.A.B.
in writing, accompanied by copies of such papers or statement with
which the Director of Central Intelligence may contemplate
accompanying the recommendations upon presentation to the N.I.A. These recommendations will have
attached a voting slip providing opportunity for (a) concurrence;
(b) comment; (c) request for an I.A.B. meeting to express oral advisory opinion. Voting
slips will be returned to
the Secretary, N.I.A., within one
calendar week after receipt. If any I.A.B. member so requests, an I.A.B. meeting shall be promptly called by the Director
of Central Intelligence. The Director of Central Intelligence shall
be the sole judge of the advisability of referring any proposed
recommendation to a special study group or for otherwise delaying
the submission of the recommendation to the N.I.A. If he considers such reference or other delay
inadvisable, he shall give I.A.B.
members one calendar week for the submission of any desired
statement of non-concurrence, the basis of which will accompany the
recommendation to the N.I.A.All implementations envisaged by N.I.A. Directive No. 5, paragraph 3, will be submitted
by the Director of Central Intelligence to the I.A.B. in writing, accompanied by a
voting slip providing opportunity for (a) comment, and (b) calling
of a meeting. Written comment by any I.A.B. member, after consideration by the Director of
Central Intelligence, will be filed by the Secretary, N.I.A., with the file copy of the
related implementation. Oral comment will be fully spread on the
minutes of the I.A.B. meeting, if
held. Any implementation modified by the Director of Central
Intelligence as the result of I.A.B.
advisory opinions will be distributed by the Secretary, N.I.A., to the I.A.B. The decision to hold subsequent I.A.B. meetings or otherwise to delay
the issuance of any proposed implementation rests with the Director
of Central Intelligence.The Secretary, N.I.A. shall
circulate to I.A.B. members all
proper recommendations, proposed directives, papers, etc., which any
I.A.B. member may originate for
consideration by the Director of Central Intelligence and the I.A.B. Each shall be accompanied by a
voting slip providing opportunity for (a) concurrence; (b) comment;
(c) request for meeting.Unless otherwise directed by the N.I.A., the Secretary, N.I.A., shall circulate to the I.A.B. copies of all minutes, decisions, and directives
approved by or issued by or in the name of the N.I.A.
318. Minutes of the 13th Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Secret. The meeting was held in the North
Interior Building. The text printed reflects changes in a correction
sheet issued on May 26, which was attached to the minutes. See the
Supplement.Washington, May 15, 1947, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Rear Admiral R. H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairMembers PresentMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMaj. General George C.
McDonald, Assistant Chief of Air Staff–2Brig. General Walter E. Todd, Deputy Director of
Intelligence, W.D.G.S.Capt. Abel C. Sabalot, Acting Chief of
Intelligence, O.N.I.Also PresentMr. Donald Edgar, Central
Intelligence GroupMr. Park Armstrong, Department
of StateColonel Riley F. Ennis, U.S.A.Capt. R. K. Davis, U.S.N.Colonel E. J. Treacy, U.S.A.Lieut. Colonel Frank B. Chappell, U.S.A.Major W. C. Baird, U.S.A.SecretariatMr. J.S. Earman, Secretary,
N.I.A.
1. Letter of Appreciation to Lieut. General Hoyt S. Vandenberg
The Director of Central Intelligence brought to the attention of the Board a
proposed letter of IAB appreciation to
General Vandenberg submitted by
the Chief of Naval Intelligence. The letter was signed by Mr. Eddy and General McDonald and given to Captain
Davis to secure the signature of Admiral Inglis. The letter will then be returned to
the Secretary, N.I.A., who will secure the
signature of General Chamberlin upon
his return to Washington, after which it will be forwarded to General Vandenberg.
2. Coordination of Intelligence
Production (I.A.B. #1)Document 195.
The Director stated if there were no comments on paragraphs 2 a (1) and (2)
of the proposed N.I.A. Directive on the
“Coordination of Intelligence Production,” he wished to recommend that
paragraph 2 a (3) be amended to read as follows: “When completed as provided
for above, this outline and initial allocations of production and
maintainence responsibilities shall be issued in the name of the N.I.A. by the Director of Central Intelligence as an implementation of this
Directive. It is expected …” (The remainder of the paragraph to read as
presently written.)
Colonel Ennis noted that General Chamberlin was extremely concerned about
the exact wording of this paragraph since he felt that its contents were the
backbone of the allocation of personnel, the organization of various
agencies for production, and, therefore, that the outline of basic
intelligence and initial allocations of production and maintenance
responsibilities should be approved on the highest level and that he,
General Chamberlin, was particularly
anxious to have the phraseology “submitted for N.I.A. approval” included in the paragraph.
After considerable discussion where it was noted by Captain
Sabalot that the outline of all basic intelligence
and tentative allocations of production and maintenance responsibilities
should be submitted for N.I.A. approval
rather than issued in the name of the N.I.A.
by the Director of Central Intelligence,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Agreed to amend paragraph 2 a (3) to read as follows: “When completed
this outline and tentative allocations of production and maintenance
responsibilities shall be submitted for N.I.A. approval and issued as an implementation of this
Directive. It is expected …” (The remainder of the paragraph to read
as presently written.)
The Director stated he wished to recommend that the last sentence of
paragraph 2 a (4) be amended to read as follows: “The National Intelligence
Surveys will be distributed in such form as shall be determined by the
Director of Central Intelligence and the agencies concerned.”
After some discussion, where it was noted by Major Baird
that a proposed outline of National Intelligence SurveysReference is to a program of basic (“static”)
intelligence studies. was now being circulated to the agencies
for approval,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Agreed to amend the last sentence of paragraph 2 a (4) as recommended
by the Director, with the exception that the word “distributed” be
changed to “disseminated.”
The Director then recommended the word “sometimes” be placed between the
words “them” and “without” in paragraph 2 b (1). After some discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Agreed to insert the word “usually” between the words “them” and
“without” in paragraph 2 b (1).
The Director stated he wished to recommend that paragraph 2 b (3) be amended
to read as follows: “Interagency dissemination of current intelligence shall
be subject to the overall planning and coordination of the Director of
Central Intelligence and shall be based on stated requirements of the
agencies and upon their known missions and dominant interest.” After
discussion where Mr. Eddy stated that
the Department of State preferred that this paragraph be left unchanged, and
Captain Davis stated that ONI has always held the view that dissemination of current
intelligence had been going satisfactorily so far, and further, to
centralize dissemination in this case when there are so few agencies
involved was needless,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Agreed that paragraph 2 b (3) should stand as written.
The Director stated that the words “production capabilities” had unwittingly
crept into the wording of paragraph 2 c (2). He recommended that these words
be omitted and the word “or” be added after the word “responsibility.”
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Approved the deletion of the words “production capabilities” and the
addition of the word “or” between the words “responsibility” and
“recognition.”
The Director recommended that the word “intelligence” be added between the
words “Any” and “agency” in paragraph 2 c (3).
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Approved this recommendation without discussion.
The Director then stated A–2 had recommended that paragraph 2 c (4) be
amended to read as follows: “For the purposes of paragraph (3) above, the
following division of interests, subject to refinement through a continuous
program of coordination by the Director of Central Intelligence, shall serve
as a general delineation of dominant interests.
Political, Cultural, Sociological Intelligence—State DepartmentMilitary Intelligence—War DepartmentNaval Intelligence—Navy DepartmentAir Intelligence—Army Air ForcesEconomic and Scientific Intelligence—Each agency in accordance with
its respective needs”
After some discussion, where it was pointed out by Captain
Davis that ONI was
willing to agree to the amendment of this paragraph as proposed by A–2, with the suggestion that
consideration be given to placing this paragraph as a new general paragraph
4, and rewording of the first line to read as follows: “For the purposes of
intelligence production the following division …”
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Approved the changes as recommended by A–2, together with the
additional change suggested by Captain Davis in
paragraph 2 c 4.
General Todd then stated that paragraph 2 d (2) had
previously read, when discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee: “The Director of
Central Intelligence shall produce and disseminate national intelligence.”
After some discussion
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Agreed to amend paragraph 2 d (2) to read as indicated by General
Todd.
The Director stated he wished to recommend that one of the following
revisions of paragraph 2 d (3) be approved by the Intelligence Advisory Board:“The Director of Central Intelligence shall with the advice of the
IAB agencies plan and develop
the production of national intelligence with due regard to the
production capabilities and dominant interests of the Intelligence
Advisory Board and other departmental intelligence agencies
concerned.”“The Director of Central Intelligence shall plan and develop the
production of national intelligence in coordination with the IAB agencies in order that he may
obtain from them, within the limits of their capabilities, the
departmental intelligence which will assist him in the production of
national intelligence.”
After some discussion, the Intelligence Advisory
Board:
Agreed to adopt the revision of paragraph 2 d (3) as indicated in b
above.
The Director stated he also wished to recommend that paragraph 2 d (4) be
amended to read as follows: “The Director of Central Intelligence shall by
agreement with the pertinent agency or agencies request and receive such
special estimates, reports and periodic briefs or summaries to be prepared
by the individual departments or agencies in their fields of dominant
interest or in accordance with their production capabilities as may be
necessary in the production of intelligence reports or estimates undertaken
mutually or by the direction of the President or the National Intelligence
Authority.”
After considerable discussion, where it was brought out that estimates,
reports, and periodic briefs or summaries prepared by the individual
departments or agencies in their fields of dominant interest or in
accordance with their production capabilities were considered to be those
prepared in the past, present and future,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Agreed to amend paragraph 2 d (4) to read as follows: “The Director
of Central Intelligence shall by agreement with the pertinent agency
or agencies request and receive such special estimates, reports, and
periodic briefs or summaries prepared by the individual departments
or agencies in their fields of dominant interest or in accordance
with their production capabilities as may be necessary in the
production of intelligence reports or estimates undertaken
mutually.”
The Director suggested and
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Agreed that the word “sufficient” in the second and fifth lines of
general paragraph 3 be changed to “adequate.”
Captain Davis stated that ONI felt that before this Directive is issued by the National
Intelligence Authority, it should go to the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a
request that they consent to merge the JANIS program with NIS, and
further that the Director of Central Intelligence request the Director of
Intelligence, W.D.G.S., to consent to merge
SID with NIS.
The Director stated it was his understanding that the Joint Chiefs of Staff
were preparing a paper recommending that JANIS be merged with NIS.
However, in the event such a paper did not materialize, it was his desire
that the proposed N.I.A. Directive on the
“Coordination of Intelligence Production,” as amended at this meeting, be
forwarded to the National Intelligence Authority recommending that the
N.I.A. refer the proposed Directive to
the Joint Chiefs of Staff for comment with reference to the merger of JANIS and NIS, and further that a letter would be prepared to the Director of
Intelligence, W.D.G.S., recommending that
SID also be merged with NIS.
The Director stated he did not agree altogether with paragraph 6 d of the
report of the Ad Hoc Committee, particularly that part which stated “with
the aid of as many sub-committees as necessary.” He went on to say that if
G–2 and JIC transferred to the Central Intelligence Group the SID and JANIS
programs, he believed that the present IAB
Ad Hoc Committee, as an interagency planning board, plus working committees
similar to that now operating on the defense project under ORE guidance, would be capable of efficient
handling.
Captain Davis stated only one Ad Hoc Committee had been
recommended, unless it was necessary to get down to the JISPB, the people
who were familiar with the JANIS program.
He further stated that no definite
number of sub-committees were recommended except as might be necessary to
initiate the production of NIS.
Colonel Ennis stated that he was in agreement with the
Director and that the permanent IAB
Committee, if appointed, could invite representatives from the agencies
indicated in paragraph 6 d of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee.
After further discussion, the Intelligence Advisory
Board:
Agreed that the presently established IAB Ad Hoc Committee would in fact be the committee
recommended in paragraph 6 d of the above-mentioned Ad Hoc Committee
report and further that representatives of the other agencies would
be invited to sit as members as they were needed.
3. Action by the Intelligence Advisory
Board on Matters Submitted to the National Intelligence Authority
(C.I.G. 24 and C.I.G. 24/1)Documents 189 and 317.
After some discussion The Intelligence Advisory
Board:
Agreed to hold this paper over until the next meeting in order to
give the members of the Board an opportunity to study the
alternative proposal contained in C.I.G. 24/1.
4. Amendment of the Definition of
Strategic and National Policy Intelligence (I.A.B. #2)Dated May 9. (Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–280) See the
Supplement.
The Director stated that he did not feel it was within his province to
recommend to the National Intelligence Authority that that Authority amend
the definition of strategic and national policy intelligence after such
definition had in fact been approved by the N.I.A.
The Director noted that any member of the Intelligence Advisory Board had a
perfect right to appeal direct to his N.I.A.
member.
After considerable discussion, where it was noted by Captain
Davis that ONI
wished to gain the views of the other IAB
members on the present definition of strategic and national policy
intelligence,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Agreed, in the absence of Admiral Inglis, to postpone further discussion on this
paper.
5. Exploitation of Enemy Document
Repositories (C.I.G. 21 and C.I.G. 21/1)Dated
November 21, 1946 and April 10, 1947. (Both in Central Intelligence
Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See the Supplement.
The Director stated that in view of the fact that the cost ($82,950) of
carrying out the recommendations contained in the report of the Ad Hoc
Committee appointed to explore the document situation was not included in
the CIG budget, and further that the budget
had not been approved, he wished to recommend that action be deferred on
this paper pending approval of the CIG
budget.
After some discussion, The Intelligence Advisory
Board:
Agreed to defer action on C.I.G. 21/1 as
recommended by the Director.
6. Report by Mr. Eddy
Mr. Eddy informed the IAB in detail of an agreement reached between
him and the Director with reference to certain proposed action to be taken
as a result of the House Appropriations Committee’s recommended cut in the
State Department’s budget.Possibly a reference
to the transfer from the Department of State to CIG of the Division of Map Intelligence and Cartography and
the Joint Intelligence Studies Publishing Board. (Memorandum from
Eddy to Peurifoy, June 23; National Archives
and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Records of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration—Subject Files, 1944–1947: Lot 53 D 28) See the
Supplement.
319. Minutes of the 10th Meeting of the National Intelligence
AuthoritySource: Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–245, Job 84–00473R, Box 3.
Top Secret. The meeting was held at the State Department.Washington, June 26, 1947, 10:30
a.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentSecretary of State George C.
Marshall, in the ChairSecretary of War Robert P.
PattersonSecretary of the Navy James
ForrestalFleet Admiral William D.
Leahy, Personal Representative of the PresidentRear Admiral R. H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central IntelligenceAlso PresentAssistant Secretary of War Howard C.
PetersenUnder Secretary of the Navy John L.
SullivanMr. William A. Eddy, Department
of StateMajor General S. J. Chamberlin
USA Rear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis
USN Rear Admiral E. T. Wooldridge USNMr. Donald Edgar, Central
Intelligence GroupSecretariatMr. J. S. Earman,
Secretary
Discussion of the Authority Granted the Director of
Central Intelligence by the National Intelligence Authority at its 9th
Meeting To Issue Orders and Directives
Secretary Marshall requested
Admiral Hillenkoetter to explain
the subject authority approved by the National Intelligence Authority at its
last meeting.See Document
185.
Admiral Hillenkoetter, after a brief
explanation, stated that at the present time the Director of Central
Intelligence did not need this authority and he felt that its rescission
would create a better feeling with the member Intelligence Advisory Board
agencies. However, he would be the first to request its reinstatement if
ever needed.
Secretary Patterson stated he had no
objection to the withdrawal of the authority provided it was no longer
needed.
Admiral Leahy noted if the authority
had not been used to date he did not see the necessity of its
withdrawal.
Under Secretary of the Navy Sullivan
asked Admiral Hillenkoetter if he
thought the withdrawal of the authority in question would result in better
cooperation between the member IAB
agencies.
Admiral Hillenkoetter replied that in
his opinion this was correct.
Secretary Forrestal stated the
authority granted the Director of Central Intelligence to operate within his
jurisdiction as the agent for the Secretaries of State, War and Navy and to
issue directives in their names made the CIG
appear as a Gestapo and caused unnecessary friction.
General Chamberlin, upon being
questioned by Secretary Patterson,
stated he felt Admiral Hillenkoetter
was correct in requesting the rescission of the authority.
Secretary Marshall asked whether the
withdrawal of this authority would adversely affect the status of CIG and its relationship with the agencies.
Admiral Hillenkoetter replied that on
the contrary he expected it would improve the relationship.
After further discussion,
The National Intelligence Authority:
Agreed to withdraw the following authority delegated to the Director
of Central Intelligence: “The Director of Central Intelligence shall
operate within his jurisdiction as an agent of the Secretaries of
State, War and the Navy, and the necessary authority is hereby
delegated by the Secretaries of State, War and the Navy to the
Director of Central Intelligence so that his decisions, orders and
directives shall be considered as emanating from them and shall have
full force and effect as such, provided any aggrieved agency may
have access to that agency’s Secretary and through him to the N.I.A.”
Discussion of Unfavorable Publicity Directed at the
Central Intelligence Group
Admiral Hillenkoetter stated he had
prepared a letter to the House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive
Departments for the signature of the members of the NIA with reference to the recent numerous newspaper articles
which stated that the Central Intelligence Group had usurped various
departmental functions and forced established operating organizations out of
the field.See, for example, “Army World
Intelligence Ring Reported Halted by New Agency,” The
New York Times, May 21, and Troy, Donovan and the
CIA, pp. 387, 392, and 395.
Secretary Patterson stated that the
presidential letter establishing the NIA and
the CIG was silent as to the operations of
CIG and left this responsibility to the
NIA.
Admiral Leahy stated the President
had no thoughts on the details of CIG
operations, but at the time of the issuance of the letter of 22 January 1946
the President felt he was not receiving properly coordinated intelligence
reports.
Secretary Patterson stated he had
received several inquiries with reference to the recent unfavorable
publicity of CIG clandestine activities. He
said that while he had no reason to believe that CIG was not ably performing this activity, there might be some
basis for these accusations and, therefore, he would like to hear any
comment the other members of the NIA might
have relative to replying to such inquiries.
Admiral Leahy stated it was his
opinion that clandestine operations were far less effective when operated by
more than one agency. He further stated that such operations could not be
any worse now than they were during the time he was in France prior to the
late war.
Secretary Patterson noted that NIA had the authority to delegate conduct of
clandestine operations within their respective agencies as they saw fit.
Secretary Forrestal asked Admiral Hillenkoetter if Mr. Hoover was in sympathy with the present
clandestine operations of CIG.
Admiral Hillenkoetter replied that he
was.
Secretary Forrestal stated that the
NIA had to rely on the soundness of the
organization to which the operation of clandestine activities was delegated
and further he did not see how answers could be given to unfavorable
publicity in this regard due to security reasons.
Secretary Marshall stated that it was
his opinion if the operation of clandestine activities were, for example,
centered in the War Department, the Navy Department would not agree, and
conversely, if these activities were centered in the Navy Department, the
War Department would not agree. Therefore, they must be in a “neutral”
agency.
Secretary Forrestal suggested that
Admiral Hillenkoetter contact
the leading newspaper publishers with reference to the printing of
criticisms of CIG.
Admiral Hillenkoetter replied that
this had already been done.
After further discussion,
The National Intelligence Authority:
Signed the letter to the House Committee on Expenditures in the
Executive Departments.Document 135.
Report by the Director of Central Intelligence
Admiral Hillenkoetter gave a brief
resume of the following report:
“Atomic Energy Commission
“It will be recalled that at that last meeting you approved the issuance of
NIA Directive No. 9, providing for the
transfer from the Manhattan Engineering District to the CIG of military intelligence personnel and the
centralization in CIG of the coordinating
responsibility for collection, production, and dissemination of intelligence
pertaining to foreign atomic energy developments. Immediately thereafter
informal working agreements were established, and we have every reason to
hope that a formal agreement is imminent. Admiral Souers is working with the AEC toward this goal.Souers’ report to the Atomic Energy
Commission is in the Supplement. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 101.5/7–347)
“State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee
“Running a close second to the Atomic Energy Commission in importance as a
customer of CIG and, in my opinion, probably
leading it eventually on the basis of volume is the State–War–Navy
Coordinating Committee.
“SWNCC is the interdepartmental or national
policy group; CIG is the interdepartmental
or national intelligence group. National policy should be built on national
intelligence. A most satisfactory formal liaison has been established by
CIG with the SWNCC secretariat. I plan personally discussing with Mr.
Saltzman, the new Chairman of SWNCC, the manner in which CIG can further assist through the preparation
of those intelligence reports and studies which the SWNCC committees should have, particularly
right now, the Ad Hoc Committee for Economic Aid.
“Joint Research and Development Board
“In implementation of established agreements between the Joint Research and
Development Board and CIG, wherein CIG acts as the scientific intelligence
facility of the Joint Research and Development Board, detailed working
arrangements have been established, formulation of a National Scientific
Intelligence Program has been initiated, and JRDB has started a flow of requests to CIG for scientific and technical intelligence. Consideration
has been given by CIG in collaboration with
the JRDB and the IAB agencies to scientific intelligence, and CIG has made continuing progress in meeting
JRDB requirements. One weakness that
has been disclosed by CIG coordination is
the almost complete lack of fully qualified collectors of scientific
intelligence.
“Joint Chiefs of Staff
“It will be recalled that the NIA has in the
past discussed the CIG relationship to the
JCS and the confusion and duplication
which exists due to a lack of demarcation of duties between CIG and Joint Intelligence Committee of the
JCS. To date almost all CIG planning has had to be adjusted to this
continuing problem. I understand that the JIC is now considering a proposal which may resolve the matter.
I do not know its details. In fact I have no official way of knowing what
takes place in JIC. I can only hope that at
an early date the Director of Central Intelligence will be placed on the
distribution list for JIC papers and will be
invited to sit with the JIC, at least as an
observer. Without some such close tie-in, there will continue to be a sad
lack of coordination.
“CIG Intelligence
Program
“In our attempt to meet our responsibilities to the President, to yourselves
as members of the NIA, and to such special
organizations as I have mentioned above, CIG
has, as its personnel and facilities have permitted, gradually developed an
intelligence program which when fully activated will, I believe, accomplish
what was intended in the President’s originating letter of 22 January
1946.
“We believe that no military or diplomatic planning can be successfully done
except against a background of incontrovertible facts. These facts we call basic intelligence. In one
degree or another these facts are needed by each of your departments. We are
undertaking to coordinate the compilation of these facts, this basic
intelligence, in handbooks to be called National Intelligence Surveys and to
make them available in multiple copies to the departments. They will be
loose-leaf so that they can be kept currently correct and so that they can
be subdivided and distributed for specialized use. They will contain data on
foreign government organization, pertinent history, topography, population
and manpower, climate, strategic areas, health, and sanitation, etc. In a
form strictly limited to wartime military use, some basic intelligence was
compiled by the JIC in the Joint Army-Navy
Intelligence Studies. We are trying to obtain agreement that this JIC undertaking, which continues in a less
active manner, be consolidated with our National Intelligence Surveys. It is
my understanding that the JIC is supporting
this proposal before the JCS.
“Situation Reports
“Another form of intelligence reference we call Situation Reports. These
reports are to cover countries or areas, and those special international
subjects not restricted to countries or areas. They are designed to contain
a concise summary of the situation, its implications, and its possible or
probable effect on our own national security. These reports will also be
loose-leaf in form for ready revision. They will give military, naval,
political, economic, and diplomatic coverage, and the facilities of the
several agencies will be used to a maximum in their preparation.
“From time to time we hope to put out a composite overall analysis of the
world situation, based on these separate Situation Reports.
“Interagency Coordination of Production
“The line of demarcation between national intelligence and agency
intelligence is not always clear. But we try consistently to limit our
production efforts strictly to that national intelligence which is essential
to national policy planners, leaving to the agencies that agency
intelligence required for operational use of departmental officers.
“Further to avoid duplication, CIG has
prepared and the IAB has unanimously
approved a plan for the interagency coordination of the production of
intelligence. The plan attempts to insure complete coverage and eliminate
unproductive duplication. We are awaiting the comments of the JCS and the agency planners before submitting
it to the NIA.
“Our big problem in the production field is the NIA requirement that the concurrence or comment of each IAB agency to each CIG intelligence report must be obtained, excepting current
intelligence reports. I plan to review this situation personally with the
IAB.
“Current Intelligence
“By NIA Directive No. 2, CIG is required to produce current intelligence
for use of the President, the members of this Authority, and a few others.
These are the Daily and Weekly Summaries. Personally, I feel that these
summaries are pretty poor, and we are now endeavoring to make changes in
them to increase their value. Any suggestions or ideas to make them better
would be warmly received.”
Admiral Leahy commented that the
President was pleased with the contents of the daily summaries, and further
he read these summaries every day even going so far as to read the cables
attached to his copy.
Under Secretary of the Navy Sullivan
stated he thought the information contained in the CIG Weekly Summary was excellently presented.
Secretary Forrestal stated that the
veracity of the contents of the daily and weekly summaries should be without
question. He further stated that he made this point since a portion of the
information contained in a recent daily summary had not been correct.
Admiral Hillenkoetter reaffirmed his
position that there was great room for improvement.
“Collection Coordination
“Two NIA Directives have been issued
affecting the collection of intelligence. One established a program for the
overall coordination of collection activities.Document 181. Recent field surveys
by CIG officers indicate that in some posts
abroad this directive has had a positive and beneficial effect. In others
the generality of its terms has vitiated its force. A continuing study is
being made by CIG, and suggestions for
improvement will probably be made to the intelligence sections of your
departments. With recent budget cuts, the Government’s limited facilities
must be employed to their maximum efficiency to protect the national
security.
“The second Directive announced the current essentials and intelligence
objectives of this Government as regards China.NIA Directive No. 8, “National
Intelligence Requirements—China,” February 12, 1947. (National Archives
and Records Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132)
See the Supplement. The purpose behind this Directive was to pool
all agency requirements and allocate them in accordance with field
representative capabilities, thus using manpower efficiently and avoiding
duplication. Further National Intelligence Requirements are in
preparation.
“CIG Collection
“In addition to coordinating agency facilities for collection, CIG maintains centrally, for the benefit of
all, four operations.
“There is the Office of Special Operations
(Off the record remarks)Not found.
In the Office of Operations are theContact BranchDocuments BranchForeign Broadcasts Intelligence Branch
“The Contact Branch has continued to develop the exploitation of American
organizations and individuals having a foreign intelligence potential.
Interagency offices are now operating in New York, Washington, Chicago, and
San Francisco. Intelligence classified by the agencies as important has been
obtained from these contacts. In addition, a contact register is being
developed listing future potential sources.
“The Documents Branch is continuing the work of the old Washington Document
Center in the exploitation of captured documents from the Far East and is
now absorbing the German Military Document Section and the Special Document
Section of the War Department Intelligence Division. Some of these were
joint British-Canadian-American projects. This presents a difficulty because
of the lack of authority of CIG to maintain
liaison with foreign governments, a difficulty which may require NIA resolution. As the backlog of these
captured documents decreases, we hope to transfer the attention of our
translators to the exploitation of current foreign periodicals.
“The CIG, under State Department auspices,
has recently reached reciprocal agreement in principle with the British
Government. This provides for complete interchange of foreign broadcast
monitoring material between the BBC monitoring service and our Foreign
Broadcast Intelligence Branch. This reciprocal agreement is designed to
obtain economical monitoring coverage by a division of the world into U.S.
and U.K. zones of monitoring interest. The new arrangement provides for a
transfer of our monitoring station in Cairo, an area which is rapidly
becoming politically unstable, to the British Crown colony of Cyprus. The
British will assume responsibility for our transmissions from Cyprus to
London. In return for this concession, as well as for the continuation of
the wartime arrangement whereby we receive the entire British monitoring
product of BBC, CIG will transmit to London
a selected file of our Far-Eastern and Latin-American monitoring
product.
“Collection and Dissemination Coordination
“In addition to the above active collection efforts and to field
coordination, CIG is devoting much time to
the coordination of the collection efforts of the agencies here in
Washington through clearinghouse arrangements and central reading
panels.
“Other Problems
“The continued absence of legislation continues to hamper the soundest
development of CIG in several directions,
both within and without the Government.
“I believe I should bring to your attention one serious problem. CIG is being called upon by the Atomic Energy
Commission, the Joint Research and Development Board, and others for
scientific intelligence. CIG is unable fully
to meet these requirements because of the general lack of properly qualified
collectors of scientific intelligence. Some quarters have proposed the
designation of scientific attaches to missions abroad. I have no present
solution, but CIG is working closely with
Dr. Vannevar Bush to obtain, as may be
possible, qualified scientific collectors. Several plans, including one of
obtaining scientists and then giving them a course of intelligence, are
under discussion. This is admittedly a difficult and urgent problem but one
on which we are working and which we hope to solve.”
Secretary Patterson asked Admiral Hillenkoetter if the “CIG Section” in the Unification Bill was
satisfactory to CIG.
Admiral Hillenkoetter replied that it
was.
Secretary Forrestal asked Admiral Hillenkoetter if General Donovan was in agreement with the present
organization of CIG.
Admiral Hillenkoetter replied that
General Donovan, Mr.
Cheston, his principal assistant in OSS, and Allen
Dulles were in perfect agreement with the present
organization of CIG, and further that Mr.
Cheston and Mr. Dulles had agreed to appear before the Committee in CIG’s behalf. General Donovan had written a letter to the
Committee in CIG’s behalf since it was
impossible for him to appear personally due to the fact that he was out of
the country.
Discussion of Relationship Between the JCS, JIC
and the CIG
As a result of that part of Admiral
Hillenkoetter’s report on the relationship between the JCS and CIG and
the lack of demarcation of duties by the CIG
and JIC, Secretary Patterson stated he thought there had been
some previous discussion relative to the dissolution of JIC.
Admiral Hillenkoetter replied that
this was correct and that the discussion had taken place at the last NIA meeting.
Admiral Leahy stated it was his
opinion that JIC should be abolished.
However, JCS had under consideration a plan
for collaboration between JCS and CIG.
Secretary Patterson asked General
Chamberlin if the JIC at present served any useful function.
General Chamberlin replied in the
affirmative, and noted if JIC were abolished
and its functions assumed by CIG it would
thus make an outside civilian agency a party to projected war plans.
Admiral Leahy noted that as a
possible solution to this problem intelligence information required by the
JCS could be furnished by CIG to JIC,
who, in turn, could put the information in the form desired by the JCS.
Transfer of the State Department’s MAP Intelligence
Division and State Representatives Serving With JISPB to CIG
Admiral Hillenkoetter stated at the
request of the State Department member of the Intelligence Advisory Board an
investigation of CIG appropriations was made
and it appears that CIG can carry these
functions for the next fiscal year. The work and product of the subject
organizations are of considerable importance to all the member agencies and
it had been agreed by the Director of Central Intelligence and the State
Department member of the IAB, subject to
IAB and NIA approval, that CIG would
take over these activities.
Secretary Marshall stated it would be
appreciated if the NIA would approve the
transfer of the above-mentioned activities to CIG. He noted that there was a total of 106 employees
involved.
After some discussion,
The National Intelligence Authority
Agreed to the transfer of the State Department’s Map Intelligence
Division and that Department’s representatives serving with the JISPB to
the CIG and directed the Director of
Central Intelligence to work out the details with the proper authorities
in the State Department.
Secretary Marshall stated he was
still troubled by the debates in Congress over the allotment of money for
intelligence activities, and further it was his opinion that the allotment
of funds for intelligence activities should be appropriated in a lump sum
and controlled by one person.
Secretary Marshall went on to state
that Congressman TaberRepresentative John Taber (Republican–New York),
Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. was in agreement
and during recent discussions on the appropriation of funds for intelligence
activities Mr. Taber stated it was necessary for him to
talk to twenty-six different
people. Secretary Marshall said it
was his belief that the tenor of the conversations of NIA members in appearing before Congressional
Committees on the subject of appropriation of funds for intelligence
purposes should be that “in order to get our money’s worth” the amount of
such appropriations must be kept secret and some one person had to be
trusted in the disbursement of these funds.
320. Minutes of the 14th Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Secret. The meeting was held in the North
Interior Building.Washington, July 17, 1947, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Rear Admiral R. H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairMembers PresentMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMaj. General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Director of Intelligence, WDGSRear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceMaj. General George C.
McDonald, Assistant Chief of Air Staff–2Also PresentMr. Donald Edgar, Central
Intelligence GroupMr. Park Armstrong, Department
of StateColonel Riley F. Ennis, WDGSCapt. R. K. Davis, USNLt. Colonel Edgar J. Treacy, WDGSMajor W. C. Baird, AAF–2SecretariatMr. J. S. Earman, Secretary,
N.I.A.
1. Employment of Reserve Officers as
Agents (IAB 3On June 30 the NIA’s
secretary, at the request of the Acting Chief of Naval Intelligence,
circulated IAB 3, “Employment of Reserve
Officers as Agents,” recommending that reserve military or naval
personnel not be used as agents unless “the information is most
important and can not otherwise be obtained.” (Ibid., HS/HC–280) See the
Supplement. and IAB 3/1IAB 3/1, July 15,
summarizing an ICAPS study, suggested
that employment of agents, military or civilian, for espionage or
counter-espionage by agencies other than CIG ran counter to the intent of NIA Directive No. 5. Reservists acting in a civilian
capacity as observers and reporters for their parent agencies did not
fall within the definition of espionage or counter-espionage agents, but
their activities should be coordinated in accordance with NIA Directive No. 7. (Central Intelligence
Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–280) See the Supplement.)
The Director of Central Intelligence opened the meeting with the statement
that he wished to add the following to the last sentence of paragraph 5 of the Enclosure to IAB 3/1The
sentence reads: “Consequently, this practice [use of reservists as
observers and reporters for parent agencies] must be considered a purely
departmental undertaking unrelated to the special operations of CIG [,] but all reserve personnel of the
Armed Services residing abroad in civilian capacity should be used as
observers and reporters of intelligence only by their respective
departments.” “except those employed by CIG” since CIG was presently
employing Army and Naval Reserve officers as agents in a full time
capacity.
General McDonald stated he was
inclined to believe that the provisions of IAB 3 were too restrictive. He said, for example, the Army Air
Forces have contracts with institutions, some of whose employees are Reserve
Officers, and pointed out that recently it was necessary for such an
employee to go to Europe in a civilian and overt capacity in performance of
duties assigned to him by his civilian employer. General McDonald further stated that he believed
that instances of this nature were likely to occur many times.
Admiral Inglis stated that cases of
the nature indicated by General McDonald brought out the fact that the Intelligence Advisory
Board should have a coordinated policy on the employment of individuals as
intelligence agents in an overt capacity since agreement had already been
reached that CIG will have jurisdiction and
cognizance over covert intelligence collection, and while he was not
necessarily championing any particular ground rules he did think there
should be a common understanding as to whether or not ground rules were
necessary. He went on to state that if it were necessary for such an
individual to go overseas as an agent of a department or an institution
other than CIG and was not a part of CIG’s organized operations, he felt that such
action should be coordinated or at least information given to CIG as to the identity of the individual.
Admiral Inglis further stated that
this was based on the assumption that such an individual was acting in a
covert capacity. If the work of this individual were in the overt field and
he were a Naval Reserve officer, Navy regulations required that he notify
the Bureau of Personnel, Navy Department, prior to his departure, and
further that he “check in” with the Naval Attach é or Senior Naval Officer
in each country visited. Admiral Inglis noted that CIG’s
position in this matter seemed to be quite logical and he accepted it
without reservation.
General McDonald stated he did not
believe that the Army had any like requirements as outlined by Admiral
Inglis, but Army Reserve officers
often volunteered to pick up any information they could in their travels
abroad.
Admiral Inglis noted that some
embarrassment might be caused if a Reserve officer were “caught,” since he
could not divorce his identity
with the services unless he had previously resigned his commission. However,
it might conceivably be that the job he was performing was so important that
he would resign his commission in order to take over a particular task.
General Chamberlin asked if the
problem presented in IAB 3 was purely from a
covert viewpoint.
Admiral Inglis replied that the
problem was centered on the covert. Presumably when a Naval Reserve officer
acted as an overt representative of the State Department, for example, the
Navy was ordinarily kept informed.
General Chamberlin stated that he
doubted the advisability of the conclusions of paragraph 5 a of IAB 3Paragraph 5 a
of IAB 3 recommended that reserve
officers not normally be used as agents abroad. since he believed
that this paragraph stifled liberty of action. He went on to say he thought
in covert intelligence the Central Intelligence Group should be able to hire
the best man suitable for the job whether he was military or Naval Reserve,
and further that he did not think that the IAB should place any barriers that might be restrictive.
Admiral Inglis stated that he did not
think that covert methods should as a general rule be used if the same
objectives could be accomplished by using overt methods. He noted that
targets given covert personnel were those that could not be gained by overt
means, and further that they were not hired because they were Naval Reserve
officers but rather on their ability to do the job.
General Chamberlin stated that in his
opinion there should be very little, if any, restrictions imposed on
operations in the covert field.
Admiral Inglis stated that he was not
quite in agreement that covert operations should have no restrictions and
reiterated that if a Reserve officer of the Army, Navy or Air Forces were
caught it would surely cause unfavorable publicity and embarrassment to his
service.
After further discussion where it was brought out by the Director that CIG had exclusive organizational jurisdiction
over operations in the clandestine field and that there could be no
objection to the member IAB agencies
employing casual agents,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Approved the conclusions in IAB 3 with the
following exceptions: Paragraph 5 a to be omitted.Paragraph 5 b to be rewritten as follows:
“Members in the Reserve of one military service shall
ordinarily not be employed as agents by, and then only after
informing, the other service.”
Paragraphs c and d to remain as written.The “conclusions” section of IAB 3 as amended became NIA Directive No. 10, Document 322.
2. Action by the Intelligence Advisory
Board on Matters Submitted to the National Intelligence Authority
(CIG 24 and CIG 24/1)Documents 189 and 317.
The Director stated the purpose of CIG 24 and
CIG 24/1 was to formalize procedure on
matters submitted to the National Intelligence Authority. He said he did not
believe that the Director of Central Intelligence as a member of the
National Intelligence Authority could correctly make the Intelligence
Advisory Board, which was created solely for the purpose of advising the
Director of Central Intelligence, privy to all matters presented to the
National Intelligence Authority. He noted that in the last two months he had
received calls from Admiral Leahy
and Secretary Forrestal on matters
that did not concern the coordination of intelligence. He further stated
that up until the last N.I.A. meeting there
had been no agenda published. However, prior to that meeting Secretary
Forrestal requested that an
agenda be published. An agenda was prepared and circulated to the member
IAB agencies.
Mr. Eddy stated that the State
Department was wholly in agreement with CIG
24/1 with the exception of two changes, one of which was substantive and the
other one of clarification, the substantive change being that on matters
involving the request for personnel or facilities by CIG to the member agencies that such requests should be
submitted to the IAB in writing prior to
submission to the N.I.A.
In this connection Mr. Eddy noted that
the President’s letter of 22 January 1946 stated in part that full use shall
be made by the Director of Central Intelligence of the staff and facilities
of the member IAB agencies.
The Director read paragraphs 3 a, b and c of the above-mentioned letter.
Upon being asked by the Director Admiral Inglis replied that he went along with the change
recommended by Mr. Eddy, and further
that he had a number of other exceptions as to the whole philosophy of
CIG’s position as set forth in the
discussion of CIG 24/1. He said he took
particular exception to the item in paragraph 1 of the recommendations in
CIG 24/1, which stated: “The Director of
Central Intelligence shall be the sole judge of the advisability of
referring any proposed recommendation to a special studies group or for
otherwise delaying the submission of the recommendation to the National
Intelligence Authority.”
The Director stated that he believed that item was a result of the delays in
receiving recommendations from ad hoc committees appointed by the
Intelligence Advisory Board.
Admiral Inglis stated he also took
exception to that part of CIG 24/1 which
required the IAB to submit any desired
statement of non-concurrence in one week.
The Director stated that he was often limited in time in the preparation of
replies to other agencies and cited for an example the urgent request of the
Atomic Energy Commission for comments of the National Intelligence Authority
on the proposed intelligence organization within the Atomic Energy
Commission.
Admiral Inglis noted that in reality
any paper sent to the Intelligence Advisory Board for consideration could
not be answered by “yes” or “no.”
General McDonald stated it was his
opinion that by allowing a week and in some cases less for consideration of
a paper, the work was being taken out of the hands of the intelligence
staffs and was being performed by the members of the IAB.
The Director stated he agreed with General McDonald but he still felt there should be some time
limitation set on papers circulated to the IAB for comment.
Admiral Inglis stated that in cases
where urgency was of the essence, if a statement to that effect were
indicated he would do all in his power to return his comments in the time
allotted. Admiral Inglis went on to
state that Secretary Forrestal had
told him that he expected the IAB to thresh
out and reconcile their differences on papers before they were submitted to
the N.I.A., and further that Mr. Forrestal did not like the recent procedure
of submitting recommendations to the N.I.A.
without having such recommendations discussed by the intelligence chiefs of
that Authority. Admiral Inglis said,
however, he recognized that the Director of Central Intelligence had
encountered from time to time inordinate delays in IAB handling of papers and he sympathized with the desire to
reduce such delays.
Admiral Inglis also stated that it was
his opinion that paragraph 3 of N.I.A.
Directive No. 1 did not restrict the matters which are referred to the
IAB to matters related to coordination.
Admiral Inglis said he was also not
in agreement with paragraph 4 of the discussion in CIG 24/1, which read: “Recommendations requested of the
Director of Central Intelligence by the National Intelligence Authority are
not considered as falling into the pattern provided in N.I.A. Directive No. 1, paragraph 3, nor is it
considered that it was the intent of the President or of the National
Intelligence Authority that all reports, papers, and statements prepared by
the Director of Central Intelligence for presentation to the National
Intelligence Authority be first submitted to the Intelligence Advisory Board for advisory
opinion” since a great deal depended upon the subject matter presented to
the N.I.A.
The Director stated that he agreed with Admiral Inglis and suggested that the word “all” precede the word
“recommendations” in the beginning of the above-quoted paragraph.
Admiral Inglis stated since the
Director of Central Intelligence was a non-voting member of the National
Intelligence Authority, it was his opinion that this fact gave a different
implication to the statement contained in CIG 24/1 that “The Director of Central Intelligence as a member
of the National Intelligence Authority can not correctly make the
Intelligence Advisory Board, which was created solely for the purpose of
advising him, privy to all matters before the National Intelligence
Authority.” He went on to state that he certainly assumed from the reasoning
behind the organization of the Intelligence Advisory Board that that Board
should be privy to practically all matters going to the National
Intelligence Authority.
The Director stated he agreed with the viewpoint of Admiral Inglis that practically all matters
presented to the National Intelligence Authority should have had prior
discussion by the Intelligence Advisory Board. He noted, however, that it
would be difficult to define in advance those matters which should go to the
National Intelligence Authority without previous IAB discussion.
Admiral Inglis stated with reference
to the preparation and circulation of formalized agenda for NIA meetings that it was Mr. Forrestal’s desire that agenda should be
prepared by the Secretary, N.I.A., and items
thereon discussed by the IAB prior to their
discussion by the N.I.A.
Mr. Eddy noted that even if formalized
agenda for N.I.A. meetings were prepared
that the Intelligence Advisory Board could not expect that the N.I.A. would not discuss other matters than
those appearing on the agenda, if they so desired.
Admiral Inglis stated that it was not
the intent that the National Intelligence Authority could not discuss any
matter they saw fit. However, he was advocating that the Intelligence
Advisory Board use the same procedure as used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
i.e., that all matters be thoroughly discussed and differences reconciled on
the working level prior to submission to a higher authority.
General Chamberlin stated that he was
in agreement with Admiral Inglis that
there should be an agenda prepared for N.I.A. meetings, and further if the N.I.A. chooses to bring up items other than those appearing on
the agenda that was, of course, their prerogative.
Admiral Inglis stated that it was his
opinion that the provisions of the last three sentences under the discussion
in CIG 24/1 were unsound, and further that
neither the Director of Central Intelligence nor any other lone member of
the Intelligence Advisory Board could nullify the desires of all other members in sending any paper to
the National Intelligence Authority. He pointed out that he did not believe
it was practicable to require the head of one of the intelligence agencies
to go through his secretary in order to get a paper to the National
Intelligence Authority, and further that such a practice was not fair to the
members of the N.I.A. not to have the advice
of the Intelligence Advisory Board. He also said it was his opinion that the
logical and practical way to submit papers to the N.I.A. was through the IAB with
the recommendations, if any, of the members of the IAB appended to such papers in the event agreement could not be
reached. Admiral Inglis went on to
say that this procedure was followed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and any
other way seemed irregular to him.
Mr. Edgar stated that the N.I.A. and the IAB were not comparable to the JCS and JIC. The JCS has a committee where the N.I.A. has a Director of Central Intelligence
who is an individual responsible for certain activities and the IAB is merely advisory to him.
Admiral Inglis stated that he did not
agree that the IAB was merely advisory to
the Director of Central Intelligence and further it was not intended in the
philosophy that established the IAB.
Mr. Edgar said that the title of the
IAB indicated that it was in fact an
advisory body.
Admiral Inglis stated that he did not
believe this was the concept. He said the IAB, in addition to being an advisory body, is also an
implementing body, and further the IAB is a
liaison channel between the Director of Central Intelligence and the member
agencies. It also permits the heads of the intelligence services themselves
to implement and take special personal interest in the work of the CIG. He pointed out that the IAB was intended to make the heads of
intelligence services share the responsibility of the success of CIG and in sharing this responsibility the
members of the IAB must have a certain
amount of authority.
Mr. Eddy stated it appeared to him
that to send a paper to the N.I.A. without
the concurrence of the Director of Central Intelligence and the majority of
the members of the IAB would be expecting a
lot of the N.I.A.
Admiral Inglis thought that any member
of the IAB who filed a paper should get the
concurrence of not less than one other member. However, if it was desired to
adjust this to a majority, that was a compromise, and that he did not feel
too strongly one way or the other.
General Chamberlin stated that he
thought the IAB might approach the overall
question better if CIG 24 and CIG 24/1 were withdrawn and a complete new
paper prepared. He went on to state that he objected to CIG 24/1 somewhat along the lines of Admiral
Inglis. He said he agreed
perfectly with Admiral Inglis that
the IAB was a little more than an advisory
body and further that the idea that the IAB
had authority to commit their own departments to action could be justified.
He went on to state that the
success of intelligence in the government is dependent entirely on
cooperation. He said that the above was a general summary of his feeling.
However, he had other objections in detail and believed that time could be
saved by appointing an ad hoc committee to redraft a new paper.
Mr. Eddy stated that he would agree to
the appointment of an ad hoc committee to redraft a new paper. However, he
believed that a close examination of the recommendations contained in CIG 24/1 left nothing to be desired, and
further that he hoped that the ad hoc committee, if appointed, could start
with these recommendations and see how they could be amended. He went on to
say he did not find much in the recommendations which would not be
acceptable to him.
General McDonald, upon being asked by
the Director, agreed to the appointment of the ad hoc committee mentioned
above.
Admiral Inglis asked Mr. Eddy whether the ad hoc committee in
drawing up a new paper should restrict itself to the recommendations
contained in CIG 24/1.
Mr. Eddy replied that he hoped that
they would consider the recommendations and that in the main these
recommendations could form a basis for the new paper.
After some discussion where it was noted by Admiral Inglis that he felt that the IAB should have a staff as did the JIC,
The Intelligence Advisory Board
Agreed to appoint an ad hoc committee to submit a new paper on the
subject of action by the Intelligence Advisory Board on matters
submitted to the National Intelligence Authority, the committee to
consist of Mr. Edgar, Mr.
Armstrong, Lt. Col.
Treacy, Capt. Davis and
Col. Mussett.
3. Amendment of the Definition of
Strategic and National Policy Intelligence (IAB 2)Dated May 9, 1947. (Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–280) See the
Supplement.
The Director stated that the phrase “strategic and national policy
intelligence” had its origin in a memorandum from General Donovan to the President dated 18 November
1944.See Troy, Donovan and the
CIA, pp. 445–447. Therein General Donovan distinguished between intelligence
pertaining primarily to departmental action and intelligence material
required by the Executive Branch in planning and carrying out the national
policy and strategy. General Donovan
went on to say in this memorandum that while recognizing that production of
the former must remain decentralized, he contended for centralization with
respect to the latter. He proposed as one of the functions of the Central
Intelligence Agency the “final evaluation, synthesis, and dissemination
within the government of intelligence required to enable the government to determine
policies with respect to national planning and security in peace and war and
the advancement of broad national policy.” The Director went on to say that
in a counter proposal prepared by the JIS
the above passage was revised and stated that
“Accomplish the synthesis of departmental intelligence relating to
the national security and the appropriate strategic and national
policy intelligence.”
This counter proposal was in turn carried over into the
President’s letter of 22 January 1946 with the substitution of “correlation
and evaluation” for “synthesis” and the deletion of “departmental.” The
Director said that Admiral Souers
attributed the first change to the mere preference of Latin to Greek. The
second was intended to deemphasize the idea of dependence on departmental
agencies. A new sentence was added to require their full (but not exclusive)
use. The Director said the JIS draft, which
served eventually as the basis of the President’s letter, was based on the
following concepts: That each department would continue to produce the intelligence
required to meet its own operating needs (i.e. pertaining primarily
to departmental action).That such intelligence was inadequate as a basis for national
strategy and policy (i.e. for decisions transcending the
responsibilities of any particular department).That a central agency free of departmental bias was required to
provide, through evaluation and synthesis, the intelligence required
as a basis for such decisions.
The Director said that from the beginning strategic and national policy
intelligence was conceived to be one thing, not two. Strategic was used in
view of the emphasis upon relation to national security and because it was
anticipated that the central organization would supersede the JIC in the realm of overall national strategy.
National policy was used to broaden the implications of strategic to
exclude, on the one hand, such matters of operational strategy as purely
military plans for the seizure of Okinawa, and to include on the other
considerations of a policy nature. The phrase, as a whole, was intended to
describe that politico-military area of concern to the State, War and Navy
Departments transcending the exclusive competence of any of them.
Mr. Eddy stated that he preferred the
original definition as approved by the N.I.A.
General McDonald stated that he
believed that the counter proposal submitted by the Navy on the definition
in question was on the right track and that he had a proposal to go along
with it. General McDonald said he
thought the last sentence of the Navy definition might be modified to read
as follows:
“It is political-economic-military in scope including such strategic
data, as is necessary, of common concern at least to one military
and one non-military agency.”
Admiral Inglis stated that he thought
operational intelligence had to be reserved to the military, if it was
military, and if diplomatic to the State Department. Mr. Edgar stated that he thought the definition
of staff intelligence clearly indicated that anything that would be called
operational would come under staff intelligence rather than under national
intelligence.
Captain Davis said he questioned Mr. Edgar’s remark. He said it had been
mentioned a number of times in discussions at other IAB meetings that CIG had no
jurisdiction over operational intelligence. He went on to say that CIG no doubt did some operational intelligence
but it was necessary for the military to keep control over their own
operational intelligence. He said that nowhere did he find in writing or in
the laws drafted in relation to CIG that
exception, and it seemed to him that such should be put in writing.
Admiral Inglis stated if it could be
worked in somewhere “that intelligence which is necessary for their
operations” and if there could be an understanding that strategic and
national policy intelligence “must transcend the exclusive competence of
both War and Navy Departments or any other Department thereafter that may
arise from unification,” then he was agreeable to the definition of
strategic and national policy intelligence as written. Admiral Inglis went on to say that he thought this
matter could be settled by writing into the minutes or having a memorandum
prepared that the meaning of the definition was justified by implication
since it included the words “political-economic-military,” and further that
it must transcend the exclusive competence of any one department or of the
Army and Navy Departments together.
Mr. Eddy asked whether the IAB could be sure that the JCS were not going to call on CIG for basic intelligence related to military
and naval problems. He noted that the JIC
already goes out of the chain of command for required intelligence
information.
Admiral Inglis replied that it would
be hard to give a “yes” or “no” answer.
Mr. Eddy stated that although the
IAB did not know the final form of the
JIC, he had no objections to the above
proposal of Admiral Inglis.
Mr. Edgar suggested that the IAB accept Admiral Inglis’ proposal until such time as the JIC’s future was determined and then, if
necessary, again raise the question of the definition of strategic and
national policy intelligence from the Army and Navy angle.
After some discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board:
Agreed to Mr. Edgar’s proposal.
321. Memorandum From the General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Group
(Houston) to the
Director of Central Intelligence (Hillenkoetter)Source: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–806, Item
2. Secret. Sent to the Director of Central Intelligence through ICAPS. The source text is a transcript
made for the CIA Historian on October 15, 1952.Washington, July 29, 1947.
SUBJECT
Memorandum on IAB Procedures—25 July
1947
1. This office has been requested to give its opinion on the legality of the
provisions of Paragraph 2 and 3 of the subject memorandum.Not found, but probably a draft of, or a memorandum
related to, National Intelligence Authority Directive No. 11, September
16; Document 325. Paragraph 2 provides
for distribution of recommendations by an IAB member and that a vote be taken thereon. Paragraph 3
provides that recommendations, originating by any IAB member in which at least one other IAB member concurs, will be forwarded by the Director of
Central Intelligence to the National Intelligence Authority, with his
comments and those of other IAB members.
2. On Paragraph 2 alone, there is no question, as the IAB could not perform properly its advisory functions without
the full opportunity to consider recommendations of its individual members.
Paragraph 2 and 3 taken together, if followed literally, would compel the
Director to submit recommendations with which he might disagree, to the
NIA, if two or more members of the
IAB concurred. Proposal of such
compulsion requires a review of the responsibilities of the Director, and of
the functions of the Advisory Board. At present these are set forth in the
Presidential Directive of January 22, 1946, a document which does not have
statutory authority, but has, upon the Executive Departments, the force and
effect of law, and if therefore, subject to the normal rules of statutory
interpretation. Without going in detail into the legal doctrines of such
interpretation, it may generally be said that a law, or similar directive,
is taken to mean exactly what it says, and only in the case of complete
ambiguity, or of facts on which a distorted construction is proposed, is
there need to go behind the final document in an attempt to determine
whether the intent of the law given was other than appears on the fact of
the document.
3. It appears to us that the language of the present Presidential Directive
is clear and non-controversial, and it is assumed that the wording was well
considered when written. Thus, Paragraph 2 states that a Central Intelligence Group shall, under the
direction of a Director of Central Intelligence, assist the NIA, and that the Director
shall be responsible to the NIA.
Paragraph 3 [a and b]All brackets are in the
source text. provides that subject to the direction and control
of NIA, the Director shall accomplish the
correlation and evaluation of intelligence relating to the national
security, shall plan for the coordination of the activities of the
Departments relating to national security and shall
recommend to the National Intelligence Authority the establishment of
policies and objectives to assure the most effective accomplishment
of the national intelligence mission.
4. It seems clear that these paragraphs place in the Director sole
responsibility for correlation of intelligence, coordination of activities
and recommendations to the NIA. It is
obvious that departmental members of NIA act
in a dual capacity, and in their capacity of Department Heads, must give
heed to the recommendations and wants of their respective departments. It
seems equally obvious, however, that when they sit as the NIA, their attention focuses on the Director
alone, for his recommendations on central intelligence matters. Any other
concept would appear to be incompatible with the theory of central
intelligence developed in the last few years, and which Congress has
recently approved. The heart of this theory is placing on one point the
responsibility for foreign intelligence affecting the national security, in
such a way that responsibility could not be shifted from that spot to any
other agency or group. To give a Board authority to compel recommendations
over the Director’s objection would provide a basis for shifting
responsibility from the Director to the Board. Since, as General Marshall pointed out recently,
action by a Board is generally the action of compromise, the responsibility
for such action falls nowhere.
5. It appears that this situation was clearly recognized by the President in
establishing and assigning functions to the IAB. Paragraph 7, of the Presidential Directive, provides for
the membership of the Board and states only that the Director shall be
advised by such Board. We find some legal interpretation of the word
“advise.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition 1933, definition of
“advise”, is “To give an opinion or counsel, or recommend a plan or course
of action.” It further cites the following court interpretations:
“This term is not synonymous with “persuade”
[Wilson v. State, 38 Ala. 411] or with
“direct” or “instruct.” Where a statute authorizes the trial court
to advise the jury to acquit, the court has no power to instruct the
jury to acquit. The court can only counsel, and the jury are not
bound by the advice. People v. Horn, 70 Cal. 17, 11 P. 470. “Advise”
imports that it is discretionary or optional with the person
addressed whether he will act on such advice or not. State v.
Downing, 23 Idaho, 540, 130 P. 461, 462;
Brown v. Brown, 180
N.C. 433, 104 S.E. 889, 890.”
It seems clear therefore, that the IAB was to have no direct relationship, as a body, to the
NIA, nor is the Director, in any way
bound by their advice. He will, however, of course give due consideration to
the merit of its content. Our conclusion is that establishment of the
procedures in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the IAB
procedures, dated 25 July 1947, would be an unauthorized assumption by the
IAB of responsibility vested in the
Director by law. Conversely, agreement by the Director to exercise by the
IAB of his recommending functions would
be an unwarranted divesting of assigned responsibility and, moreover, would
not relieve him of accountability for results. He might, in such case, be
the channel for policy recommendations with which he disagreed, but for
which he would be held responsible.
6. Our opinion is not changed, and on the contrary, is confirmed by
consideration of the Merger Bill, known as the National Security Act, of
1947. The sections pertaining to Central Intelligence provide [Sections 105
(d)] that it shall be the duty of the agency to
advise the NSC on intelligence activities of
departments and agencies relative to the national security, to make recommendations to the President through the
N.S.C., for coordination of intelligence
activities relating to the national security and to correlate, evaluate, and
provide dissemination of such intelligence. As emphasized by underlining,
Congress uses a more positive word than “responsibility” and states it shall
be the “duty” of the Agency to perform the functions outlined. The Head of
the Agency is of course solely responsible for the performance of the
Agency’s duties. This is completely in accord with the intent of Congress,
expressed so often in hearings and on the floor, that the Executive Branch,
the Legislature, and through them the country, have one place to go for
intelligence related to the National security, with no chance for evasion or
excuse by the responsible officer.
7. There is no provision for the IAB in the
Act and it is apparent that the protection of departmental intelligence
called for in the proviso of sub-paragraph 105 (d) (3) is the responsibility
of the N.S.C. By Paragraph 105 (f), the
NIA and CIG cease to exist, and in effect the Presidential Directive of
January 22, 1946, is superseded and voided by the expression of the will of
Congress. This, too, was repeatedly affirmed in hearings and debate on the
Merger Bill, i.e. that functions of the Executive Branch should be
established by Congress, not by Executive order. It would appear that
presently the IAB has no legal status, and
if it is to continue to function, it should do so only on direction from the
N.S.C. as a result of a request from,
and recommendations by, the Director of Central Intelligence.
Lawrence R. HoustonPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
322. National Intelligence Authority Directive No. 10Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Files, No. 132.
Secret.Washington, July 30, 1947.
EMPLOYMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS AS AGENTS
The following overall policies and objectives are established by the National
Intelligence Authority for the employment of reserve officers of the
military services as agents abroad: Members in the reserve of one military service shall ordinarily
not be employed as agents by, and then only after informing, the
other service.When reserve personnel are employed as agents, procedures
requiring them to report to local State, War and Navy
representatives shall be eliminated.When casual agents are employed by one department their activities
shall be coordinated with all other such activities by the Director
of Central Intelligence.
For the National Intelligence Authority:J. S.
EarmanSecretary, N.I.A.
323. Minutes of the 15th Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Secret. The meeting was at the North
Interior Building.Washington, July 31, 1947, 2 p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Rear Admiral R. H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairMembers PresentMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMaj. General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Director of Intelligence, WDGSRear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceMaj. General George C.
McDonald, Assistant Chief of Air Staff–2Also PresentBrig. General Geo. F. Schulgen, AAF–2Mr. Donald Edgar, Central
Intelligence GroupMr. Park Armstrong, Department
of StateCapt. R. K. Davis, USNLt. Colonel Edgar J. Treacy, WDGSMajor W. C. Baird, AAF–2SecretariatMr. J. S. Earman, Secretary,
N.I.A.
1. National Security Council
The Director of Central Intelligence requested the concurrence of the
Intelligence Advisory Board that a letter be written to the National
Security Council, when formed, recommending that all directives, under which
the IAB and the CIG now function, remain in full force and effect until such
time as that Council may desire to make such changes as it sees fit in these
directives.
After some discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board
Concurred in the request of the Director as outlined above.The letter was first addressed to the National
Intelligence Authority (Document 220). Another
version was subsequently sent to the NSC
upon its establishment (Document
222).
2. CIG
Representation On U.S. Government Missions Abroad (IAB 4)Dated July
7. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–280) See the
Supplement.
Upon being asked for comments, Mr. Eddy stated that the State Department did not favorably
consider the recommendations contained in the subject paper. He said that this paper
introduced CIG into the collection of overt
and positive intelligence abroad which had already been divided by fields of
dominant interest within the membership of the IAB.
After some discussion, wherein the Director and the members of the IAB stated they concurred in Mr. Eddy’s statement,
The Intelligence Advisory Board
Agreed to withdraw the recommendations contained in IAB 4.
3. Coordination of Intelligence
Production (IAB 1 and IAB 1/1)IAB No. 1 is printed as Document 195; IAB 1/1, July
15, is not printed. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–280) See the Supplement.
The Director stated that he felt that the IAB
would be getting into difficulties if they changed the definitions of basic,
current, and staff intelligence as approved by the IAB at its 13th meeting since he felt that the recommendations
of the Lexicographer of the Library of Congress were a play on words.
Mr. Eddy stated that he thought the
changes recommended by the Lexicographer lacked conviction.
Admiral Inglis stated that he believed
that the changes recommended were good and, while it was not a matter of
great moment, it was his belief that they gave a clearer meaning to the
definitions.
General Chamberlin stated that he felt
very strongly that the action of the IAB in
regard to this matter should be interpreted by the spirit of the definitions
in question and not by a play on an individual word. He went on to say that
if the changes recommended by the Lexicographer were accepted, immediately
the idea of “time evaluation” was given up.
Admiral Inglis asked General Chamberlin if he was referring to basic
intelligence.
General Chamberlin replied that his
remarks referred to both basic and current intelligence. He pointed out that
distinction had been made on time and evaluation in the definitions of basic
and current intelligence, as previously approved by the IAB.
General Chamberlin went on to say,
however, that he felt that the changes recommended by the Lexicographer in
the definition of staff intelligence made that definition read much better
without changing its original meaning.
Mr. Eddy said he felt that the
recommended changes in basic and current intelligence changed the meaning of
these two definitions. He noted, however, that the change recommended in the
definition of staff intelligence was an improvement.
General McDonald stated that he
agreed with Mr. Eddy.
The Director stated that he agreed with General Chamberlin that the IAB’s
action in this matter should be governed by the interpretation of the spirit
of the definitions in question and not by a play on an individual word.
Admiral Inglis stated that he thought
it quite important that the IAB have an
unmistakable understanding of the meaning of basic, current, and staff
intelligence, and he was not inclined to belittle the importance of
definitions. He went on to say, however, that in this particular case he did
not think the recommended change in the definitions of basic and current
intelligence were of any great substance or consequence and he was willing
to accept these two definitions as previously approved, and the definition
of staff intelligence as rewritten by the Lexicographer. He noted, however,
that he preferred all of the changes recommended by the Lexicographer in the
definitions of basic, current, and staff intelligence.
After some discussion,
The Intelligence Advisory Board
Agreed to leave unchanged the definitions of basic and current
intelligence, as previously approved by the IAB at its 13th meeting.Agreed to change the definition of staff intelligence to read as
follows: “Staff intelligence is that intelligence prepared by any
department or agency through the correlation and interpretation of all
intelligence materials available to it in order to meet its specific
requirements and responsibilities.”
4. Exploitation of Enemy Document
Repositories (CIG 21 and CIG 21/1)Dated
November 21, 1946, and April 10, 1947. (Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–276) See the Supplement for both.
Admiral Inglis stated he would like to
inquire as to the present status of the subject paper since he had recently
received several requests from the Navy Department as to what action was to
be taken on this matter. He said that the Director of Central Intelligence,
at a previous IAB meeting, had stated that
at that time CIG was unable to consider the
recommendations contained in CIG 21/1 due to
budgetary problems. He went on to say that it was his understanding that
since that meeting CIG’s budgetary problems
had been settled.
The Director noted the remarks of Admiral Inglis and stated he desired to make a further check of the
funds available to CIG which might be
allocated to carry out the recommendations contained in CIG 21/1.
324. Minutes of the 16th Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–281. Secret. The meeting was held at the North
Interior Building.Washington, September 11, 1947, 2
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Rear Admiral R. H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairMembers PresentMr. William A. Eddy, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceRear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceMajor General George C.
McDonald, Assistant Chief of Air Staff–2Rear Admiral John E.
Gingrich, Director of Intelligence and Security, Atomic
Energy CommissionBrig. General Walter E. Todd, Deputy Director of
Intelligence, WDGSAlso PresentMr. Donald Edgar, Central
Intelligence GroupColonel Merritt B. Booth, Department of
StateCaptain R. K. Davis, USNColonel E. P. Mussett, AAF–2Colonel G. C. Nye, AAF–2Lt. Colonel Edgar J. Treacy, WDGSCapt. Patrick Henry, USNSecretariatMr. J. S. Earman, Secretary,
N.I.A.
1. Action by the Intelligence Advisory
Board on Matters Submitted to the National Intelligence Authority
(CIG 24/2)Dated August 12. (Ibid., HS/HC–276) See the Supplement.
Admiral Hillenkoetter stated that the
ad hoc committee appointed to prepare recommendations on the subject paper
to the Intelligence Advisory Board was in agreement with the recommendations
contained in the enclosure to CIG 24/2, with
the exception that the member from the Intelligence Division, WDGS, and the member from the Office of the
Assistant Chief of Air Staff–2 did not concur in the inclusion of paragraph
4 in the enclosure to CIG 24/2.
Admiral Inglis stated that he wished
to recommend that the fourth sentence of paragraph 1 be amended to read as
follows:
“If the IAB proposes to refer any
such recommendation to a special study group or otherwise to delay
the presentation of the recommendation to the NIA (NSC), but the Director of Central Intelligence
considers such delay inadvisable, the IAB members shall have seven working days, after receipt of the views of
the Director of Central Intelligence regarding such delay, for the
submission of any desired statement of non-concurrence, the basis of
which will accompany the recommendation to the NIA (NSC).”
Mr. Eddy stated he wished to recommend
the insertion of the following sentence between the second and third
sentences of paragraph 1:
“Substance of the statement of the non-concurrence shall accompany
the statement to the NIA (NSC).”
General McDonald noted that it seemed
advisable to him to delete paragraph 4, since the contents of that paragraph
presented a special problem in itself.
After some discussion the Intelligence Advisory Board approved the enclosure
to CIG 24/2 with the following exceptions: That paragraph 4 thereof be deleted.Paragraph 4 of CIG 24/2
required the DCI to notify the
IAB in writing of any
actions planned under paragraph 3 of NIA Directive No. 5 (which authorized the DCI to coordinate all U.S. foreign
intelligence activities) and provided for IAB members to express concurrence
or non-concurrence in such actions.That the changes recommended by Mr. Eddy and Admiral Inglis, as indicated above, be adopted.
2. Coordination of Intelligence
Production (IAB 1, IAB 1/1 and IAB
1/2)IAB 1
is Document 195. IAB 1/1 and IAB 1/2, dated
July 15 and September 5, are not printed. (Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–280, and HS/HC–276, respectively) See the
Supplement. IAB 1/2 consisted of a
proposed NIA directive on coordination
of intelligence production and a memorandum from the Chief of Naval
Intelligence asking that the allocation of subjects by agency according
to “dominant interest” be changed to reflect that the Air Force and the
Navy had a shared interest in air intelligence.
The Director requested comments on the recommendations contained in IAB 1/2.
Admiral Inglis stated that the Chief
of Naval Operations felt that in view of the National Security Act of 1947,
which established naval aviation as an integral part of the Navy, the
position of the Navy should be made clear in all papers which dealt with the
jurisdiction, cognizance, or responsibility on the subject of naval
aviation. The Navy had, in cooperation with the Intelligence Division, Army
Air Forces, an agency called the Air Intelligence Division which has been
serving both the Army and Navy and Army Air Forces under instructions from
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Navy wanted nothing to occur which would
interfere in any way with the present effective operation of the Air
Intelligence Division, and further that unless paragraph 4 of the proposed
NIA Directive on the coordination of
intelligence production was changed as recommended in IAB 1/2, some day after the present incumbents
were gone, controversy might arise as to the interests of the Navy in air
intelligence and, therefore, a
change in the wording of this paragraph as recommended by the Navy was not
only advisable and desirable, but necessary to recognize the interest of the
Navy in air intelligence.
General McDonald stated that on the
subject of the Strategic Vulnerability Branch which is in existence—this
Branch was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to function within the
framework of A–2. However, the National Security Act of 1947 does define to
some general extent areas of responsibility for the ground, sea and air
forces. He had coordinated with the Air Staff the proposed change
recommended by the Navy on the subject paper, and as a result the Air Forces
recommended that paragraph 4 remain as written.
General Todd stated that General Chamberlin thought that the subject paper
was not the paper in which to try to define fields of dominant interest,
since, if it was attempted to define one field, an attempt should be made to
define, for example, military intelligence. General Chamberlin felt that there should follow in
a subsequent paper, defined in greater detail, fields of dominant interest.
However, he felt that the fields of dominant interests as outlined in the
subject paper were generally satisfactory. General Chamberlin felt that he did not believe
dominant interest could be shared, since each of the member IAB agencies certainly had a great deal of
interest in the other fields.
Admiral Inglis stated that he agreed
with General Chamberlin’s thoughts
and was willing to make some alteration in the wording of his recommended
change to the proposed directive in question. For example, the Navy and Army
Air Forces to share air intelligence each to their respective needs.
Colonel Mussett stated that he thought this was taken
into account in the definition of staff intelligence. He said that A–2
recognized that each Department must produce all intelligence that was
necessary to its own needs.
Admiral Inglis stated that he did not
quite agree with the A–2 viewpoint, since the Navy’s need for air
intelligence went beyond the question of staff intelligence. He said that
naval air intelligence goes into the field of impact of foreign aviation on
naval operations, not necessarily air operations, but the naval surface,
submarines, amphibious, transports, logistics, and supply, and for that
reason the Navy felt that it did have an interest in air intelligence which
they believed had to be recognized.
After further discussion, the Intelligence Advisory Board agreed to forward
the proposed directive on the coordination of intelligence production to the
NIA, together with the non-concurrence
of the Navy member and the comments of the Air member. (Note: The non-concurrence of the Navy member and the comments of
the Air member are to be submitted to the Secretary, NIA, within seven working days after date of this meeting.)
3. Reorganization of Central Intelligence Group
The Director of Central Intelligence stated he was withdrawing the memorandum
to the individual members of the Intelligence Advisory Board, dated 15
August 1947, subject—“Reorganization of the Central Intelligence
Group”,Memorandum from Hillenkoetter to Eddy et al., August 15, not printed.
(Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–208, Item 36) See
the Supplement. and would submit new recommendations on this
subject.
4. Transfer of the Janis
Program to CIG
Admiral Inglis asked the status of the
proposed transfer of the Janis program to
the Central Intelligence Group.
The Director replied that CIG had received a
request from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to assume responsibility for this
program and that necessary action was being taken to effect the transfer of
functions and personnel of this activity to the Central Intelligence
Group.
5. Overall Policies and Objectives for the
Coordination of Intelligence Relating to Foreign Industrial
Establishments (CIG 22)Not found.
Admiral Inglis asked the status of
CIG 22.
Mr. Edgar replied that further
consideration of this paper was being held pending approval of the proposed
directive on the coordination of intelligence production.
6. Exploitation of Enemy Document
Repositories (CIG 21 and CIG 21/1)See footnote 4, Document 323.
Admiral Inglis asked what had been
decided by the Director of Central Intelligence on the recommendations
contained in the enclosure to CIG 21/1.
The Director replied that there was some question as to his authority to
expend the sum of approximately $82,950 to carry out the recommendations
contained in the enclosure to CIG 21/1.
After some discussion, the Director agreed to request formal approval from
the National Intelligence Authority that authority be granted to the
Director of Central Intelligence to expend approximately $82,950 of funds
allotted to CIG to carry out the
recommendations contained in enclosure to CIG 21/1.
325. National Intelligence Authority Directive No. 11Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Papers, No. 132.
Confidential.Washington, September 16, 1947.
ACTION BY THE INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD ON MATTERS
SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY
The following policies and objectives are established by the National
Intelligence Authority governing action by the Intelligence Advisory Board
on matters submitted to that Authority:
All recommendations envisaged by paragraph 3 of the President’s
letter of 22 January 1946 (Section 102 d of the National
Security Act of 1947) will be submitted by the Director of
Central Intelligence to the Intelligence Advisory Board in
writing, accompanied by copies of such papers or statements as
the Director of Central Intelligence may contemplate
accompanying the recommendations upon presentation to the
National Intelligence Authority (NSC). These recommendations will have attached a
voting slip providing opportunity for: Concurrence or non-concurrence;Comment;Request for an IAB
meeting.
Voting slips will be acted upon and returned to
the Secretary, NIA, within seven
working days after receipt. Substance of the statement of the
non-concurrence shall accompany the statement to the NIA (NSC). If any Intelligence Advisory Board member so
requests, an Intelligence Advisory Board meeting shall be called
by the Director of Central Intelligence. If the IAB proposes to refer any such
recommendation to a special study group or otherwise to delay
the presentation of the recommendation to the NIA (NSC), but the Director of Central Intelligence
considers such delay inadvisable, the IAB members shall have seven working days, after
receipt of the views of the Director of Central Intelligence
regarding such delay, for the submission of any desired
statement of non-concurrence, the basis of which will accompany
the recommendation to the NIA
(NSC).
The Secretary, NIA, shall
circulate to the IAB members any
recommendations, proposed directives, papers, etc., which an IAB member may originate for
consideration by the Director of Central Intelligence and the
Intelligence Advisory Board. Each shall be accompanied by a voting
slip providing opportunity for: Concurrence or non-concurrence;Comment;Request for an IAB
meeting.Any recommendation two or more IAB
members believe should be submitted to the NIA (NSC) will be
submitted by the Director of Central Intelligence in such form as to
set forth his recommendation and the comments of the IAB members.Unless otherwise directed by the NIA, the Secretary, NIA, shall circulate to the IAB copies of all agenda, minutes, decisions, and
directives approved or issued by, or in the name of, the NIA.
For the National Intelligence Authority:J. S.
EarmanSecretary, N.I.A.
326. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Acting Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to Acting Secretary of State LovettSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, JIS, JIC, JCS. Restricted.Washington, October 28, 1947.
SUBJECT
Withdrawal of State representation from the Joint Intelligence
Committee (JIC) and the Joint
Intelligence Staff (JIS)
As I indicated orally several weeks ago, the reorganization of the Staff of
the Joint Chiefs was expected to provide for representation on the JIC of the armed services only. On October 22,
1947, the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the organization and functions
which had been proposed by General Gruenther, the
Director (Designate) of the Joint Staff, and which limit the membership of
the JIC as anticipated.
Inasmuch as the National Security Act of 1947 establishes duties and
responsibilities for the Director of Central Intelligence substantially analogous to those heretofore
performed by State representatives on the JIC and the JIS, it appears
appropriate for the Department to look to the Director of Central
Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as the channel for
communicating the civilian intelligence viewpoint to the armed services and,
reciprocally, for obtaining from them the military intelligence viewpoint as
required. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Department now withdraw
from the JIC and the JIS. This step has been discussed with Admiral Souers, Executive Secretary of
the National Security Council, and with Admiral
Hillenkoetter, the Director of Central Intelligence, both of
whom concur in the proposed action.
The Department’s representatives on the JIC
and the JIS will hold themselves available
for informal liaison and coordination with the JIC and the JIS until such time
as channels through the CIA are in full operation. An announcement of these
arrangements will be made to the interested officers of the Department as
soon as the Joint Chiefs of Staff have had an opportunity to acknowledge the
notification of withdrawal, which is appended for your signature.
W. Park Armstrong, Jr.Printed from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
AttachmentRestricted. Memorandum From
Acting Secretary of State Lovett to the Secretary of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
(McFarland)Washington, October 31, 1947.
Memorandum From Acting Secretary of State Lovett to the Secretary of joint
Chiefs of Staff (McFarland)
The Department of State has noted the organization and functions of the
Joint Staff described in the Memorandum of the Director (Designate),
Joint Staff (JCS 1794/4), approved by
the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 22, 1947 (JCS 1794/6).Neither
found. Further, the National Security Act of 1947 established
a Central Intelligence Agency headed by a Director of Central
Intelligence whose duties, under the direction of the National Security
Council as provided for in Section 102(d) of the said Act, are believed,
among other things, to
supersede the duties heretofore delegated to Department of State
representatives on the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Joint
Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Director of Central
Intelligence took the oath of office on September 26, 1947, and the
Central Intelligence Agency has been activated under the law.
The Department of State, therefore, herewith withdraws its formal
representation from the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Joint
Intelligence Staff. Pending the establishment of other channels, the
Department’s representatives will continue to perform such liaison and
coordinating activities as may be desired.
Robert A. LovettPrinted from a copy that
indicates Lovett signed
the original.
327. Letter From the Secretary of State’s Acting Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–806, Item 9. Secret.Washington, October 29, 1947.
Dear Admiral
Hillenkoetter: The following suggestions for the
revision of current NIA directives are
offered in response to paragraph 3 of your memorandum of 9 October 1947,
subject: Initial National Security Council Directive to CIA.Not found.
Those provisions of NIA Directives
1–11, inclusive, and of IAB 1/2 which
are not specifically included in the National Security Act and which
have not become unnecessary through being overtaken by events, should be
repeated in the new National Security Council directive or
directives.The NSC directives should contain a
definition of intelligence relating to or affecting the national
security, which should conform to the definition of national
intelligence as approved by the NIA.The subject of inspection should be clarified in detail. The
provisions now contained in paragraph 2 of NIA #5 should be eliminated and substitution made as
follows:
The Director of Central Intelligence is authorized and directed,
in connection with his responsibilities for coordination, to
survey the operations of the Federal intelligence agencies in
order to ascertain what necessary intelligence functions
relating to the national security are not being presently
performed or are not being adequately performed or involve
wasteful duplication of effort. Such a survey shall include a
determination of the causes of any omissions, inadequacies or
duplications. The conclusions of the survey shall serve as the
basis of recommendations to the National Security Council for
corrective measures. In his coordinating capacity the Director
of Central Intelligence is responsible for insuring that
existing facilities are adequate to meet the fair requirements
both of the departments and of the National Security Council as
determined by their several responsibilities. Normally,
therefore, such corrective recommendations will be designed to
strengthen the base of the overall intelligence structure by
recognizing primary departmental needs and supporting the
agencies directly serving them. Centralization of functions will
be recommended only in cases when, by agreement among the
departments and the Central Intelligence Agency, such functions
are essential and are most beneficially and effectively
accomplished on a centralized basis.
The provisions of NIA #6 should be
revised to accord with the recommendation of the Interdepartmental
Committee already submitted to NIA, and
those of NIA #8 should not be included
in the new directives.The new National Security Council directives should make provision for
clear recognition of the general principle that departmental
intelligence agencies produce finished intelligence in the fields of
their dominant interests and, as far as possible, CIA bases production
of national intelligence upon utilization of finished departmental
intelligence obtained from the agencies rather than upon CIA processing
of source materials.The new NSC directives should provide
for coordination of maintenance and servicing of intelligence document
collections.W. Park Armstrong, Jr.Printed from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
328. Letter From the Acting Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to the Executive Secretary of the National
Security Council (Souers)Source:
Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman, Records of
the National Security Council. Confidential.Washington, November 5, 1947.
Dear Admiral
Souers: Following the conversation which Colonel
Booth and I had with you on October 24th the
Department notified the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the withdrawal of its
representation on the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Joint
Intelligence Staff. I enclose a copy of that memorandum for your
information.See the attachment to Document 326.
I am also enclosing a copy of a letter to Admiral Hillenkoetter, asking him to establish relations
with the Joint Intelligence Committee which will provide for continuing
cooperation and joint activity between the Department and the Joint Chiefs
on intelligence matters.
Sincerely yours,
W. Park Armstrong, Jr.
Enclosure
Washington, November 5, 1947.
Letter From the Acting Secretary of State’s Special
Assistant for Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to Director of Central
Intelligence Hillenkoetter
Dear Admiral
Hillenkoetter: Under date of October 31, 1947
the Department of State notified the Joint Chiefs of Staff by
memorandumSee footnote 1 above. of the withdrawal of its
representation on the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) and the Joint Intelligence Staff
(JIS), at the same time offering to
maintain such liaison and coordinating activities as may be necessary
until other channels are established (copy of memorandum enclosed). The Department indicated to
the Joint Chiefs of Staff that it believes the proper channel for joint
action in intelligence matters between itself and the Joint Chiefs is
through the Director of Central Intelligence and the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA). The Department therefore requests the
Director of Central Intelligence and the CIA to establish liaison and
coordinating relations with the JIC and
JIS as soon as feasible to the end
that no gap shall exist between the Department and the intelligence
organization of the Joint Chiefs.
In considering the character and scope of the liaison and coordinating
activities to be established, the following matters, among others, are
of immediate concern: (a) policy with respect to the distribution of
JIC and JIS papers to the CIA and, in turn, to the Department; (b)
the forwarding of and responding to requests for intelligence
contributions between the JIC and the
JIS on the one hand, and the
Department on the other, and (c) procedures whereby concurrence of the
Department is obtained in respect to estimates or papers based in whole
or in part upon contributions by the Department, or which are recognized
to involve important conclusions in its fields of primary interest and,
reciprocally, that concurrences may be obtained by the Department on
intelligence matters within the cognizance of the Joint Chiefs.
A number of possible methods for handling the liaison and coordinating
activities described above will undoubtedly suggest themselves to you.
The following alternative procedures, however, are proposed for your consideration:Joint action on intelligence matters might be accomplished in
the IAC assisted by a sub-staff
appointed by the IAC
representatives, the service members of which correspond to the
JIS, as was suggested in the
JIC 364 series of
papers.Joint action might be accomplished by enlarging the assignment
of the present departmental representatives to ORE (i.e., Mr. M. B.
Booth for the Department of State, Colonel
R. F. Ennis for the Department of the
Army, etc.), so that these officers represent their departments
with CIA for the purpose of dealing with problems requiring
joint action and the obtaining of concurrences, rather than, as
at present, being limited to such activities in respect to
ORE papers only.The proposed “Standing Committee” of the IAC could be designated as the
agency to assist the IAC in
processing all problems involving joint action.
Of the above alternatives, it seems to us that the third offers the more
direct and satisfactory solution to the problem, although it might
require redefinition of the functions and responsibilities of the
proposed “Standing Committee.” It is suggested, however, that the
foregoing proposals, together with any others which may seem desirable
to you, be placed before
ICAPS in order that an acceptable
solution may be presented to the JIC and
the IAC as soon as possible.
Sincerely yours,
W. Park Armstrong, Jr.Printed from a copy that
bears this typed signature.
329. Memorandum From the Chief of the Global Survey Group, Central
Intelligence Agency (Montague) to the Assistant Director for Reports and
Estimates (Babbit)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–450, Item 24. Confidential.Washington, November 12, 1947.
SUBJECT
Production of a “World Situation Estimate”The Global Survey Group is charged with the production of “World
Situation Estimates.” The content and frequency of these Estimates are
not specified. I understand that ORE
undertook to produce them on its own initiative, and suppose the content
and timing are left to the discretion of ORE. Presumably the Estimates would consist of a more
extended exposition of those matters presented in current and summary
form in the CIA Series. It has been anticipated that Estimates would be
produced semi-annually, the first by the end of the current year.A prerequisite to the preparation of a World Situation Estimate, as
herein envisaged, is the existence of a body of staff intelligence
prepared by the several Branches with reference to their particular
concerns but affording coverage of all situations of global
significance. This is not to say that the World Situation Estimate would
be merely a miscellany of Branch estimates collected under one cover. On
the contrary, it must be a coherent analysis of the world situation from
a global point of view. The Branch estimates from which it is derived
will presumably have to be reworked by the Global Survey Group to meet
this requirement. The prerequisite staff intelligence must be provided,
however, before the Global Survey Group can proceed with its
task.On my return from leave in early September it was my intention to
initiate a series of projects designed to close the gaps in our staff
intelligence coverage and to permit the completion of the first World
Situation Estimate on about 1 December. During September and early
October, however, the Global Group was preoccupied with meeting the
unanticipated and urgent requirements of the National Security Council
and its Staff Group. Thereafter I was unwell and had to defer specific
planning for the World Situation Estimate until about 1 November.On canvassing the situation I now find that the available staff
intelligence is generally adequate with respect to the Near East, the
Far East, and Latin America, but that it is decidedly inadequate with
respect to the U.S.S.R., the U.K., France, and Germany. Those four
countries, however, constitute the very crux of the world situation as
we have analyzed it in CIA 1. ORE should
have produced a complete and thoroughly analytical coverage of them on
general grounds, apart from the requirements of a World Situation
Estimate. The actual state of ORE
coverage with respect to each is as follows: The U.S.S.R.:ORE has produced no general
analysis of Soviet objectives and strategy since ORE 1 (23 July 1946). That part of
ORE 1 relating to the basic
policy of the U.S.S.R. is still generally valid (as it should
be). But ORE 1 was produced by
one man over the weekend to meet an unanticipated and urgent
requirement. It has always been subject to improvement with more
time for deliberation and, at the age of sixteen months could
also be improved in the light of subsequent developments. As
regards current Soviet strategy for the accomplishment of basic
objectives (see Special Evaluation No. 22), it is of course far
out of date.The U.K.: An analysis of British
capabilities and policies corresponding to ORE 1 has been projected since
July, as ORE 26. At last report,
however, its early completion was not to be expected.France:ORE coverage of France has been
exclusively in the form of current intelligence; no thorough
analysis of the French situation has ever been attempted or
projected. Yet France is the key to the situation in Western
Europe. There is presently in preparation an estimate of the
current political situation in that country, but on form it is
more likely to run as current than as staff intelligence. A
thorough analysis of all factors in the French situation is
definitely required.Germany:ORE has produced no staff
intelligence on Germany except ORE 11/1 (8 April 1947). That paper, as its title
implies, was a summary review of the objectives and policies of
the occupying powers rather than a thorough analysis of the
German situation. Such an analysis should have been produced ere
now in anticipation of the C.F.M. meeting a fortnight hence. A
report on Germany is in preparation, but its original version
was current rather than staff intelligence and it is still too
slight and
superficial to provide the thorough analysis of the German
situation that is required.Personnel of the present Global Survey Group produced both ORE 1 and ORE 11/1, the first singlehanded, the second with some
assistance from the Branch. The Group, however, is not the proper body
to prepare any one of the four estimates specifically required and
certainly cannot produce all of them and a World Situation Estimate
simultaneously.Under the existing organization of ORE
it is an implicit function of the Global Survey Group to propose
projects designed to correct deficiencies in ORE coverage as the Group perceives them. The procedure for
giving effect to such proposals is unclear, however. The Group itself
lacks authority to direct the Branches to take appropriate action or to
see to it that any action taken actually satisfies the requirement
indicated. Moreover, three requirements indicated herein result from the
consistent inability or disinclination of two Branches to perform the
primary function of ORE (thorough
intelligence analysis, as distinguished from current intelligence
reporting). This is a matter too fundamental to be dealt with through
the routine functioning of the Global Survey Group and the Estimates
Group. Both in theory and as a practical matter, it appears that only
the Assistant Director himself has the requisite authority to give the
direction and the instruction needed in these circumstances.Recommendations:That the Eastern European-U.S.S.R. Branch be directed to
prepare, as a matter of priority, an analysis of basic Soviet
objectives and of current Soviet strategy, on the order of
ORE 1.That the Western European Branch be directed to prepare, as a
matter of priority, thorough analyses of the situation in France
and the situation in Germany.That the Northern Branch be directed to complete ORE 26 as a matter of
priority.That each Branch be instructed that in each case the
desideratum is a thoughtful analysis of the fundamental
situation rather than a superficial account of current
events.That the preparation of a World Situation Report be deferred
until the estimates referred to above are available at least in
final draft.Ludwell L. MontaguePrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
330. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) to the Under Secretary
of State (Lovett)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Policy Planning Staff Files, 1947–53: Lot 64 D 563, Box 10,
Intelligence. No classification marking. The Policy Planning Staff
minutes for November 18 indicate that Kennan would recommend to Lovett that the Policy Planning Staff go over the draft
NIA directives sent to the
Department for comment. (Ibid., Box 32)Washington, November 18, 1947.
The National Security Council has instructed Hillenkoetter to present by November 26 a draft of a
permanent directive for the CIA.Reference is to
NSC Action No. 3, taken at the
Council’s first meeting on September 26, instructing the Director of
Central Intelligence to submit within 60 days “proposed authorizations
supplanting the former directives of the National Intelligence Authority
and specifying his functions and those of the Central Intelligence
Agency in accordance with the provisions of the National Security Act of
1947.” (National Security Council, Policies of the
Government of the United States of America Relating to the National
Security, vol. 1, 1947–48, p. 53)
He has prepared such a draft and has sent it for comment to Armstrong, who heads up these activities
in this Department.
Armstrong has rather important
objections to it. He has brought it to me and inquired whether he could
state these objections in the name of the Department. I told him that I
would wish to have the Staff study the matter carefully and that I would
then submit my recommendations to you as to the position the Department
should take. It is a complicated matter, involving the whole pattern of
relations between the various departments and the CIA in intelligence
matters.
Provided you have no objections, we will make this the subject of a Staff
study.In the margin next to this paragraph
there is a handwritten “OK” with Lovett’s initial. On November 20 the Policy Planning
Staff suspended work on the study until an interagency working group had
revised the draft directives. (Minutes of the 88th meeting, November 20;
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Policy Planning Staff Files, 1947–1953: Lot 64 D
563, Box 32) This presumably was the result of action taken by the
IAB at its meeting on November 20;
see Document 332.
George F. Kennan
331. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to Acting Secretary of State LovettSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, Drafts of NSC Directives to Replace NIA Directives. Top Secret.Washington, November 20, 1947.
The attached memorandum from the Director of Central Intelligence, dated
November 10, 1947, on the subject of new NSC
Intelligence Directives, drafts of which were enclosed,All attachments are in the Supplement except the draft
directives submitted with Hillenkoetter’s memorandum, which were not found.
has been given careful study in the light of the changes required by the
enactment of the National Security Act and the passage of time. Our analysis
of the proposed new Directives leads us to the tentative conclusions that
(a) in a number of important respects they fail to include certain basic
principles, embraced in the NIA Directives,
which are of continuing validity, and (b) in other respects they are at
variance with certain of those principles and with the intent of the
National Security Act.
Since the establishment of the Central Intelligence Group under authority
contained in the President’s letter of January 22, 1946, there has been
continued effort to establish a practical system by which the Director of
Central Intelligence can meet his responsibilities toward over-all
coordination of the intelligence activities of the several intelligence
agencies of the Government, and, at the same time, those agencies can
fulfill their departmental and interdepartmental responsibilities. As a
result of this effort the NIA Directives,
including the proposed Directive advanced in IAB 1/2, were progressively evolved. Although those Directives
are not considered perfect or complete, I believe that, with certain
modifications, they could be used as a satisfactory basis from which to
proceed toward accomplishing the desired coordination. I further believe
that the omissions from the proposed new NSC
Directives, coupled with the parts at variance with the old Directives, not
only nullify much of the progress already made toward the solution of the
problem, but raise the issue of establishing complete control of all
intelligence activity of the Government in a single authority under the
NSC. I believe that it was not the
intent of the Congress, as expressed in the National Security Act, to
establish a single head for all Federal intelligence agencies.
In addition to the proposed new Directives going, in my opinion, beyond the
intent of the Congress, I submit further that to establish a single head for all Governmental intelligence
agencies would not be a desirable method for coordinating the intelligence
activities of the Government, so long as departmental intelligence
activities are to continue, because (a) it would necessarily impede the
direct and immediate response of departmental intelligence organizations to
the operational requirements of their department heads; (b) it would place
the chiefs of departmental intelligence organizations in the impractical
situation of facing two lines of authority, and (c) it identifies the
principle of coordination with command and control functions rather than
with those functions of initiative, clarification, and cooperative action
among equals which form the true meaning of the term.
I cannot, therefore, concur in the proposed NSC Directives presented with the memorandum from the Director
of Central Intelligence. Specific objections, which call attention to the
omissions and variations between the principles contained in the NIA Directives (including the proposed
Directive contained in IAB 1/2), and the
proposed NSC Directives, are set forth in
the attached Tab A.
In lieu of the proposed NSC Directives
forwarded with the memorandum of November 10, 1947, we submit herewith, as
Tab B through H, recommended draft proposals for NSC Directives to establish policies for the coordination of
Governmental intelligence activities and the production of national
intelligence.
W. Park Armstrong, Jr.Printed from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
332. Minutes of a Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory BoardSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–657. Secret. The meeting was held in the North
Interior Building. The minutes themselves do not identify this as an
IAB meeting and there was some
debate on the subject at the table (see especially Hillenkoetter’s exchange with Admiral
Inglis and General Chamberlin at the end of the meeting).
Darling describes this as an IAB meeting, pointing out that the IAB did not go out of existence when the
National Security Act came into force because the NSC extended the validity of National
Intelligence Authority Directives for 60 days.
(Darling, The Central
Intelligence Agency, pp. 211–212)Washington, November 20, 1947, 2
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Rear Admiral R. H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
ChairPresentMr. W. Park Armstrong, Jr.,
Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and
IntelligenceMajor General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Director of Intelligence, GSUSA Rear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceMajor General George C.
McDonald, Director of Intelligence, Hdq., US Air
ForceRear Admiral John E.
Gingrich, Director of Intelligence and Security, Atomic
Energy CommissionBrig. General Walter E. Todd, Deputy Director,
Joint Intelligence Group, JISMr. Prescott Childs, Central
Intelligence AgencyMr. Lawrence R. Houston, General
CounselColonel Merritt B. Booth, Department of
StateColonel Riley F. Ennis, GSUSACaptain R. K. Davis, USNMr. William C. Trueheart, AECMr. Allan Evans, Department of StateColonel E. J. Treacy, GSUSAColonel E. P. Mussett, Air ForceCaptain H. C. Doan, Central Intelligence
AgencyColonel John B. Sherman, Central Intelligence
AgencyColonel William J. Clinch, Central Intelligence
AgencyGeneral Cabell, Air
Force
Director: I have a couple of corrections I would like to make before we start
on this. In the last three lines at the bottom of page 2 of the covering
memorandumDated November 10. (Memorandum,
Hillenkoetter to Special
Assistant for Research and Intelligence, and others; National Archives
and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776)
change “paragraph 6 from paragraph 2” to “paragraph 1f.” “Paragraph 7 from
paragraph 3” to “paragraph 1g.” And “paragraph 8 is derived from parts of
CIG 18 and the National Security Act.”
At the first meeting of the National Security Council on September 26, they
said we would continue the NIA Directives
for 60 days. We will have to submit some new ones on the 26th of this month.
That is the limit. We sent a
memorandum to the agencies on October 9Not
found. asking for any suggestions and to please let us know. We
got a little help from the State Department. They came through with some
suggestions. Today I don’t know how long it will take to get an agreement on
the four NSC directives. We will try to
finish those at least so we can send those in. Is that all right?
Mr. Armstrong: I would like to say,
Admiral, that the Department of State has not been able in the time
available to arrive at a firm position on these directives. The matter is
before Mr. Lovett at the present
time. Due to the Secretary’s departure for London today, he has not been
able to pass on the directives themselves and the proposed changes that we
have felt were essential. So while I am prepared to discuss the directives
today, I can’t speak for the Department. It cannot be committed as yet.
Director: I don’t think it should be the Departments, the intelligence heads
are to give their opinions.
Mr. Armstrong: Yes, but if it is
coming before the National Security Council, the heads of each of the
intelligence organizations, I feel, must have the Department’s position firm
before we can speak finally.
Director: Let’s try and get through these first four if we can. If we can’t,
we will have to tell them we can’t do it.
Adm. Inglis: I understand, in any
case, these papers, before they are finally approved by the National
Security Council, will have another processing in the respective
departments.
Director: Yes.
Adm. Inglis: I want to make it quite
clear that anything I say is my own opinion—
Director: They will all go back again.
Adm. Inglis: As the Chief of Naval
Intelligence and not as a mouthpiece of the Secretary. I have not gone to
him and I have no intention of doing it—
Director: We will have to do it.
Adm. Inglis: On something in which I
am in doubt. There will be another processing of this.
Director: The National Security Council will send them out again.
Adm. Inglis: I would like to make this
comment. You got a little help from the participating agencies something
over a month ago. I feel a lot of time and controversy and time—especially
time—on the part of the intelligence agencies, who are quite busy, if
matters of this kind could be handled in a committee on the working level so
that these differences, and there are numerous differences in all of these
papers, could be reconciled before
they were ever brought up to our level. I realize the Central Intelligence
Agency has gone through a process of reorganization because of the passage
of legislation and the position of the Intelligence Advisory Board, or
Committee, is not yet quite clear, so I am speaking more for the future than
the past. But I think in the future if they can be coordinated by a working
committee and all of these differences are aired and ironed out, and as
possible reconciled, it will save time and ruffled tempers and will come out
with a better job. Out of the 60 days, 45 days had been used before it came
up to us. Finally, the Central Intelligence Agency, on its own initiative
and own authority, produced these papers with 15 days left to consider them.
I think they should be considered as they are formulated rather than have a
finished product to take it or leave it.
Director: I don’t think it is taking it or leaving it, but you did have a
time limit. I agree we ought to try and get it worked out beforehand, but we
had to rewrite the things and clear them all around.
Gen. Chamberlin: I would like to add
to Admiral Inglis’ remark that the
system used here is quite difficult for us. I am head of the intelligence
department and I have many administrative responsibilities and I can’t turn
it off and on at somebody else’s command. I have to seek my own time for
these things because I have other things to do. As far as I am concerned, I
came out unprepared to discuss these papers. My people have worked on them
and they find many things that they want to challenge. There are important
differences of principle involved in these papers that have never been
approached nor are they included in past directives. I have not been able to
take those things up with even my own military chiefs and I think that the
problem has been approached in a way that is quite disadvantageous to the
contributing agencies of intelligence.
Director: I think there ought to be the least difference of opinion in the
National Security Council directives.
Gen. McDonald: I would like to make a
statement. Analysis of these proposed directives revealed it is going to be
necessary for me to recommend many changes. In view of this, I consider it
would be impossible to cover these directives this afternoon, and there
should be, therefore, no attempt here to go into either the philosophy or
the composition of these directives. I recommend that an ad hoc committee to
be formed immediately to examine our recommendations and those which any of
the other members have for the purpose of reconciling views. I am afraid,
for the short time available, for our people to study these things and get
together. That right now, on this level, we are doing it. We can’t be
expected to do the work of an ad hoc committee. I don’t think it is quite
right or productive of a cordial overall workable product.
Director: How long do you think it would take this committee to do it?
Gen. McDonald: Two or three days.
Adm. Inglis: I estimate ten days
minimum.
Gen. McDonald: That is working extra
time of course. Non-union hours.
Adm. Gingrich: It seems to me we
would make faster progress if it were handled in that way. As far as I am
concerned, all I could do here is discuss the matter and any product that
would be turned up here I would have to take back and get approval from the
Commission. We do have some rather fundamental exceptions to take to the
directives from AEC’s point of view.
Director: Let’s get a committee appointed and try and get them working this
afternoon. If that is the opinion of everyone.
Mr. Armstrong: I might say, Admiral,
our analysis of the directives led us to the conclusion, in a number of
important respects, they failed to include basic principles embraced in the
NIA directives which should have a
continuing validity, and in certain other respects there was a variance with
certain of those principles and intent of the National Security Act. We
think a very considerable revision of the directives would be necessary as
they now stand and we have ourselves prepared a series of substitutes and
proposals. We would be glad to present them to you or an ad hoc committee
for consideration, along with the directives drafted here.
Director: Does everybody agree to have this ad hoc committee?
Gen. Chamberlin: I wonder how far we
should go into this subject. I’m confident you are going to find a great
deal of differences of opinion on principle, especially on this first
directive—the one I had a chance to read thoroughly. Is it necessary that
the CIA directives themselves have such a high degree of precedence here?
Wouldn’t it be advisable to settle the principles in which the National
Security Council is involved expeditiously by an ad hoc committee and then
give them an additional job when they complete those to go into the DCI directives.
Director: The first four directives have to be in by the 26th. The others can
wait.
Gen. Chamberlin: I don’t know whether
you can meet that date. If you can define the duties of this, the four
principle directives, to the ad hoc committee they will go much faster than
the others—rather than take the whole field for the moment.
Director: The others can wait, but these first four have to be in.
Gen. McDonald: In the meantime, how
would it be to request an additional time period beyond the 60 days
limitation, which is practically over. And you would get a much better
product.
Mr. Armstrong: I have a number of
reasons why I think there would be no opposition.
Gen. Chamberlin: If we don’t get our
own departments lined up before they go to it thoroughly in agreement, then
we are going to run into a time-consuming period that will be—I won’t say
disastrous—disadvantageous.
Director: We would like to get them in, it would be much better. Let’s knock
off this meeting and appoint members right now.
Gen. McDonald: I have Colonel
Mussett.
Adm. Inglis: Captain
Davis.
Mr. Armstrong: Mr.
Booth.
Adm. Gingrich: Mr.
Truehart.
Gen. Chamberlin: Is there any
objection to having two? Both Colonel Ennis and Colonel
Treacy. The thing caught us so short we had to make
two individual studies and neither one have reached me, so I don’t know what
they are going to say, but I can get it within the next day or two.
Director: We can make a limitation of time for this committee here.
Gen. Chamberlin: I should think they
could report their findings and differences rather expeditiously if they
confine themselves to the four directives. However, I noted as I scanned
these that there is material in the DCI
directives—
Director: There are no origins for those.
Gen. Chamberlin: Which formerly
appeared in the NIA directives and
incorporated into the DCI directives. My
opinion is so broad and fundamental, but shouldn’t it be in the NSC directives. They may have to scan them to
find out what should be picked out and put in the higher order directive, I
might say, but I don’t think they would have to go into the detail of the
DCI directives. I may be wrong because I
haven’t made any detailed study myself.
Director: That is up to the committee. Let’s call off our meeting and let the
committee start.
Adm. Gingrich: One point I might
mention, Hilly, there doesn’t appear to be any
provision in these first two directives here for an Intelligence Advisory
Committee, or Board, such as is executed under our old setup. While there is
no specific provision in the National Security Act for such a committee, I
think you indicated there would be such a group. And it would seem to me
important that that be provided for in this basic directive, something that
is to operate, etc. Can it be defined?
Director: You have your ad hoc committee. In the law here it has very
definitely said who will appoint committees. The Secretary of Defense, the
Chairman of the Resources Board, and the Director of Central Intelligence
have the authority to appoint such committees, etc. On that, my legal people
say their interpretation is that since the other people were not mentioned they are not authorized to
appoint committees. I am not a lawyer.
Adm. Gingrich: I wasn’t thinking of
anyone else, but your committee is not indicated or laid down here.
Mr. Childs: They are coming out from
the National Security Council as their directives and they cannot appoint
committees.
Mr. Armstrong: They can direct the
Director to appoint one.
Adm. Inglis: There isn’t any law which
says the National Security Council cannot appoint one.
Mr. Childs: But none saying they
can.
Adm. Inglis: You know they are going
to appoint committees.
Gen. McDonald: Those men are not
shrinking violets—they have the authority.
Director: They haven’t yet.
Adm. Inglis: We have a paper that is
controversial. Again it was sent directly to the departments for a take it
or leave it proposition. It got bogged down because there were dissents and
controversy and people hesitated to act. These things can be ironed out on
the working level and the way greased for much prompter action and less
irritation.
Gen. Chamberlin: I would like to bring
out one feature—to me it is a rather dangerous one. I know I would seriously
object to it myself as a matter of principle. Maybe it should be considered
by this group that we have. Whether it was intended or not, but when this
paper was written, there is, undoubtedly, a strain in here which is to drive
a wedge between the chief of the intelligence departments and his superior;
because they say we can come up here and if we agree on any paper, the
chiefs of the intelligence divisions, unanimously it becomes effective. If
they haven’t, then the Central Intelligence chief has the right of appeal to
go over their head to their own Secretary. I would like to make it most
emphatic when I come up here I speak for the Secretary and if I have doubts
in the matter it is up to me to go to the Secretary to find out whether I am
on the track and I personally object to seeing that wedge driving because it
destroys completely command principles.
Director: There was no intention of that. If it is military it goes to the
Secretary of Defense before it goes to the Council.
Gen. Chamberlin: The Secretary of
Defense is all right, but it says the Secretary of the departments and that
principle, I think, is a very dangerous thing from a military viewpoint and
I would hate to see it included as a principle in the procedures of which I
have anything to do.
Adm. Gingrich: Those things will
come out in the ad hoc committee.
Gen. Chamberlin: I wanted to call it
to the attention of the people here.
Gen. McDonald: This kind of activity
recalls to mind some of the nasty features of the old NIA Directive No. 9, which you so kindly
rescinded.
Director: I didn’t, the NIA did.
Gen. McDonald: You instigated it.
This is the reviving of it.
Gen. Chamberlin: I would be inclined
to keep quiet at all times because I would be very much afraid it would be
appealed over my head.
Director: Let’s get our boys started here. Air Force—Colonel
Mussett; Army—Colonel Ennis
and Colonel Treacy; Navy—Captain
Davis; State—Colonel Booth and
Mr. Evans; AEC—Mr.
Truehart. Can they start here now? We planned for
the afternoon anyway.
Gen. Chamberlin: Are they to concern
themselves only with the first four?
Director: General Todd, do you want to appoint
anybody?
Gen. Todd: I’m hardly in a position to designate anyone.
If you want General Gruenther—I think he would be just
as happy if he wasn’t called upon to do it.
Mr. Armstrong: I would suggest that
the discussion only be confined to the first four, because our view is that
some of those designated as DCI directives
should be NSC.
Director: The first four have to have a priority because they have to go
in.
Adm. Inglis: As a middle ground
between those two thoughts, let us consider the first four NSC directives with the addition of anything in
the DCI directives which the committee feels
should be transposed to the NSC
directives.
Director: No, because the NSC directives
theoretically have to be in next Wednesday. I mean there is no time
limitation to the others. You can have four or fourteen days.
Mr. Armstrong: I didn’t mean that I
didn’t want the others to be included mechanically.
Adm. Gingrich: The question before
this committee—would they discuss No. 2 in connection with these
directives?
Director: I think that ought to wait until we see what comes out of this
committee.
Adm. Gingrich: I think it has a
bearing on the basic directive—whether you appoint it, or how.
Director: Let the committee discuss it. That, I think, can wait until after
these others have gone in.
Adm. Inglis: At the moment we are
operating under the blanket authority of the National Security Council
because they approved for 60 days the directives of its predecessor the
National Intelligence Authority
and in turn authorized the Intelligence Advisory Board. So we have that
authority to set and appoint our representatives. And I think that is proper
at the moment. Is that right?
Director: I think that is debatable. No, I don’t think you can stand up and
say it is right. Among other things the NIA
went out of existence.
Adm. Inglis: Didn’t the National
Security Council pick up the directives and say they would remain in effect
for 60 days?
Director: I don’t remember the exact words. That point has come up here and I
think you can make a good argument either way.
Gen. Chamberlin: The National
Intelligence Authority created an IAB. So if
the National Intelligence Authority directives are in effect for 60 days
there is automatically an IAB until the
termination of that period.
Director: But on the other hand Congress cut off all of those in the Act.
Adm. Inglis: Without an extra legal
man.Inglis’ statement has been crossed out in the source
text.
Director: Not extra legal, but one on this one. One thing you are sure of
among other things is that there will be no NIA. The IAB reported to the
NIA. The NIA doesn’t exist, who can they report to?
Adm. Inglis: By virtue of the National
Security Council approving the old NIA
directives.
Director: It is not clear at all on that. We are losing time, let this
committee get started.
333. Memorandum From the Chairman of the Research and Development Board
(Bush) to Secretary of
Defense ForrestalSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–806, Item 10. Secret. The source text is a copy
transcribed for the CIA Historian on July 3, 1953.Washington, December 5, 1947.
SUBJECT
Central Intelligence Agency
It became evident this morning when you and I were before the Joint
Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, that that Committee is going to delve into the
intelligence situation vigorously. I indicated, and I judge that you agreed,
that in this connection they should turn to the Central Intelligence Agency,
and I believe they will do so soon.
Now I fear the CIA is not yet in a good position to meet this call. They have
been studying the situation of directives, and particularly their
relationships with the Atomic Energy Commission. In this connection, they
have an Intelligence Advisory Committee which meets next Monday, but it
seems to be quite divided. As to the question of whether CIA should be a
small coordinating body or should be itself operating widely, I attach two
memoranda from my staff which indicate to me that there is a considerable
amount of confusion present as things now stand.
The CIA takes its instructions from the National Security Council. In view of
what occurred this morning and the imminence of vigorous inquiry, I believe
that Mr. Souers probably should be
alerted and that the Security Council ought soon to pass on some of the
policy questions involved. If you agree, then I suggest that it might be
well to pass this memo on to him with your comments. Of course, I shall be
glad to aid in any way that the Research and Development Board may be
involved in this whole matter.
V. BushPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
Enclosure 1Source: Central Intelligence
Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–806, Item 11. Secret. The source text
is a copy transcribed for the CIA Historian on July 3,
1953.Washington, December 3, 1947.
Memorandum From the Director of the Programs Division
(Clark) to the Chairman
of the Research and Development Board, Department of Defense
(Bush)
SUBJECT
CIA SituationWith further reference to attached memorandum, Mr.
Beckler, Dr.
Brode,Dr.
Wallace R. Brode, Chief of the
Scientific Branch, Central Intelligence Agency. and I had
lunch with Mr. Evans of the State Department to
discuss this subject.Another meeting of the IAC is to
be held on Monday, 8 December, to discuss these directives and
indications are that no agreement will be reached. The difficulty
seems to be fundamental differences in philosophy between the two
groups in that the heads of the intelligence operating agencies feel
that CIA should be a small, high-level, strategic intelligence
integrating organization, evolving what they call “national
intelligence” from information supplied by the operating agencies,
while CIA proposes to be a conglomerate of operating and evaluating
functions with considerable authority over the other operating
intelligence agencies.The Intelligence Advisory Committee mentioned in Mr.
Beckler’s memorandum is, of course, not
provided for by law, but in the original draft directives prepared
by CIA it was proposed to have the Director of CIA reconstitute it
as an advisory committee to the Director of CIA. The committee
proposed by the present IAC would be
established by Executive Order almost in the form of a governing
committee for CIA. An Executive Order would be required as it is
contended that the Security Council has no authority to establish
such boards or committees. The Intelligence Advisory Committee
proposed by the heads of the operating agencies would possess a
great deal of power to influence the actions of the Director of
CIA.Someone at the highest level should define the objection of CIA in
relation to the production of strategic intelligence in support of
the activities of the Security Council and delineate relationships
between CIA and the operating agencies in such manner that the work
of producing information, detailed intelligence, and integrated
strategic intelligence can proceed.The situation has Dr. Brode completely
stymied. It is blocking his attempts to recruit and organize his
staff, and preventing RDB from
obtaining any useful intelligence from CIA.Ralph L. ClarkPrinted from a copy that
indicates Clark signed
the original.
Enclosure 2Source: Central Intelligence
Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–806, Item 12. Secret. The source text
is a copy transcribed for the CIA Historian on July 3,
1953.Washington, December 2, 1947.
Memorandum From the Chief of the Intelligence Section
(Beckler) to the Director of the Programs
Division, Research and Development Board, Department of Defense
(Bush)
SUBJECT
The Critical Situation with Regard to Atomic Energy
Intelligence
Explanation: The information contained in this
memo is based on conversations with responsible members of the Atomic
Energy Commission Intelligence Division. It points out the present
awkward position of AEC in the field of
atomic energy intelligence, which at present is handled almost
exclusively by CIA.
The Central Intelligence Agency has been directed by the National
Security Council to prepare suitable NSC directives to implement the National Security Act
of 1947. Four basic directives and a number of Implementing
Supplements thereto have been prepared by the CIA Planning Staff and
were submitted by the Director of Intelligence to his Intelligence
Advisory CommitteeA footnote in the
source text at this point gives the names of the IAC members. at a meeting
held on 30 November 1947.No record of
this meeting has been found. The reference may be to Hillenkoetter’s meeting with
the departmental intelligence chiefs on November 20; see Document 332.The proposed basic directives have not been submitted to RDB for comment. However, the tenor of
Implementing Supplement IAC/4 (which
was submitted to the Board) indicates that the directives place
considerable authority and responsibility in the hands of the
Director of CIA at the expense of the Departmental Intelligence
Agencies as well as the AEC and
RDB. The IAC members strongly opposed these directives and an ad
hoc committee was formed to draft a new set for IAC consideration.The ad hoc committee, under State Department leadership, prepared
a set of revised directives which placed considerably more authority
in the IAC
and less in the Director of CIA than was
proposed in the earlier directives. According to the revised
directives, major recommendations of the Director to the NSC must be accompanied by the
concurrence or dissent of the IAC.
Further, under revised Directive No. 1, CIA would not engage in basic intelligence
research in those fields in which the Departmental Intelligence
Agencies are engaged. In short, the original and revised directives
embody totally different philosophies. Under one, CIA would be
almost completely self-sufficient. Under the other, CIA would be a
small coordinating body surrounded by strong Departmental
Intelligence Agencies.Regardless of the merits of one set of directives vs. the
other—the present confusion is causing considerable embarrassment to
the newly created Intelligence Division of the AEC, and greatly impedes its
operations. Since the directives as finally decided upon may affect
the nature and scope of AEC
intelligence operations, the Army, Navy, and Air Departments as well
as CIA—while agreeing in principle to cooperation with AEC—are deferring actual exchange of
information until the AEC-CIA
relationship is crystallized. Considering the conflicting directives
which have been proposed—this may take considerable time.Dr. Brode has not been officially advised
with respect to these negotiations and has not been consulted in
connection with the problem of AEC–CIA cooperation.Conclusions: There is considerable difference of opinion as to the type
of CIA organization that would be best suited to implement
the provisions and spirit of the National Security Act.
Until CIA specifically delineates its objectives and
responsibilities and defines its terms and mission, it is
doubtful that the best organizational pattern can be decided
upon.RDB is greatly concerned
with the present attempts to formulate directives. It is
completely dependent upon CIA for strategic as well as
scientific intelligence which are the sine qua non for
carrying out Board responsibilities under the Act. The
extent of CIA’s ability to produce such intelligence will
largely be determined by the outcome of the present
negotiations.Atomic Energy Intelligence is in a critical
situation.Recommendations:That RDB determine the
nature and type of intelligence it requires from CIA.That RDB suggest
directives to CIA that are best calculated to effect
(a).That RDB request CIA to
keep the Board informed as to the status of directives under
consideration with the view of commenting thereon.
334. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary (Souers) to the National Security CouncilSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Policy
Planning Staff, NSC Files: Lot 62 D 1,
NSC Intelligence Directives. Top
Secret.Washington, December 10, 1947.
SUBJECT
Proposed National Security Council Directives to the Central
Intelligence Agency
REFERENCE
NSC Action No. 3In its first meeting the National Security Council agreed that: All directives of the National Intelligence Authority to the
Central Intelligence Group be continued in full force and effect
until specifically repealed, altered or augmented by the
National Security Council, or changed in accordance with
paragraph b below.The Director of Central Intelligence should submit to the
Council within sixty days proposed authorizations supplanting
the former directives of the National Intelligence Authority and
specifying his functions and those of the Central Intelligence
Agency in accordance with the provisions of the National
Security Act of 1947.Pursuant to 1–b above, the proposed National Security Council
Intelligence Directives enclosed herewith,Copies of draft NSC Intelligence
Directives Nos. 1–6 were enclosed. For texts as approved by the
NSC, see Documents 422–426 and 432. which have been prepared by the
Director of Central Intelligence and coordinated with the intelligence
chiefs of the participating departments, the Atomic Energy Commission,
and the Joint Staff (Joint Chiefs of Staff), are submitted herewith for
consideration by the Council at its third meeting at 3:00 p.m. on
Friday, December 12. The enclosed Directives, which have been generally
agreed to by the above intelligence chiefs, are under final
consideration by them, and any
non-concurrences will be submitted to the Council tomorrow.The documentation on the preparation of the first
set of National Security Council Intelligence Directives is sketchy
and incomplete. The only account is in Darling,
The Central Intelligence Agency, pp.
214–217, who appears to have had access to some materials that have
not been located. According to Darling’s
account, the ad hoc committee established at Hillenkoetter’s November 20
meeting with the departmental intelligence chiefs (Document 332) brought in a set of draft
directives that were unacceptable to Hillenkoetter, or at least unacceptable in part. At
about the same time, Darling records, Hillenkoetter received a copy of
Secretary of the Army Royall’s memorandum of November 26 (Document 230) opposing Hillenkoetter’s concept of an Intelligence Advisory
Committee. Hillenkoetter
thereupon appealed to Forrestal, who called a meeting of the Service
Secretaries and Service Intelligence Chiefs and rebuked General
Chamberlin and Admiral
Inglis for their
opposition to Hillenkoetter’s proposals. Hillenkoetter then had his follow-on meeting with
the departmental intelligence chiefs on December 8, at which there
was general agreement on the directives to be submitted to the
NSC. A verbatim record of the
December 8 meeting, which apparently was not circulated at the time
but was subsequently located by Darling, is not
printed. (Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC–657)One additional NSC Intelligence
Directive will be submitted by the Director of Central Intelligence at a
future date, and this will complete action pursuant to paragraph 1–b
above. Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
335. Minutes of the 3d Meeting of the National Security CouncilSource: Truman Library, Papers of Harry S. Truman, President’s Secretary’s Files. Top
Secret. The meeting was held in the office of the Secretary of
Defense.Washington, December 12, 1947.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentJames V. Forrestal, Secretary
of Defense, presidingGeorge F. Kennan, representing
the Secretary of StateKenneth C. Royall, Secretary of
the ArmyJohn L. Sullivan, Secretary of
the NavyW. Stuart Symington, Secretary
of the Air ForceArthur M. Hill, Chairman,
National Security Resources BoardDr. Vannevar Bush, Chairman,
Research and Development Board (invited but unable to attend)Others PresentRear Admiral R. H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central IntelligenceCornelius V. Whitney, Assistant
Secretary of the Air ForceVice Admiral Forrest P. Sherman, Department of
the NavyLieutenant General Lauris Norstad, Department of
the Air ForceMajor General Stephen J.
Chamberlin, Department of the ArmyRear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Department of the NavyJohn H. Ohly, Special Assistant to the Secretary
of DefenseW. Park Armstrong, Acting
Special Assistant to the Secretary of StateRobert Blum, office of the
Secretary of DefenseSecretariatSidney W. Souers, Executive
SecretaryJames S. Lay, Jr., Assistant
Executive Secretary
ACTIONS
1. Organization, Activities and Plans of the Central
Intelligence Agency
Admiral Hillenkoetter gave an oral
report on the organization, activities and plans of the Central Intelligence
Agency. All Council members asked questions and made suggestions on this
subject.
Specifically, Admiral Hillenkoetter
stated that there was a difference of opinion as to whether he had
coordinating authority over the departmental intelligence agencies or
whether the chiefs of such departmental agencies constituted a board of
management over the Director of Central Intelligence.
Secretary Forrestal said, and the
other members agreed, that there was no question as to the coordinating
authority of the Director of Central Intelligence. Secretary Forrestal said that Admiral Hillenkoetter tells the
Departments what he needs for collation and evaluation and the Departments
are required to provide it.
Admiral Hillenkoetter answered
various criticisms made in an article in magazine “Armed Forces” by
Hanson Baldwin.
Secretary Forrestal said that he was
not so concerned about such criticisms. The real test of the success of CIA,
in his opinion, will be two years hence.
Admiral Hillenkoetter stated that the
average annual pay of CIA personnel in grades equivalent to officer rank is
$4000.
Secretary Forrestal expressed the
belief, and other members agreed, that this appeared to be a low average. He
said that he would rather have a few good men in CIA than many mediocre.
Admiral Hillenkoetter reported that
the turnover in CIA as a result of loyalty screening was one per cent per
year, while the turnover resulting from efficiency screening was eight per
cent per year.
The National Security Council:The paragraph that follows constitutes NSC Action No. 14. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, Record of Actions, Box 55)
Noted and commented upon the oral report on the organization, activities and
plans of the Central Intelligence Agency by the Director of Central
Intelligence.
2. Proposed National Security Council Directives to the
Central Intelligence Agency (Reference: Memo for the NSC from the Executive Secretary, same
subject, dated December 10, 1947)Document 334.
The Council amended and approved the National Security Council Intelligence
Directive (NSCID) No. 1.For text of this and other National Security Council
Intelligence Directives, see Documents
422–435.
Secretary Symington felt that NSCID Nos. 2 and 3 were designed to avoid
duplication while at the same time meeting the secondary needs of the
various Departments. He said that if the Council would not assign primary
responsibility for air intelligence to the Department of the Air Force,
these papers would mean nothing.
Secretary Sullivan felt that such an
assignment would mean that the Navy would lose all its naval air attachés
and naval air intelligence. He said that the interests of the Air Force do
not include all matters of interest to naval air intelligence.
Secretary Symington said that this was
not necessarily the case and that the Air Force would use naval air attaches
where they appeared to be appropriate.
Secretary Forrestal asked that Council
action on NSCID Nos. 2 and 3 be deferred
so that he might reconcile the diversion of views of the Navy and the Air
Force.
Mr. Kennan urged that the assignment
of responsibilities in NSCID No. 2 really
be carried out in overseas missions, since it would eliminate costly
duplication and lack of coordination.
The Council then amended and approved NSCID
Nos. 4 and 5, and approved NSCID No.
6.
The National Security Council:Paragraphs a–e constitute NSC Action No. 15. (National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, Record
of Actions, Box 55)Approved National Security Intelligence Directive No. 1 (NSCID 1) subject to the following
amendments: Revised paragraph 2 thereof to read:
“2. To the extent authorized by Section 102(e) of the
National Security Act of 1947, the Director of
Central Intelligence, or representatives designated
by him, by arrangement with the head of the
department or agency concerned, shall make such
surveys and inspections of the departmental
intelligence material of the various Federal
Departments and Agencies relating to the national
security as he may deem necessary in connection with
his duty to advise the NSC and to make recommendations for the
coordination of intelligence activities.”
In paragraph 4, second line, delete the words “and
national policy.”In paragraph 6, line 2, add the words “Federal Bureau of
Investigation and” between “disseminate to the” and “other
Departments”.Deferred action on the proposed NSCID Nos. 2 and 3, pending reconciliation within the
national military establishment of the divergent views of the
Secretaries of the Navy and of the Air Force.Approved NSCID No. 4, subject to
the addition of the word “Staff” after “NSC” in the third line of paragraph 2. (The Council
also noted the remarks of the Executive Secretary that, for this
purpose, the NSC Staff shall consist
of the Executive Secretary and the departmental representatives
designated by Council members to advise and assist the Executive
Secretary, and that any cases of disagreement within this group will
be referred to the National Security Council for decision.)Approved NSCID No. 5, subject to
the following amendments: Delete the asterisk in paragraph 1 and the
footnote.Revise paragraph 2 to read:
“2. The Director of Central Intelligence shall
conduct all organized Federal counter-espionage
operations outside the United States and its
possessions and in occupied areas, provided that
this authority shall not be construed to preclude
the counter-intelligence activities of any army,
navy or air command or installation and certain
agreed activities by Departments and Agencies
necessary for the security of such
organizations.
Approved NSCID No. 6 without
change.
336. National Security Council ResolutionSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Executive
Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 66 D 148,
Box 1555. Top Secret. The source text is Annex 1 to the Intelligence
Survey Group Report to the NSC, January
1, 1949. The full text is in the Supplement. The resolution was approved
by the NSC at its 5th meeting January
13. A brief entry in the minutes records that Souers presented the resolution and
the NSC approved it and forwarded the
names of Allen Dulles, Mathias Correa, and William H. Jackson for the President’s
consideration as members of the survey group. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, Minutes, Fifth Meeting) The resolution was approved as NSC Action No. 25. (Ibid., Record of
Actions, Box 55)Washington, January 13, 1948.
The National Security Council has agreed that a group of two or three
specially qualified individuals not in the Government service should make a
comprehensive, impartial, and objective survey of the organization,
activities, and personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency. As a result of
this survey this group should report to the Council its findings and
recommendations on the following matters: The adequacy and effectiveness of the present organizational
structure of CIA.The value and efficiency of existing CIA activities.The relationship of these activities to those of other Departments
and Agencies.The utilization and qualifications of CIA personnel.
The National Security Council also authorized and directed the Director of
Central Intelligence and the Intelligence Chiefs of the Departments
represented on the Council to give the above group access to all information
and facilities required for their survey, except details concerning
intelligence sources and methods.
337. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Intelligence Advisory CommitteeSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–54. Confidential. Sent to the Special Assistant
to the Secretary of State for Research and Intelligence; the Director of
Intelligence, Army General Staff; the Chief of Naval Intelligence; the
Director of Air Force Intelligence; and for information to the Director
of Security and Intelligence, Atomic Energy Commission, and the Deputy
Director, Joint Intelligence Group, Joint Staff.Washington, January 27, 1948.
SUBJECT
Interdepartmental Intelligence Production ProgramThe program for the production of intelligence contained in National
Security Council Intelligence Directive 3 can be considered as no more
than a statement of overall policies and objectives for the Central
Intelligence Agency and the several intelligence agencies of the
National Security Council departments. It defines the several types of
intelligence and indicates which departments have dominant interest in
certain fields of intelligence. It leaves the highly important
scientific, technological and economic fields of intelligence
unallocated except as to the individual needs of each department. The
paper does not, nor was it intended to, provide a definite intelligence
production schedule. However, such a schedule is highly desirable and
procedures should be perfect now to insure that all fields are properly
and adequately covered and that each department receives the material
outside its field of dominant interest, which it requires for
intelligence purposes.It is the opinion of the Director of Central Intelligence that a
prompt and positive approach must be made to a solution of this problem
and that he must advise and make recommendations in this field to the
National Security Council in fulfillment of his statutory duty as set
forth in Section 102(d) of the National Security Act of 1947.It is proposed that the Central Intelligence Agency prepare an
interagency intelligence production program, that the preparation be
carried out in close cooperation with the intelligence agencies
represented on the National Security Council, that it be submitted to
the Intelligence Advisory Committee for concurrence or comment prior to
issuance for implementation.As a first step in the development of this plan, the Director of
Central Intelligence requests that each department intelligence chief
submit a comprehensive and detailed statement of the intelligence
production program of his department, clearly defining (a) the
intelligence requirements of his department; (b) the internal production
schedule of his agency to meet
these requirements; (c) the existing interagency agreements to augment
(1) the internal production with external material and (2) the external
requirements with internal production; and (d) the requirements not
adequately or satisfactorily met by (b) and (c).The Central Intelligence Agency will attempt to correlate these
departmental programs and prepare an integrated plan, with full regard
to the existing basic intelligence program, for study, comment and
possible revision by the Standing Committee of the Intelligence Advisory
Committee for subsequent presentation to the Intelligence Advisory
Committee.With a view toward eliminating undesirable duplication of effort in
the production of intelligence, particularly in regard to publications,
consideration is being given to the proposal previously made by the
JIC that the Central Intelligence
Agency assume the functions of the Publication Review
Subcommittee.It is requested that each recipient of this memorandum inform the
Director of Central Intelligence promptly as to the date by which he
will be able to comply with 4 above.R. H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
338. Letter From the Secretary of Defense’s Special Assistant (McNeil) to Mathias F. CorreaSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 5.
Personal and Secret.Washington, February 2, 1948.
Dear MAT: When you were in
Secretary Forrestal’s office early
last week I mentioned that I had a paper that I thought might be helpful in
your study of the Central Intelligence Agency.
This paper is unsigned but for your information was written by
Stephen Penrose, who has been with me here for
about three months but who is
leaving to become President of Beirut University.
Penrose was with OSS during the war—in charge of their Middle East Division and
later came to Washington in one of their divisions. He left C.I.A. because
he felt that there were too many Captains and Colonels placed in charge of
divisions who did not have background for the Intelligence type of work.
Hillenkoetter told me he thought
Penrose was an extremely able person but it had
been reported to him that Penrose did not get along
with some of his subordinates. I don’t know whether that is true or not but
in the short time he has been here I haven’t found that to be the case.
To my mind there is little question that his statements might be colored to a
degree because of his leaving C.I.A., but I have found him to be a “solid
citizen”—everything he has told me has a basis in fact.
Sincerely,
W. J. McNeil
EnclosureSecret.Washington, January 2, 1948.
Memorandum by Stephen
Penrose
REPORT ON CIA
Special Operations is continuing to lose its experienced officers with
four and five years of wartime experience. It is on the point of losing
its foreign exchange expert, who learned his business with the Navy in
World War I, and who, in the last war provided funds for secret
operations in OSS so successfully that
not a single operation was ever blown through improper use of money. His
record was not duplicated even by the British service. With him goes all
capacity of SO for fiscal
counter-intelligence. With him also is lost the agent cashier most
widely trusted by the Treasury.
SO is also probably losing a branch chief
who was closely connected in OSS with
the advance preparations for the Africa landings and acquired there and
later a knowledge of handling undercover work which is not now equalled in the organization
since the previous departure of other similarly experienced men.
One of the most experienced and effective field mission chiefs in the
organization has just returned to this country and there is strong
likelihood that he will decide to leave the work. This man is the author
of a recent report on the situation in Austria, prepared at the request
of USFA, which has made a very great
impression on the State Department.
None of these losses is necessary, for all three men had considered
intelligence as their profession. They are simply fed up with what they
consider to be the inept and unimaginative policies of SO, and have lost confidence in its
leadership.
Special Operations is headed by an officer known among his Army friends
as “Wrong-Way” Galloway. Their
doubtful esteem of him is more than matched by that of his associates
and subordinates within his office and by that of the heads of other
branches within CIA. He is hardly on speaking terms with General
Sibert of OO. He
has permitted the State Department SO to
hamper and control the nature of most SO
field operations and has secured so little support for his major liaison
officer that the latter, another man of considerable experience, is also
looking elsewhere for work. Colonel
Galloway has little comprehension of the real nature of
secret operations, and is so irascible and dogmatic that he discourages
any efforts to discuss technical details with him. For his technical and
organizational advice he is accustomed to call upon subordinates like
William Tharp, Chadbourne
Gilpatrick, or Harry Rositzke, who
although they have been in the organization for some time, have had
practically no real operational experience. Their freely offered
operational theories appear to be acceptable to Colonel Galloway at the same time that
they are the despair of their more experienced associates.
Gilpatrick has just become the major deputy to
the Chief of Operations Staff, who has been persuaded to assign
elsewhere the only technically experienced assistant he possessed on his
immediate staff. As a result of this development apprehension has
increased on the operating levels, and new withdrawals are being
contemplated.
In the face of the losses of experience, Colonel Galloway is bringing back into his office the
Colonel Dabney whose unwise and uninformed
suggestions as regards organizational structure are in part responsible
for the ineffectiveness of operation which has so discouraged the older
men. The policy of bringing in newcomers to occupy key posts without
giving them operational seasoning results in keeping the organization
constantly off balance through the varying and uncertain direction which
it receives. Colonel Galloway’s
deputy is a Captain McCracken (Navy) whose interest
in the work is not matched by any intelligence experience, and his
complete subordination to Colonel
Galloway gives him little opportunity to serve as
anything but a “yes-man”. Captain McCracken replaced Captain
Goggins who was only too happy to return to
active Navy duty in Panama after serving a term as Colonel Galloway’s deputy.
In spite of this situation within SO it is
still the one branch of CIA which has the respect of outside agencies.
OIR in State prefers to receive raw
intelligence direct from SO rather than
in processed form from OR&E not only for the sake of speed but
because the type of processing now given by OR&E detracts from
rather than adds to the value of the reports. With rare exceptions the
studies put out by OR&E are such as might be written by any fairly
well-informed person, and they command little respect from the users of
such reports in State, Army or Navy. The Strategic Intelligence Division
of the Army recently pointed out that it had received no useful
additions to its files since the R&A Branch of OSS had
been broken up. It considers its conferences with CIA to be largely a
waste of time, particularly as regards Russian matters. Captain
Frankel (Navy) of the OR&E Russian division
seems content to rest upon his short visits to Russia as sufficient
qualification of him as a Russian expert.
A report on an aviation subject was recently prepared for OR&E by the
Library of Congress. The research people of the Library developed a
rather low opinion of the OR&E men with whom they had contact who
seemed to be astonished at the quality of the report, which they felt
was beyond their capacity. On a later report in the same field the
Library furnished to a research man from OR&E a complete
bibliography for his research, covering European materials in the main.
They were told by him to omit anything which was not in English since he
could not handle any foreign language. This eliminated at least 80
percent of the material. Naturally the Aeronautics Division of the
Library was not favorably impressed by the capacity of the research man
or of those who directed him and had presumably planned his work.
An unduly large proportion of the effort of OR&E is devoted to
putting out the daily intelligence summary. This publication, containing
chiefly State Department materials, could be put together in short order
by a small unit of editorial analysts instead of requiring half the day
of the majority of branch heads and their staffs, as appears now often
to be the case.
OR&E, which should be the top research and analysis office in the
government, is headed by a former assistant military attach é in Turkey
who was never distinguished either for research or administrative
ability during his pre-war stay on the Yale faculty. His stature is not
such as to attract highly qualified research experts. One of the ablest
men in OR&E, the head of the scientific branch, is there more
because of the influence of Dr. Bush than of anyone in CIA, and he is very critical of
the inflexible and unimaginative organizational and personnel policies
of CIA as interpreted by Col.
Shannon, with whom he has already come into
conflict.
Dr. Wallace Brode, the distinguished scientist
mentioned, has not been permitted to organize his own branch according
to his own ideas, although his organizational views were proved by
experience at Inyokern during the war. When his plans were finally
forwarded they were accompanied by a set of contrasting plans drawn by
Col. Babbitt and Col.
Shannon, in the drafting of which Dr.
Brode was not consulted. Such action was
contrary to the written agreement made between Dr. Bush and General Vandenberg.
Contacts between CIA and outside scientific agencies are channeled, as
are most CIA liaisons with other agencies, through the Office of
Collection and Dissemination or the Office of Operations. The former is
controlled by Col. Sands, a former CIC head in Germany under Gen.
Sibert, who heads OO. Contact with AEC is
supposedly maintained by Col. Seaman of OCD, formerly an officer with Manhattan
District but possessing no scientific stature approaching that of Dr.
Brode through whom AEC would greatly prefer to channel their relations with
CIA. Dr. Brode is a member of the National Research
Council, relations with which are supposed to be carefully channelled
through OCD to some secretary of the
Council. Dr. Brode is thus supposed to handle
relations with himself through the devious intermediation of a chain of
uninformed contacts.
In short, OCD, which should be vitally
concerned with expediting and facilitating contacts with outside
agencies for operational or informational purposes, interposes a
mechanical and inflexible channelling procedure which can and does block
such contacts and bottleneck the interchange of information which should
flow freely through them. Without question a system of approving outside
contacts is essential but it must be administered imaginatively and not
in the mechanical fashion which is apt to be typical of military
procedure.
With regard to the Office of Operations, it has brought CIA into
considerable disrepute among a number of large business concerns and
notably Standard Oil of N.J., because of the ineptitude with which
contacts were established and handled. As a result CIA is effectively
blocked off from such potential sources of valuable intelligence, which
Operations Office was set up to tap.
Partly because of the bad relations existent between the heads of OO and SO and
partly because of the ineffectiveness of the former office practically
no leads have been provided to SO for
long range undercover operations or personnel. OO, because of its expected wide connections with business
firms and educational institutions, was supposed to unearth numerous
opportunities which SO could be counted
on to exploit, or to acquaint
SO with personnel who might be
utilized in SO’s operations. Neither
service for SO has developed in
practice.
In the direct line of its own responsibility for briefing and debriefing
competent Americans travelling abroad OO
has shown little alertness to respond to cases brought directly to its
attention. Recently the impending voyage abroad of a well-qualified
observer was brought to OO’s notice, but
no contact was made before the man’s departure and none has occurred
since his return. Because of the lack of contact it was not possible to
judge OO’s competence at briefing and
debriefing, but the indications are that relations with the geographic
experts of OR&E or SO are not
sufficiently close or frequently developed to permit the manning on
short notice of a qualified briefing panel or the preparation of a
professional brief.
The disturbing situation which has been described is the more alarming
because it occurs at a time when, as almost never before, the government
needs an effective, expanding, professional intelligence service. On the
contrary, CIA is losing its professionals, and is not acquiring
competent new personnel who might gain experience in the only rapid way
possible, namely by close association with those professionals. It is
dependent in most working branches for imaginative and energetic
direction upon career military men of a type which is not apt to be
either imaginative or energetic as regards non-military intelligence or
procedures. As a direct result, CIA has failed to win the confidence of
the military services or the State Department and is rapidly losing what
confidence they had had in its predecessor organizations. Yet effective
cooperation with these departments is a sine qua non of CIA success.
Under present conditions such cooperation does not exist to any
practical degree. Other departments feel no assurance that they can rely
upon CIA to perform intelligence functions which they will privately
admit could and probably should be performed centrally. Without that
assurance they will continue, as they are continuing, to operate their
individual intelligence services in a manner which cannot but nullify
the principles of coordination and centralization which were implicit in
the establishment of CIA.
339. Letter From Sherman Kent to Director
of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–808, Item
4. Secret. The source text is a copy transcribed for the CIA Historian
on March 9, 1953. Kent had been
invited by Hillenkoetter in
December 1947 to survey the Office of Reports and Estimates.
(Darling, The Central
Intelligence Agency, pp. 301–302)Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, February 9,
1948.
Dear Admiral
Hillenkoetter: Herewith a memo on some of ORE’s problems. As I note in the introductory
paragraph, I have confined myself to those few things in which the shortness
of my visit was not too heavy a handicap to my judgment.
I have hesitated to have this manuscript typed in New Haven. It is
confidential enough in character so that I would not like to see it in the
morning paper. You will thus perhaps pardon my sending it to you in long
hand. (On the chance that Miss Brian will type it, I
have noted a couple of spots where I have asked her to perform minor
editorial services.)
Seeing the ORE organization was a great
pleasure. I am honored to have had the invitation.
Kindest regards, yours sincerely
Sherman KentPrinted from a copy that
indicates Kent signed the
original.
EnclosureConfidential. The source text is
a copy transcribed for the CIA Historian on March 9,
1953.Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut,
February 9,
1948.
Memorandum From Sherman
Kent to Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter
Summary
A problem of first magnitude is the matter
of the mission of CIA and especially its ORE. At the present ORE
is not a coordinator of departmental intelligence. ORE much more resembles a fifth departmental
intelligence organization. As such it faces two grave disadvantages: It has no direct consumer within its own organization as
ID has its P&O and hence is likely to feel the lack of
guidance and direction.It is excluded from overt collection (abroad).There are three problems of a second magnitude. They deal with
ORE and the outside.ORE is not close enough to
the consumers it does serve to know precisely their
requirements, nor is it close enough to carry to the
consumers a knowledge of ORE’s capabilities.The collection and dissemination function now allocated to
OCD should be assigned
to ORE.ORE and OO should be brought closer
together if ORE is to get
the full benefit of OO’s
outside contacts.There is one problem of a third magnitude. It concerns ORE and its management of its own
substantive program.
I incline to the belief that a higher centralization of substantive
control would improve ORE’s performance.
In noting the above I hope it will be appreciated that I do not consider
that my short visit to ORE (three days)
makes me an expert adviser on this point.
Sherman KentPrinted from a copy that
bears this typed signature.
INTRODUCTORY
In the following pages I confine myself to a limited number of problems
of CIA and ORE. The problems which I
have singled out are those upon which I feel my comments will be most
valid although based upon no more than three days study and interview. I
recognize three magnitudes of importance in the problems which I have chosen:1st magnitude—the mission of CIA and ORE2nd magnitude—ORE and its
outside activities3rd magnitude—ORE and its
internal organization.
I. The Mission of CIA and ORE.
The National Security Act defines the mission of CIA as a twofold mission:coordinating the intelligence activities of the several
government departments and agencies in the interest of national
security …; andperforming certain intelligence operations which can be more
advantageously performed centrally; or other operations
….
With respect to (b): No comment.
With respect to (a): In the nature of things, the coordinating function
of CIA will be performed by its ORE plus
perhaps CIA’s top level administrative staff. The most important share
(that is, the substantive share) of the work of coordination would
naturally fall to ORE. But ORE will have greatest difficulty—if not
insuperable difficulty—in performing this function. Its difficulties
inhere in both (1) the NSC Intelligence
Directives, especially #1 (which appears to me to afford departmental
intelligence the weapons and strategic position to resist any intrusive
coordinative activities by ORE) and (2)
the fact of ORE’s present size,
administrative organization, and personnel. The present ORE could not do the large coordinating job
if by chance it were given clear mandate by new NSC directives.
In my view this leads to the conclusion that the present ORE is the equivalent of a fifth
departmental intelligence arm. As such it is in competition with the
other four and disadvantageously so. Of the many
disadvantages it confronts I cite two: Since it has no direct policy, planning, or operating consumer
to service within its own organization (as ID services P&O,
for example), it is likely to suffer from a lack of feeling of
immediacy, and more importantly, to suffer from a want of close,
confidential, and friendly guidance. The consumers outside CIA
which ORE in fact presently
services can never provide the same sharp and demanding guidance
which a departmental intelligence unit may expect from the
department’s own policy, planning, and operating units. As to
ORE’s present consumers and
the guidance they afford, more in the next section (i.e.
#II.).Since ORE’s formal mission is the coordination of departmental
intelligence, NSC Intelligence
Directive #2 allocates to ORE no
overt collecting functions. If ORE were in fact a coordinating mechanism—pure and
simple—this denial of the function would be exactly right. But
inasmuch as ORE performs most of
the duties performed by departmental intelligence, and very few
not cognate with these duties, ORE should have its continuous flow of foreign
publications and reports by overt U.S. observers. But for these
publications and reports it must rely upon the collecting
activities of the four “Security” departments. This arrangement
will, in one sense, merely inconvenience ORE to the extent that all departmental units are
inconvenienced by another’s slow service. But in another sense,
and one of utmost importance, it can virtually destroy ORE. For whatever intelligence
doctrine may say to the contrary, the collecting phase of
research is not separable from the other
phases: a man who is working on a theory of, say, the overthrow
of France must be able directly or indirectly to procure for
himself data, the need for which he could not foresee when he began his work;
he must have on the Madrid end of the wire, so to speak, a
professional friend and equal who understands his problem from
the ground up, and who will collect or observe what he requires
and that immediately.
The intelligence unit which is closely bound to its own high grade
foreign collecting force is likely to be the best; the intelligence unit
which has no collecting force of its own is at a prodigious
disadvantage.
It is not impossible that departmental policy with respect to
intelligence may contrive the virtual destruction of departmental
intelligence. There are already signs of this. Should such occur, and
should CIA (and its ORE) gain what might
be called a monopoly in the field of national intelligence, the
intelligence situation would be grave. In these circumstances CIA could
service its high level consumers with complete adequacy, but I do not
think it could service its lower level departmental consumers. In the
first place the task would be so large that the necessary organization
would be almost impossible to build, if not administer. In the second
place no matter how well built and administered, it would always have
trouble getting appropriate guidance from the departmental consumers. In
the third place the departments themselves, even though reduced in funds
for intelligence, would establish all manner of small black-market
intelligence organizations under cover names. The effect of this would
be to furnish the immediate departmental consumer with a less good
product, but preferred by him because it was his own, and to dissipate
what was left of the department’s intelligence resources throughout a
number of small uncoordinated cells.
You will perhaps pardon the above excursion into a remote and uncertain
future. I would not have taken it if I had not heard responsible
government people seriously advocate a central intelligence
monopoly.
II. ORE and its outside activities.
Under this heading I will discuss three problems:
First is the problem of ORE and its high
level consumers. To the extent possible ORE should be brought into closest and most direct contact
with consumers such as the NSC, SANACC, and JIG. Contact such as having
an ORE officer represent CIA (or
participate in CIA’s representation) at NSC staff discussions would have two great benefits: (a) It
would assure ORE of knowing the precise
nature of the consumer’s requirements; and (b) it would enable ORE to convey to the consumer the precise
dimensions of its (ORE’s) capabilities.
It is to be noted that these two matters interlock: when the consumer
knows ORE’s capabilities, he may change
the dimensions of this requirement (add to it, lessen it, or reorient
it), and, when ORE knows the precise
dimensions of the requirement, it may deploy its resources in such a
fashion as to enlarge its capabilities. So long as liaison between
consumer and ORE is maintained by
someone not possessed of the
highest professional competence in matters of substance and firsthand
knowledge of ORE’s resources, that
liaison is almost certain to be inadequate for the purposes of both
ORE and the consumer.
Second is the problem of ORE and OCD. It is my understanding that you intend
to merge these offices when occasion presents itself. To do so, in my
view, is a matter of the very highest importance. As an outsider I may
not be considered presumptuous to reinforce your decision with arguments
(which may also be your own) which I consider unanswerable.
Re CollectionThe collecting phase of research is inseparable from the
other phases. It must always be conducted under the guidance
and supervision of the substantive expert who uses the
materials; and in some cases it must be conducted by the
professional himself. The greatest disfavor that can be done
a substantive expert is to deny him the right to commune
with his opposite numbers and to forbid him to swap
information and documents with them. To allocate the
collecting function to persons of non-professional stature
and give them a monopoly of the function is to hamstring the
expert.Should you see fit to set up a library or central
repository of materials, (which I heartily endorse) this
library staff can be useful in collecting on its own hook
and without repeated requests from the professionals several
types of material (eg): State Department cables, attache
reports, studies by other intelligence outfits, etc. But the
library staff must not get the notion that it has exclusive
rights to collection. It must realize that its function is a
modest service function. It must realize that it may collect
only where, in so doing, it lightens the burden of the
professionals.Re Dissemination
The dissemination function should be attached to the
office of the Director of ORE. He is the man most concerned to know
where his product is going and most concerned about
consumer reaction.
Third is the problem of ORE, OO and
the outer world which OO
deals with. In my experience an OO can be of highest usefulness to an
ORE, but only on the
following terms: ORE must
cultivate the OO
field personnel. It must send its experts to their
field offices. It must see to it that OO personnel are
thoroughly briefed on subjects under ORE scrutiny, on where
ORE’s knowledge is
rich and where poor, on ORE’s general program of research and its
continuing responsibilities.OO must
reciprocate. It must send its field personnel to
Washington. They should know the ORE personnel,
administrative organization, substantive problems,
etc. They will do their best work when they feel
themselves almost a part of ORE.
If this relationship can be built the OO–ORE team will be a
powerful affair.
A note on the Daily Summary.
The Daily Summary is probably as good a document as can be brought to the
attention of its most important half dozen readers. So long as they have
no complaints, the Daily can be regarded as making contract. Complaints
however may be registered by readers lower on the distribution list
whose positions in the government permit them a high degree of technical
expertise in certain substantive matters. That they should complain of
omissions, overemphasis, superficial comment is to be expected. The
Daily which would best serve their purposes would be a much longer and
far more technical document. ORE could
probably write it, but in so doing, ORE
would almost automatically lose its present most important readers.
Because of the importance of the Daily’s top half-dozen readers, its
snob-appeal will be enormous. Many officers of the government will want
to be on the distribution list for the sake of the company they will be
keeping, or out of idle but pardonable curiosity. Those with least
reason to be on the list are likely to be the ones worst served by the
document and most critical of its fancied shortcomings.
III. ORE and its management of its substantive
program.
I incline to the belief that a higher degree of centralization in the
control of ORE’s substantive program
would be beneficial. On the basis of my very short visit, it seemed to
me that control of planning and programming the output was dispersed
among three or four small units. If this should be the fact, there are
several possible penalties. Two of these I regard as of high
importance.
Loose or dispersed control permits the performance and completion
of work with something less than the totality of the Office’s
resources having been brought to bear upon it. (A Western European
section can do a job on the Communist Party in France without being
forced to collaborate with the USSR section, the Economists,
etc.)Loose or dispersed control is not able to keep up standards of
research across the board. Tight centralized control which forces
the less good units to collaborate on joint projects with the best
units has an easy and telling device to set uniform and high
standards of performance.
340. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Souers) to
Allen W. Dulles,
Mathias F. Correa, and William H. JacksonSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job
80–M01009A, Box 1, Folder 12. Restricted. The source text indicates that
a copy was sent to the Director of Central Intelligence.Washington, February 13, 1948.
SUBJECT:
Survey of the Central Intelligence Agency
This is to confirm our understanding that you will serve as the group to make
a survey of the Central Intelligence Agency, in accordance with the enclosed
resolutionDocument 336. approved by the National
Security Council.
This memorandum is your authorization to proceed with this survey and, upon
presentation by you, will constitute a directive to the Director of Central
Intelligence and the Intelligence Chiefs of the Departments represented on
the Council, to furnish you necessary information and facilities as
indicated in the second paragraph of the enclosed resolution.
Your willingness to participate in this vitally important survey is sincerely
appreciated by all members of the National Security Council.
Sidney W. Souers
341. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Souers) to
Secretary of State MarshallSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.61/3–848.
Restricted.Washington, March 8, 1948.
SUBJECT
Survey of the Central Intelligence Agency
REFERENCE
NSC Action No. 25Document
336.
Pursuant to the resolution of the National Security Council, arrangements
have been made for a survey of the organization, activities and personnel of
the Central Intelligence Agency and its relationship to other agencies. This
survey is to be conducted by Mr. Allen W.
Dulles, Mr. Mathias F.
Correa and Mr. William H.
Jackson.
These gentlemen feel that the resolution of the National Security Council
authorizing the survey is not broad enough to permit them to present a
comprehensive study of all Federal intelligence activities relating to the
national security.
I explained to them that I did not believe the National Security Council had
the right to authorize an examination of departmental intelligence agencies
beyond that contemplated in the Council resolution. Mr. Jackson, representing the group, then
discussed the matter with the Secretary of Defense, who expressed a desire
to have the intelligence agencies of the Military Establishment examined and
stated that he would place the matter before his War Council.Additional information is provided in Souers’ February 26 memorandum to
Forrestal. (Central
Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 5) See the
Supplement.
I am now informed that the Secretary of Defense concurs in the examination of
such intelligence activities within the service departments as relate to the
national security. He has also asked the service Secretaries, as heads of
their respective departments, to indicate their approval of the attached
draft memorandumThe draft, not printed here, is
virtually identical to the final version of the memorandum; see Document 343. as a means of assuring a
coordinated and comprehensive consideration of the entire intelligence
problem related to the national security.
I would appreciate your advice as to whether the terms of the enclosed
memorandum are acceptable to you, both as a member of the Council and in
your capacity as head of the Department of State.
Sidney W. Souers
342. Memorandum From Secretary of State Marshall to the Executive Secretary of the
National Security Council (Souers)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.61/3–848. Restricted.
Drafted by W. Park
Armstrong.Washington, March 12, 1948.
SUBJECT
Survey of the Central Intelligence Agency
REFERENCE
Your memorandum, same subject, dated March 8, 1948, enclosing draft
memorandum to Messrs. Dulles-Correa-JacksonDocument 341.
The terms of the draft memorandum forwarded with your covering memorandum are
acceptable to me. A comprehensive survey of the Central Intelligence Agency
will necessarily include the relations of that agency to the intelligence
organization of the Department as well as an examination of the intelligence
facilities of the Department relating to the national security.
I shall instruct the appropriate officers of the Department to cooperate
fully with the Dulles–Correa–Jackson Committee and its staff in accomplishing the
purposes of the survey.
G.C. MarshallPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
343. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Souers) to
Allen W. Dulles,
Mathias F. Correa, and William H. JacksonSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Executive
Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 66 D 148.
The source text is Annex 2 of the Survey Group Terms of Reference II
report to the National Security Council entitled “The Central
Intelligence Agency and National Organization for Intelligence,” January
1, 1949.Washington, March 17, 1948.
SUBJECT
Survey of the Central Intelligence AgencyI have already sent you a memorandumDocument 340. with the terms of the
resolution of the National Security Council providing that a survey
should be made of the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency and
its relationship to other Departments and Agencies.As a result of our further discussions on this subject, it may be
helpful if I set forth my understanding regarding the scope of the
survey and the procedures to be followed.The survey will comprise primarily a thorough and comprehensive
examination of the structure, administration, activities and
inter-agency relationships of the Central Intelligence Agency as
outlined in the resolution of the National Security Council. It will
also include an examination of such intelligence activities of other
Government Departments and Agencies as relate to the national security,
in order to make recommendations for their effective operation and
over-all coordination, subject to the understanding that the group will
not engage in an actual physical examination of departmental
intelligence operations (a) outside of Washington or (b) in the
collection of communications intelligence. On behalf of the National
Security Council I will undertake to seek the cooperation in this survey
of those Government Departments and Agencies not represented on the
Council which have an interest in intelligence as relates to national
security.It should be understood that the survey of the Central Intelligence
Agency and its relationship to other Departments and Agencies will be
done for and with the authority of the National Security Council. The
survey of the intelligence activities of the Departments of State, the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, however, will be for and with the
authority of the respective heads of those Departments.The survey group will submit from time to time recommendations on
individual problems which need to be brought to the attention of the Council or the heads of
the respective Departments and Agencies concerned. Problems concerning
CIA will be given priority over those involving other Agencies. It is
contemplated that the survey will be completed and final report
submitted on or before January 1, 1949.It is my understanding that at your request Mr. Forrestal has agreed to lend to the
investigating group the services of Mr. Robert Blum to head the staff work. I would appreciate
the group’s advice as to additional staff members it may require in
order that I may clear them for this work. The members of the staff,
when cleared by the heads of the Agencies concerned, will be given
access to information and facilities required for the survey in the same
manner as provided for your group in the Council’s resolution.Compensation and expenses for the members of the investigating group
and its staff will be paid for out of funds available to the National
Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency.I will be pleased to render so far as practicable any further
assistance which you may require in conducting your survey. Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
344. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the Intelligence Survey
Group (Blum) to Allen W. Dulles, Mathias F. Correa, and William H. JacksonSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job
86–B00269R, Box 5. Secret.Washington, April 12, 1948.
This is an attempt to set forth briefly a summary and appraisal of the
present position of the Survey, with recommendations for future
procedure.
In my memorandum of March 12, 1948, which is in your files, I recommended
that the Survey Group attempt, within a relatively short time, to arrive at
a general appraisal of CIA, its position in the national intelligence picture and its overall
management. I urged that this general survey be completed as soon as
possible and before looking into the details of CIA operations or of the
other intelligence agencies. I suggested that this procedure was desirable
because the group might conclude that detailed recommendations would serve
no useful purpose in the absence of changes in major policies and among
principal personnel. I also proposed the allocation of responsibility to
individual members of the Survey Group, for inquiry into particular parts of
CIA and for the contact with the other departments and agencies so as to
ensure a fairly rapid overall coverage during the first stage.
Although there seemed, at the time, to be general agreement with these
recommendations we have in fact departed from them. I suggest therefore that
we review our present progress and reconsider what should be our priorities
and working program. It is appropriate to do this now for the further reason
that, beginning April 19th we will have at least one and probably two
additional staff members. The most effective way of using them can be
determined only in light of our general plan.
The present picture is approximately the following: We have already collected
a fair amount of documentary material, first-hand impressions and
second-hand reports concerning most of the principal parts of CIA, some of
CIA’s major problems and the position of CIA in relation to the other parts
of the Government.
In particular, Mr. Dulles has begun
looking into OSO but, so far, has not had
time to do more than attempt to mediate the controversy between CIA and the
State Department [less than 1 line of source text not
declassified]. He is also proposing to look particularly into the
question of OSO’s role with respect to
anti-Soviet subversive activities, resistance groups, etc., in order to
determine whether they are developing the full scope of their opportunities.
He has not yet looked at OO.
Mr. Correa has begun investigating the
present arrangements for atomic energy intelligence with which there is
general dissatisfaction. He has not yet looked at OCD or the CIA administrative setup.
Finally, Mr. Jackson has had initial
conversations regarding ICAPS and ORE, and has also spoken with General
Sibert, head of OO.
I have followed up on all of these lines of inquiry and in addition have
collected information and impressions on the other problems and parts of CIA
and the intelligence picture in general. This has included contacts with
intelligence personnel in State, Army and Navy.
Thus, the coverage has been uneven and necessarily incomplete and we do not
now seem to be proceeding toward an early, overall appraisal of CIA.
Although we have been and are still actively concerned in part with some of
the fundamental problems concerning CIA, we are also giving priority to
certain specific problems brought urgently to our attention. It seems to me
that there are a number of difficulties in this procedure which does not correspond to any clear
objective or, in my opinion, to the requirements of the situation. In the
first place, the dissatisfaction with CIA is so widespread throughout the
government and some of the internal problems of CIA seem so acute that I do
not think our present procedure will produce adequate results regarding CIA
on a priority basis as provided for in the Terms of Reference for the
survey. It is necessary, I believe, to proceed on the basis of a simple
fairly clear, and flexible, program, which does not have to be substantially
altered in order to absorb the particular problems and controversies which
will be brought to our attention from time to time. We can expect urgent
problems to be referred to us as we progress and while we must, of course,
be ready to do what we can to help in these matters, we must not be
deflected too widely from our course. For example, [1 line
of source text not declassified] but it does not take us to the
heart of the problem of evaluating OSO’s
performance. As another example, the problem of atomic energy intelligence
is obviously of outstanding importance, but I am beginning to doubt whether
we can make any effective contribution there without placing the problem in
its proper setting and examining at the same time some of the broader
questions on which it depends (scientific intelligence generally and CIA’s
responsibilities for collection, evaluation and coordination). If we do not
constantly try to relate specific problems to the general setting of which
they are a part, we may find ourselves tackling symptoms with very little
effect upon the causes.
There are two other things which should also be mentioned in this connection.
The present procedure is, I think, being seized upon by some of the people
who are unfavorable to our efforts as an excuse for saying that we are not
effectively tackling our job. Thus, in advance, an attempt may be made to
discount the results of our work. In addition, there are within CIA a large
number of people who are very friendly to our efforts and hopeful that we
will help correct the deficiencies of the present setup. The morale of these
people is very low and, rightly or wrongly, they are looking to the Survey
to remedy what they think is a deplorable situation.
Finally, events of the past few months, including the recent trouble in
Bogota—on which subject Representative Clarence Brown
of Ohio is asking Admiral
Hillenkoetter for an explanation—together with public
criticism of our intelligence setup, may lead to Congressional demand for an
investigation, which it will be difficult to resist unless the Survey Group
can show substantial progress in a relatively short time.
CIA has three broad functions and, in my opinion, our immediate objective
should be a quick appraisal of the soundness of these functions, the way in
which they are being performed and of the principal personnel responsible
for them. In the first place, there is CIA’s responsibility for coordinating
all intelligence activities concerning the national security. This is an administrative and
planning function which is supposed to be carried on through the
Intelligence Advisory Committee, with ICAPS as the responsible staff within CIA. In fact, CIA has
been very inactive along these lines, the IAC is a field for departmental skirmishes rather than a forum
for coordination, and ICAPS is looked upon
with scorn both within CIA and outside. In the second place, CIA is supposed
to correlate and evaluate intelligence relating to the national security.
The purposeless way in which this task has been attempted by CIA through
ORE has caused considerable antagonism
outside CIA as well as dissatisfaction and demoralization within ORE. Finally, CIA is charged with performing
certain common services of an intelligence character. It is under this
mandate that OO and OSO operate, and it is probably fair to say that although there
is a good deal of criticism of the efficiency of their operations, there is
not the antagonism and controversy regarding them that there is for other
parts of CIA, particularly ORE.
In summary, it is my present impression that CIA has not performed well or
not performed at all its two functions of coordinating governmental
intelligence activities and of correlating the evaluation of intelligence.
CIA’s mission and actual operations within both these fields are uncertain,
undefined and subject to much controversy and bitterness. On the other hand,
CIA’s “common services”, OSO and OO, seem reasonably well established, and unless
we wish to raise the question whether these collection functions should
properly remain combined with the coordination functions, the investigation
of these common collection services is more a question of testing and
promoting their effectiveness than of beginning afresh to define their
position in the government intelligence setup, which is substantially what
has to be done with the two functions of coordination outlined above.
In addition and as part of this, there is the problem of appraising the
quality of CIA’s principal personnel and the effectiveness of its management
and staff procedures. On some of these points there seems to be unanimity of
critical opinion, both within CIA and among the agencies which deal with
CIA. The criticisms that CIA is organized as a top heavy bureaucracy and is
hampered by a predominance of military personnel in key positions meet one
at every turn. I think that very little investigation is needed to test the
validity of these accusations. It may be that no substantial progress can be
made on needed reforms unless there are changes here.
In light of the above statement, which I could expand and fill in at great
length, I wish to renew my recommendation that we aim at completing within a
reasonably short period (for example May 15th or June 1st) a preliminary report on certain key
problems on which the success of the entire survey depends. These would
include the following: General competence of CIA’s top staff.Efficiency of CIA’s administrative and staff procedures.Balance between military and civilian personnel in key
positions.CIA’s function to coordinate governmental intelligence activities
relating to national security.CIA’s mission to correlate evaluation of intelligence.The appropriateness and adequacy of the “common services”
performed by CIA.
In each case we should try to analyze the problem, develop our views and
establish recommendations which will enable us to proceed with a more
detailed investigation with confidence that there is a readiness to remedy
the basic difficulties on which the details depend.
In furtherance of this recommendation, I suggest that we complete, if only in
a provisional manner the two special problems with which Mr. Dulles and Mr. Correa are concerned. We should then expand our coverage
within CIA, along the lines already agreed upon, using Sprague and Larocque to help out in regard
to OCD, ORE
and OO. We should also extend our contacts
outside CIA so as to get the departmental views more fully than we now have.
My own efforts will be devoted to coordinating this work, and covering
OSO (once full clearance has been
obtained), as well as the CIA managerial setup. After this has been
completed, we will be able with greater assurance to go into more detailed
problems of CIA and begin our inquiry into the departmental intelligence
services.
After the above statement and recommendations have been discussed and revised
by the Survey Group and a program approved for the first stage, I will
prepare a more detailed statement of the problems and a working plan.
RB
345. Minutes of the 10th Meeting of the National Security CouncilSource: Truman Library, Papers of Harry S. Truman, President’s Secretary’s Files, Subject
File. Top Secret. The meeting was held in the Conference Room at the
White House. Although the series of Presidential memoranda on the NSC meetings begins with the 9th meeting,
no such memorandum was found for the 10th session.Washington, April 22, 1948.
PARTICIPANTS
Members PresentJames V. Forrestal, Secretary
of Defense, PresidingRobert A. Lovett, Under
Secretary of StateKenneth C. Royall, Secretary of
the ArmyJohn L. Sullivan, Secretary of
the NavyW. Stuart Symington, Secretary
of the Air ForceArthur M. Hill, Chairman,
National Security Resources Board Others PresentRear Admiral R. H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central IntelligenceC. V. Whitney, Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force SecretariatSidney W. Souers, Executive
SecretaryJames S. Lay, Jr., Assistant
Executive Secretary
DECISIONS
[Here follows a decision on the U.S. position with respect to support for
Western Union and other related free countries.]
2. Protection of Intelligence Sources and Methods From
Unauthorized DisclosuresParagraphs a–b
constitute NSC Action No. 45. (National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National
Security Council, Record of Actions, Box 55)
Agreed that a National Security Council Directive should be issued on
this subject.Directed the Executive Secretary to prepare such a Directive and
submit it for approval by the Council.The
directive was not issued until January 1950 when the Council
approved NSCID Nos. 11 and 12
(Documents 430 and 431).
[Here follows a decision on review of the world situation as it relates to
the security of the United States.]
346. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the Intelligence Survey
Group (Blum) to Allen W. Dulles, Mathias F. Correa, and William H. JacksonSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job
80–M01009A, Box 1, Folder 12. Secret.Washington, June 4, 1948.
SUBJECT
Survey Group: Progress Report and Recommendations for Future
ActivitiesWe are in sight of the end of the first stage of the Survey Group’s
work. This stage will be over with the completion of our first overall
report on CIA. Our attention in the second stage will be concentrated on
the other intelligence agencies, although we will certainly continue to
follow CIA until the entire Survey has been completed, when it will
probably be necessary to re-examine CIA and the whole intelligence
picture as a result of all of our findings.We have now about completed fairly detailed examination of the
following parts of CIA: ICAPS,
Executive for Administration and Management, Executive for Inspection
and Security, Legal Counsel, Office of Reports and Estimates, Office of
Collection and Dissemination, Office of Operations. Individual summary
reports on these activities are being prepared. For security reasons
survey of the Office of Special Operations and the Advisory Council has
not been completed. We are also completing those contacts in the other
intelligence services which seem necessary in order to clarify the
relations between those services and CIA. More detailed examination of
this question must await the survey of the other intelligence
services.In my opinion, our objective should now be to assemble and analyze the
information and views we now have so that we can work toward
establishing in the Survey Group a common understanding of the present
organization and activities of CIA, the problems concerning them and the
intelligence standards against which they should be measured. We can
then decide on the type of report we will want to submit to the National
Security Council. In deciding this, we must know more clearly the
premises that underlie our work. For example, it now appears that even
though it is generally recognized that Admiral Hillenkoetter is not entirely satisfactory as
Director of Central Intelligence there is no readiness to replace him at
present. On the other hand, there is a willingness approaching
enthusiasm to dispense with the services of Wright (and presumably certain others with him) and
Galloway. If this is the
case, then we may want to work
directly with Hillenkoetter in
bringing about necessary reforms within CIA and in the relations between
CIA and other agencies.Whatever decision we take regarding the type of report we submit to
the National Security Council, the first step, in my opinion, is to
develop a common ground through the preparation of an overall draft
report marking the end of this first phase of our work. This draft could
be completed by about 15 July 1948, that is, after the members of the
Survey Group have had time in Washington to study the material in our
files, develop their contacts and direct the staff to complete further
inquiries.Such a draft report should include the following: A discussion of the elements of a sound central intelligence
organization, including answers to the following questions: who
should control the central agency; should coordination functions
and collection functions be in the same agency; how should
coordinated intelligence estimates be produced; what should be
the relation between secret intelligence and secret operations;
should the set-up be different in time of war than in time of
peace; to what extent and in what manner should there be
centralization of services common to several agencies; how
should intelligence collection policies be coordinated; what
coordinating authority should the central agency have over the
departmental services and how should this authority be
exercised?A descriptive analysis of the present responsibilities,
organization and activities of CIA and the relations between CIA
and other departments and agencies.An analysis of the opinions generally held regarding CIA, its
personnel and its performance of its task as now
conceived.Our conclusions and appraisal regarding CIA’s proper mission
and its present organization and operations.Recommendations, which should be subject to review in light of
our findings in the departmental intelligence agencies. R.B.
347. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the Intelligence Survey
Group (Blum) to the Intelligence Advisory CommitteeSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 5. Secret. Although the memorandum has no
addressee it presumably was prepared as a background or information
paper for the Intelligence Advisory Committee.Washington, June 10, 1948.The IAC created by NSC Intelligence Directive No. 1 is a
successor to the former Intelligence Advisory Board which existed during
the life of the Central Intelligence Group under the National
Intelligence Authority. Some of the present difficulties concerning the
IAC can best be understood by
reference to its development out of the former IAB.The IAB was created by the
Presidential letter of 22 January 1946 which set up the Central
Intelligence Group. This letter was implemented by NIA Directive No. 1 of 8 February 1946
which provided that CIG “shall be
considered, organized and operated as a cooperative interdepartmental
activity”. The NIA directive also
established the composition of the IAB
and provided that “all recommendations, prior to submission to this
Authority (i.e. NIA) will be referred to
the Board for concurrence or comment”. The general effect of this
situation was to give the IAB a position
coordinate with that of the Director of the CIG, stemming from the same authority that controlled
CIG.The National Security Act which created CIA made no reference to an
Intelligence Advisory Committee, although it included, among its general
provisions, an authorization to the Director of Central Intelligence (as
well as to other officials created by the Act) to appoint such advisory
committees as he deems necessary. When, last fall, discussions began as
to the setting up of an advisory committee to work with the Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency created by the Act, two divergent points
of view were brought out in sharp opposition to each other. On the one
hand, the Director of Central Intelligence held that a new IAC should simply be created by him by
virtue of the general authority granted him under the Act, and that this
Committee would be turned to by him for advice. The departmental
agencies, on the other hand, held that a new IAC should act in a sense as a board of the directors to
the Director of CI. They refused to accept membership on an advisory
committee simply set up by him and agreed to serve only on a Committee
created by the National Security Council. The Department of the Army was
particularly adamant during this controversy.Finally, after several months of discussion, the present IAC was created by NSC Intelligence Directive No. 1, of 12 December 1947. In
the words of the Directive, in
order “to maintain the relationship essential to coordination between
the CIA and the intelligence organizations, an Intelligence Advisory
Committee … shall be established to advise the Director of Central
Intelligence”. Under the Directive, the Director of Central Intelligence
is required to obtain the views of the IAC before making any recommendations to the National
Security Council pertaining to the intelligence activities of the
various departments and agencies. In the event of non-concurrence by one
of the Members of IAC, the problem is to
be referred to the National Security Council for decision. The Members
of the IAC, sitting under the
Chairmanship of the Director of Central Intelligence, consist of the
respective intelligence Chiefs from the Departments of State, Army, Navy
and Air Force, the Joint Staff, and Atomic Energy Commission.It is not clear, even to the people in CIA, whether the IAC has held one or two meetings since its
creation; in any case, no more. The one meeting which is clearly
established was called on the initiative of the Executive Secretary,
NSC, to discuss a specific question
pursuant to the wishes of the NSC. (This
question was that of how to protect the intelligence agencies from being
required to disclose confidential information to Congressional
Committees.) The IAC has never met to
consider actual foreign intelligence situations and intelligence
estimates, although Admiral
Hillenkoetter seems to be somewhat confused on this point
and has made statements to the contrary. However, the IAC has cleared and submitted to the NSC eight National Security Council
Directives, which have been approved by the Council.In practice, IAC action has been
carried out through the routing of papers for concurrence and by the
delegation of responsibility for the preparation of intelligence
directives and other interdepartmental intelligence papers to a Standing
Committee comprising representatives of each of the IAC agencies, usually from the planning
staffs. This Standing Committee has just recently considered the
advisability of further delegating its responsibilities to a
subcommittee under it.The fact is that the IAC machinery has
not been effective in promoting interdepartmental coordination, and
there seems now to be a feeling, at least in CIA, that it is preferable
to avoid meetings which usually give rise to formal statements of
position by the various representatives and, instead, to use informal
channels for obtaining approval of necessary papers.One fact contributing to the failure of the IAC has been the co-existence of similar bodies, comprising
somewhat the same membership, with important responsibilities in the
intelligence field. The membership of the U.S. Communications
Intelligence Board is almost the same as that of the IAC, and the four Members of the Joint
Intelligence Committee are, at the same time, four of the seven Members
of the IAC.The basic weakness reaches back to the unwillingness of the IAC Members to give their full cooperation
if they are to be purely advisory and the absence of strong CIA
leadership which would be necessary to overcome this unwillingness and
make IAC effective.Robert BlumPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
348. Verbatim Minutes of Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory
CommitteeSource: Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–657. Secret. The meeting was
held in the Federal Works Building. A note on pages 10 and 11 of the
source text indicates that they were corrected copies.Washington, June 16, 1948, 2 p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Rear Admiral R. H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
chairMembers PresentMr. W. Park Armstrong, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMajor General A. R. Bolling, Acting Director,
GSUSARear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceMajor General Charles P.
Cabell, Director of Intelligence, Office of Deputy Chief
of Staff, Operations, USAFMr. William C. Trueheart, Representing Atomic
Energy CommissionMajor General Walter E. Todd, Deputy Director,
Joint Intelligence Group, JCSAlso PresentMr. Prescott Childs, Central
Intelligence AgencyColonel Merritt B. Booth, Department of
StateMr. Allan Evans, Department of StateLt. Col. Edgar J. Treacy, Department of the
ArmyColonel Allan D. MacLean, Department of the
ArmyCaptain P. Henry, USNCaptain J. M. Ocker, USNLt. Col. C. M. DeHority, USMCMajor W. C. Baird, Department of AirCaptain K. A. Knowles, USN(R), Central
Intelligence AgencyColonel William J. Clinch, Central Intelligence
AgencyMr. Shane MacCarthy, Central Intelligence
Agency
Director: The agenda for the meeting today is the NIS Program; to see what might be worked out. I think the thing
we ought to get in is the target date and I would like to recommend the date
of 1952—that the Ad Hoc committee drew up. Anyone want to discuss that?
Adm. Inglis: I can’t meet that date
with present funds and personnel for 75 NIS’s. If that is what you mean.
Director: Yes.
Adm. Inglis: The maximum production
during the pressure of war when we had unlimited funds and personnel,
working seven days a week, was 12 per year. That is the most they ever
turned out and we couldn’t hope to exceed that with our present funds and
personnel.
Director: That is for three years—four years—
Adm. Inglis: 12 a year—that would take
six and a half years. We couldn’t do more than six in 1948. It takes time to
recruit and train people.
Mr. Armstrong: I wonder how we can
establish the target date until we know whether we can get funds and
personnel. That is the criteria on which the speed of the program
depends.
Director: We would also like to bring up how we are going to ask for funds.
Shall we put it all into one? We would also like to get an estimate of what
funds you need, so we can stick it into the next budget. Shall it be for all
of the Departments? We talked about this thing this morning. The non-IAC agencies gave us a terrifically large
amount of funds needed.
Mr. Childs: Interior and
Agriculture.
Director: Agriculture wants for the first year $160,000, and subsequent years
$260,000; Interior the first year $188,000, and subsequent years $562,946;
and Commerce says no additional cost. I don’t see how they can judge it. It
looks like it is going to run into a very sizable amount of money. We did
get Agriculture to cut it down around 40% on another estimate. Since it is
so much money maybe we should take it up with the Security Council and have
them give us written authority to put it in our next budget. It is close to
two and a half million dollars. That would give us a tough point with
Congress.
Adm. Inglis: And you will reallocate
that?
Director: I think it would be better to do it that way rather than leave it
to each Department. The first would get it, the second would have a little
argument, and the rest wouldn’t get anything.
Mr. Armstrong: If the money is
appropriated to the Departments, you let the Budget have a crack at it.
Director: That is right. We can get the Ad Hoc committee to make up an
estimate.
Adm. Inglis: I have my figures
now.
Mr. Armstrong: So have I.
Adm. Inglis: I would like to make this
reservation that, even though we do get additional funds, there is grave
doubt as to whether we can get the additional personnel to correspond to the
additional funds and train them.
Director: It might be difficult.
Adm. Inglis: To meet a 1952 deadline,
we think, even though they are both possible, their trying to push it that
fast would be uneconomical, inefficient, and would result in probably an
inferior product.
Director: There is a lot to do.
Adm. Inglis: 12 per year is a very
large substantial start. That is the maximum they produced under the
pressure of war.
Gen. Cabell: I don’t quite see the
necessity of meeting those deadlines in the lower priority groups. Why not
leave off the unimportant ones in order to meet the deadlines on the
important ones.
Adm. Inglis: I had the same thought. I
inquired about that and was told that out of 105 that were wanted 75 were
considered of sufficient urgency to be listed by the JCS as wanted in a comparatively short time. I still think,
however, a lesser number than 75 would meet the requirements. I was also
told that the JCS had overlooked one of the
important areas—Italy was given as an example—and it is a sensitive spot and
should have been included. I was also told by a person working on the
Editing Board, working on this program, that they will be working along on a
certain area and then a crash and the decision is to drop that and start on
something else. It brings about inefficiency also.
Gen. Todd: That happened recently and if we can interest
the planners more in a continual review of these priorities we might gain
some time and avoid these stoppages.
Adm. Inglis: The important areas
change. We have to bear in mind every time they change them it will slow it
down.
Gen. Todd: It may be a 15° degree turn instead of a 90°
degree turn, as in some cases.
Adm. Inglis: We got the money we asked
for. I assume we will get it—it has passed the House and the Senate. We
haven’t got the bodies, but I think we can recruit over the period of a
year. But six is the maximum this year, even if you gave us ten million
dollars. We still couldn’t turn out more than six. And if we get the same
funds in our appropriations in ensuing years, and can estimate a build-up to
an annual rate of 12 a year, after the Fiscal Year 1949, and that would mean
we could produce 42 by July 1 1952, or 75 by April 1955. That would be the
Navy’s target date under current circumstances. Now if it is insistent that
we turn out 75, then there would be in addition to the funds we now have,
and expect to get, $120,000 a year, starting with the Fiscal Year 1950.
Director: I think that is one of the things we have to hook into the Security
Council.
Adm. Inglis: It wasn’t your idea in
presenting your estimates to Congress that you would take over the entire
expense; it is only additional funds.
Director: Additional funds.
Adm. Inglis: Because if it were the
entire expense we could give you that figure.
Director: I think additional funds.
Adm. Inglis: I think it should apply
to all the Departments. If you are going to absorb the whole cost, it will
be more than $120,000 a year.
Director: We could put that either way.
Mr. Armstrong: Ours is capable of
being refigured as well as the Navy’s because we are currently at almost
zero on capability of doing the studies. But to meet the program of 74 or 75
studies in four years from the time we got fully recruited, that would be a
four-year period, we figured it would run an annual cost of $1,150,000,
adding approximately 180 people to our organization to account for the three
chapters that are assigned to State, and it doesn’t include the amount that
would be required on the farmed-out sections to Agriculture, Commerce, and
so on.
Director: I think we will put those in.
Gen. Cabell: It would be awfully
difficult for us to segregate that part of our shop that would be working on
NIS exclusively, and their determinate
cost. I recommend we only call upon CIA for the additional cost, rather than
for the entire program. Then I have another reservation. I would like to say
that the bottleneck with us is going to be the weather data and the
availability of IBM machines. At the present moment we need some 30 machines
to take care of the weather chapters in these reports. And we are having
difficulty in getting those machines. We may wish to ask for CIA
encouragement in getting those machines. I don’t know what we are going to
be able to do, but it seems the IBM Company, or rather Agencies, would
rather get new customers than to serve the older customers. I don’t know
whether you have a requirement in CIA for IBM equipment. If not we could use
your prestige as a new customer to get these machines.
Director: We have some IBM machines. Maybe we can do that.
Adm. Inglis: It is a change in
business policy from that of the corner grocery store—they give the chops to
the old customers.
Gen. Cabell: They don’t sell these,
they are all leased material.
Director: Do all the agencies have money to do any work this year? This
Fiscal Year, and the one coming up?
Mr. Armstrong: We do not.
Adm. Inglis: We have money for that—I
am morally certain we have. We estimate we can get the personnel to turn out
six.
Director: That is a good start.
Adm. Inglis: And from then on the
personnel have to be educated. That is the best estimate we can make
now.
Gen. Bolling: We are going to need additional funds for
1950 and 1951.
Director: We will put in for these additional funds. We have a better chance
if just one asks for it. Park, what
would you need in extra funds this year to get started on this?
Mr. Armstrong: To approach the
program on full-scale business, that would be $1,150,000. Obviously if you
are going to swing into it slowly, and we could do a lesser number, then the
full program would call for in one year a lesser amount of money. I don’t
have an estimate on a graduated basis.
Director: We have some money for it now. It was originally set up for
printing, binding, and maps. We might spare a little of that for the
agencies not having the money.
Adm. Inglis: Reduce the number you
originally set up, and reduce the amount. That money could be diverted.
Mr. We Armstrong: We could certainly,
in a short time, arrive at estimates and cost on the basis of six the first
year, and an ascending scale thereafter to show what you have to ask for the
current Fiscal Year.
Director: I think you ought to get that part in anyway. We won’t get in any
more this year.
Mr. Armstrong: Unless you are getting
a deficiency appropriation.
Director: No, if a new Congress comes in. And it also depends on who is
elected. It takes a terrible argument to get a deficiency appropriation.
They ask you if you get this money whether or not you are coming back to ask
for a deficiency. “Remember, if you are going to get this, you are not to
ask for a deficiency.”
Adm Inglis: That brings up another
point. I think it would save a little embarrassment all the way around if we
do decide to submit the request for additional funds for CIA that we make it
clear, and give the specific amount of how much each department is already
contributing to this department; make it clear what you are asking for so we
can go up and say $350,000 is for the NIS
program. Then they won’t say to us that we have already given that.
Director: We can put in a statement.
Adm. Inglis: A table as to what each
agency needs. That would certainly help me and get me off the hook.
Director: It seems like a strange question, and I probably know the answer,
is there any way of allocating personnel doing other work? Does anyone have
spare personnel?
Adm. Inglis: Speaking for ONI—it is a hope that we can get the
bodies.
Mr. Armstrong: We haven’t any slack
at all, and have at present only a very small percentage of our personnel
applied to similar studies that would be dropped when this program starts.
Like the SID.
Director: It is agreeable then that we put down as one of the conclusions
that you will let us know what extra money will be needed for next year so
we can take that up and get the Security Council’s backing on it and then
put it up in the budget as soon as the boys meet again.
Adm. Inglis: Are you convinced that we
must turn out 75 by ’52?
Director: If it can’t be done, it can’t be done.
Adm. Inglis: I won’t say it can’t be
done. We feel it will be wasteful and will result in not so good a product
if we take it slower.
Director: What are your ideas on the “We”?
Gen Todd: I think that problem should be put up to the
users. Recently the need for the review of priorities came to my attention
and information they wanted concerning countries along the Mediterranean
Coast. And in one breath they say they need it before they can complete
certain studies, and that they don’t want to review the priority on the
basic intelligence areas. I think it is strictly a problem on which we
should get recommendations from the users.
Col. MacLean: Speaking of these 75 studies, the Joint
Planners have dipped way down to the bottom of these studies for one and
they want it by the 15th of July.
Gen. Todd: That is the problem.
Adm. Inglis: They make it impossible
to fulfill their demands.
Gen. Todd: And they want to compromise. They say we
don’t want to disturb the priorities, but we want some material we can do
research work on ourselves. And I do think if they gave a little more time
and a little more consideration to the importance of cutting down these
priorities, or of the arrangement of them before it is too late, we will
save time and money and get a better product.
Adm. Inglis: I would like to make a
recommendation that we report to the users that the maximum output under war
pressure was 12 per year, and that we feel that is a maximum which can be
demanded. Unless the users have need of something urgent, which we must
accept, it will start wasteful practices and inferior products. Tell them if
they will accept 12 per year we can complete this program by 1955. If they
insist on us meeting that date of 1952, what it will then cost, whatever the
cost, in addition to the current
funds, and that we recommend that 12 per year be accepted.
Gen. Bolling: Of course, we go for a little more speed.
Our latest date is completion by June 1952. We fully realize that we have a
start in this. We are working on it now and are pushing the other outfits. I
think it would be very poor policy to put out an inferior product and
sacrifice efficiency for speed.
Gen. Cabell: About what I said a
while ago—I think that 75 is a little unreal on their part, and we have to
ask them if that is unreal. But I should think, and this is a generality,
that if our speed during the war was 12 per year, with the approved
techniques and method of coordination, we could shoot that up near 20 a
year. It would be a reasonable expectation. I would offer the figure of 20
per year.
Adm. Inglis: They can’t turn out
airplanes now faster than they did during the war.
Gen. Cabell: A little more
slowly.
Gen. Bolling: And better airplanes.
Gen. Todd: And we were not confronted with the problems
of money and personnel.
Adm. Inglis: During the war money
meant nothing. We had all the personnel we needed, and now we can’t get
either the money or the personnel; and you worked 6–1/2 and 7 days a week
during the war, now you work five. And I think probably the quality of the
personnel is not as good as it was during the war; which I can’t
substantiate before the Law.
Gen. Todd: Would it be possible to farm out any of the
tasks to the agencies that do have the talent—the universities, etc.
Gen. Bolling: That is being done now.
Gen. Todd: Increase the amount that is being farmed
out.
Gen. Bolling: That depends entirely on funds.
Adm. Inglis: I would like to ask my
advisor on that—have we looked into that?
Col. DeHority: We investigated that and decided against
it.
Adm. Inglis: Because you didn’t think
any outside agency was competent to do it?
Col. DeHority: It was a combination of that and that
highly classified material can’t be made available to them in adequate
amounts.
Director: Park, anything?
Mr. Armstrong: Since we are starting
virtually from zero, the difference between 12 and 20 a year is a question
of the rate of recruiting and the amount of money. We could approach one
probably as rapidly as the other. I haven’t any real preference for one over
the other. In either case it would be the figure, substantially or somewhat
less, per annum indicated here.
Director: I think if this is agreeable with everyone, the first thing we will
do is to take Todd’s suggestion and see what the
planners want and would like to get. And at the same time we can give them
the difference in costs. Regardless whether or not you can get people—that
is probably unknown—you have to get the money. 12 a year and 20 a year, and
the difference in cost. Let them take a look and see if their need is
overriding the cost, which is harder to get than it was during wartime.
Mr. Armstrong: Get the data from each
of the participating agencies on those two bases in the terms of dollars and
total them and you have a cost program to present to them as a very
important consideration on which they will have to make a decision.
Director: They ought to have that information on the cost of the thing. To
sit back and say we don’t care how much it costs, we want to get it
done—that is getting away from reality.
Adm. Inglis: We might as well make it
23 instead of 20 because if six is the maximum we can turn out during ’49,
that gives you three years at 23 per year.
Director: Let’s make it 12 or 23.
Mr. Armstrong: Six the first
year?
Adm. Inglis: That is all we can do the
first year.
Director: I don’t think anybody could get more than six this first year.
Mr. Armstrong: We can’t do six
without additional funds.
Director: You let me know approximately what you need.
Mr. Armstrong: What it would cost for
six the first year, and then alternate 12 and 23 for the years after.
Adm. Inglis: Do you want two figures
in the terms of what we are already committed to do on the program, and
additional figures on how much more money would be needed to speed it up.
And the second category, that requires appropriations from you?
Director: Practically all of the cases. Then we can give it to the users and
tell them that money is going to be a question. It is more and more with
Congress that they are getting up there and saying we have to make more
economies.
Gen. Todd: It seems to me the trained personnel will
also enter into it and would be worth while for the agencies that are
preparing the material to look into the practices followed by other agencies
to see if some of them couldn’t be adopted—such as farming out the projects,
and a view to getting better material and compiling it at a more uniform
rate of speed by the contributing agencies, and perhaps a little faster.
Director: Again it comes back to money. If you farm it out you have to have
money to pay for it.
Gen. Todd: It was my impression, when I was in the
Intelligence Division, that we could get it done faster and cheaper by
farming it out. That was the impression I got. I don’t know.
Col. MacLean: We are getting some chapters on 18 studies
this year by outside contract. When this program was started last fall, we
made arrangements to have that done.
Mr. Armstrong: I am reminded that one
thing about farming this out is the disclosure as to the priority of this
program.
Gen. Todd: There are security considerations. The
discussion will be on the working level, but at a later date we might use
some short cuts.
Director: Any other remarks? Well, I think the first thing to be done on this
is to check on this and the additional money, and then the additional
amounts we will need in any case. Anyone else have anything on this?
There is just one other item. I am sorry we did not get it on the agenda, but
it did not come over from Sidney
Souers’ office until about 15 minutes ago. It is a proposal
from the Chief of Naval Operations to downgrade paragraphs 3d and 3e of
NSCID No. 7For text, see Document
427. from Secret to Confidential. I don’t see that it would
hurt us to do that. NSCID No. 7, “Domestic
Exploitation,” paragraph 1:
“The Central Intelligence Agency shall be responsible for the
exploitation, on a highly selective basis, within the United States
of business concerns, other non-governmental organizations and
individuals as sources of foreign intelligence information.”
Paragraph 3:
“Further to implement this undertaking, the intelligence agencies
shall:”d follows:
“Obtain, to the maximum extent possible, from their departments and
agencies the foreign intelligence information which the departments
and agencies have received as a by-product of the normal
relationship with business concerns and other non-governmental
organizations and individuals in the United States in connection
with non-intelligence activities, and transmit to the maximum extent
possible, the information to the Central Intelligence Agency for
editing for source security and for appropriate dissemination.”
Paragraph 3e:
“Obtain, in so far as is practicable and within existing security
regulations, from their departments and agencies information
concerning business concerns and other non-governmental
organizations and individuals in the United States having foreign
intelligence potential, which the department or agency possesses or
subsequently acquires, and make the information available to the
Central Intelligence Agency.”
It is a request from the Chief of Naval Operations for authority to downgrade
paragraphs 3d and 3e of NSCID No. 7 from
Secret to Confidential. Do you want to read this? I frankly don’t see why we
can’t do that, unless they want a more complete dissemination.
Mr. Trueheart: I heard them say when it came up at
another meeting that they couldn’t send it to the people who needed it, and
that it wouldn’t be implemented unless they could get it out.
Director: If we can do it we should. As far as I am concerned I am
willing.
Gen. Cabell: I wonder if anybody here
could give us the philosophy for the original classification.
Director: It is an occupational disease. Everything they touch is highly
classified.
Adm. Inglis: I think there is a pretty
good reason for being close-mouthed. It is not so much the information they
get from these commercial firms, but the protection of the firms as sources.
They will feel a lot happier if they know that whatever they give us is very
closely held. And some of it has to do with competition.
Director: That is what they said when we talked to them. They are willing to
give the Government the information, but they don’t want to see it come back
later in the hands of the fellow across the street who is working against
them.
Adm. Inglis: That was probably the
factor in having the high classification.
Mr. Trueheart: It should. The fact that every effort
will be made to protect them as a source—probably it would be a good idea to
publish it so they will know that we are taking every precaution to protect
them.
Mr. Armstrong: I don’t see any
objections.
Mr. Booth: I would like to check that.
Director: We will send it around with a voting slip. I brought it up because
we got it just before lunch. At first glance it looks as if it is all right
to do it.
The only other item is just for information. That is, DCI 2/1 is over on Mr. Forrestal’s desk and we don’t know how long it will be
there.
Adm. Inglis: You had another item all
tied up with that same argument. The preparation of NIS.
Director: The NIS, that is going on now.
There is a joint group doing this work for the NIS program which could continue to do it. And since this
Navy-Air dispute is within the Military Establishment and doesn’t materially
affect the NIS program, they will keep on
doing what they are doing.
Adm. Inglis: As far as I am concerned
it is all right with me if the air information is produced by the AID, which
is a joint Navy-Air Force
enterprise, and as long as they continue to function and produce those
things for the NIS we can let this decision
about responsibility ride until Mr. Forrestal puts out his clarifying directive. If that isn’t
satisfactory we had better go ahead with this.
Gen. Cabell: I don’t see quite what
you mean.
Director: It is going along all right now and I don’t think you should
interrupt it.
Adm. Inglis: That is all right with
me, but I thought it was coming up for discussion today. This volume here is
an outline of the NIS, and on one page it
gives the tentative allocation of responsibility for the preparation of
NIS. There are four items here which I
believe the AID is working on. One has to do with civil air facilities,
another has to do with military air business, etc. It is the type of work
that AID is working on now. Now Navy has dissented from allocating the
responsibility of that to the Air Force without any qualifying phrases. That
dissent is still in a state of inanimate suspension and has not been
reconciled because it is tied up with this business which is on Mr.
Forrestal’s desk. I don’t think
you care particularly as long as the work is continued.
Director: You can’t continue very long without this thing being settled.
Adm. Inglis: Not indefinitely, but if
you are willing to let it rest in that state of inanimate suspension as to
the designation of responsibility, but that AID continue to produce the work
and are going to continue the work, that is acceptable with us.
Gen. Cabell: We would propose to
continue working on the basis of this allocation under the assumption that
after that inanimate suspension it would be along the same lines.
Adm. Inglis: That is where I differ. I
can’t agree with that assumption. We would agree that the decision go the
other way. That is where the conflict is.
Gen. Cabell: It seems to me, in any
case, it would come to an overlap.
Adm. Inglis: There is no need for an
overlap because it is AID stuff we are talking about.
Gen. Cabell: I don’t see any reason
to expect us contemplating the changing of that allocation. That is the best
evidence there is right now.
Adm. Inglis: That allocation has not
been formally agreed to and if the lack of a formal agreement interferes
with the work, then it is serious and should be resolved right away. But if
it is not we can continue.
Gen. Cabell: I don’t see how the lack
of an agreement on this point could affect the continuation of the NIS program.
Director: We would like to have it continue. Have you anything else,
Prescott? Anybody else anything?
We will call the meeting over. (2:45)
349. Memorandum for the President of the Discussion at the 14th Meeting of
the National Security CouncilSource: Truman Library, Papers
of Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files, Subject File. Top Secret. Drafted on July
2.Washington, July 1, 1948.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 1–3, U.S. civil aviation policy
toward the Soviet Union and its satellites, U.S. position with respect to
support for Western Union and other related free countries, and the U.S.
position on providing military assistance to nations of the non-Soviet
world.]
4. Proposed NSC Intelligence Directive Re “Communications
Intelligence” (Memo for NSC from
Executive Secretary, same subject, dated June 15, 1948.)Not found.
Mr. Souers said that the question of
legality which he had raised has now been corrected in the proposed
Directive. He said that the other question which he had raised involved only
a matter of form since no other board had ever been created under the NSC. He stated, however, that, from his point
of view, the proposal by the Intelligence Advisory Committee was just as
agreeable a solution.
Admiral Hillenkoetter explained the
two points of difference. He said that his proposal was to achieve
coordination under the aegis of the Director of Central Intelligence but
with the unanimous concurrence of the Board. The IAC proposal placed the Board directly under the NSC but required unanimous concurrence,
including the Director of Central Intelligence. He said that either solution
appeared acceptable. His feeling, however, was that his wording, which was
based upon Mr. Souers’ suggestion,
was more consonant with the National Security Act of 1947.
Mr. Souers explained that the IAC feels that no one person should be in the
position of a single advocate before the Council. He said that the IAC proposal would place the Board directly
under the NSC, would require that it operate
only on unanimous agreement, would enable it to elect its own chairman, but
would require that it come up to the NSC
when disagreements arise.
In answer to Secretary Royall,
Admiral Hillenkoetter stated
that this Directive would not affect a merger of Army and Navy
communications intelligence activities.
The National Security Council:Paragraphs a–b and the Note constitute NSC Action No. 73. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, Record of Actions, Box 55)Noted the comments by the Director of Central Intelligence and the
Executive Secretary, NSC, that they
saw no serious objection to the revisions of paragraphs 1 and 7 of
the proposed NSCID recommended by
the Intelligence Advisory Committee.Approved the proposed National Security Council Intelligence
Directive, subject to amendment of paragraphs 1 and 7 thereof as
recommended by the Intelligence Advisory Committee.
Note: The proposed Directive as approved subsequently
issued as NSCID 9Document 435. and
transmitted to the appropriate Departments and Agencies for information and
action.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 5–7, handling of SANACC papers, atomic warfare policy, and
NSC status of projects.]
350. Memorandum From Robert G. Barnes to
William J. McWilliams
of the Executive SecretariatSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/8–2548. Top Secret;
For State Department Officers Only. The date is from the Executive
Secretariat receipt stamp on the source text.Washington, August 25, 1948.
SUBJECT
State Material for CIA
There is attached a draft memorandum covering the question of the
transmission to the Central Intelligence Agency of State Department
telegrams and the use which CIA makes of these telegrams.
I have discussed this problem at some length with Mr. Armstrong. He agrees that this is a vital
question which urgently needs to be settled, and he shares my view that we
probably cannot reach any agreement on it short of taking the question to the National
Security Council. However, he feels that State should first raise this
question with Admiral Hillenkoetter,
in the presence of representatives of the Jackson–Dulles–Correa
Committee. Should this approach fail to achieve agreement, we would then be
in a better position to refer the matter to the NSC.
I agree entirely with the course of action suggested above. My recommendation
is that, after you have gone over the attached draft and in the light of
these suggestions, you might refer this paper to Mr. Armstrong for his specific comments.
Whatever line of action we decide to take, I think it is important that we
have very clearly in mind all aspects of the problem, the points which are
essential to our position, and the counteroffers which might be proposed by
CIA.
Mr. Armstrong is also of the opinion
that we will encounter considerable resistance to any proposed limitation on
the right of CIA to present State policy questions until such time as we
publish, for dissemination at least to NSC
members, a daily review of policy questions somewhat along the lines of our
present top secret Daily Staff Summary. I have considerable reservations as
to whether we can and should get into such an operation or whether it is not
better to allow CIA to continue to operate to a limited extent in this field
with a far more restricted distribution.
AttachmentTop Secret; For State
Department Officers Only. Drafted by R.G.
Barnes.Washington, undated.
Draft Memorandum
Problem: To determine appropriate Departmental
policy for the distribution of policy information to the Central
Intelligence Agency and the use to which the CIA may put this
information.
Background: Ever since the establishment of the
original Central Intelligence Group the State Department has been making
available to that agency most of its daily telegrams, which are now
supplied to the CIA through two channels: Routine intelligence reports, press telegrams and the less
sensitive policy matters are automatically distributed to CIA by
the Division of Communications and Records. Exclusive of
administrative and personnel matters, this distribution includes
the major portion of our traffic. These telegrams are made
available to all sections and divisions of the Central
Intelligence Agency.High level policy telegrams, top secret material and other
sensitive matters are screened in S/S and, where appropriate,
released to CIA. The majority of the telegrams falling into this
category are released to CIA, though distribution of these
within CIA is restricted to the office of the Director and to
the research group.
The Unification Act makes the following provision with respect to the
supplying of information to the Central Intelligence Agency:
“To the extent recommended by the National Security Council and
approved by the President, such intelligence of the departments
and agencies of the Government … relating to the national
security shall be open to the inspection of the Director of
Central Intelligence, and such intelligence as relates to the
national security and is possessed by such departments and other
agencies of the Government … shall be made available to the
Director of Central Intelligence for correlation, evaluation,
and dissemination.”
Although this issue has never specifically been raised in the National
Security Council, the Department has always placed a very broad
interpretation on this provision. We now supply CIA with all appropriate
intelligence material and with most policy material, for the background
information and guidance of the research analysts. It is not only
difficult to draw a clear distinction between political and economic
policy and intelligence matters, but the extensive use of cross
references in our telegrams makes it difficult to withhold any
considerable body of material without inviting charges that we are
withholding it. The material actually withheld from CIA at present is
limited to strictly personal matters and certain high policy questions
which have not been fully resolved or are transmitted on an “eyes only”
basis.We have consistently taken the
position with CIA that we are supplying them with all State
Department material. In other words, CIA is not allowed to secure
references or other direct evidence that material, other than
personal communications, is ever being withheld from that agency.
This should be clearly kept in mind in any discussions with CIA,
since an admission that we are withholding material would allow them
to shift the attack against us. As the record now stands, the
performance of State is so much better than of Army or Navy that the
best cards are in our hands for any possible negotiations. [Footnote
in the source text.]
It should be noted that the Departments of the Army and Navy have
consistently placed a different interpretation on their obligations to
CIA. In general they make available only such material as is available
to their own intelligence divisions. This excludes almost all policy or
operational questions and, in the case of the Army, most of the material
handled by the Civil Affairs Division. The position of the Department of
the Air Force, which is just beginning to set up its own cable channels,
is not known.
Discussion: All of the material made available by
the State Department to CIA is used in the preparation of their daily
top secret summary, whether it
is of a policy or of an intelligence nature. This leads to several
distinct but closely related problems: CIA frankly publishes their daily summary as an “operational”
rather than as an “intelligence” publication. This means that
while over 80 percent of all their material is derived from
State Department sources, the emphasis in their daily summary is
also heavy in the direction of State Department policy decisions
and reports. There are some issues in which practically every
item is the report of a State Department policy position (Tab
A).None of the tabs is
printed.CIA frequently attaches their own comment to items which
appear in the daily summary. This occasionally tends to
discredit the intelligence reporting of some of our missions and
also leads to the situation where CIA comments (without the full
benefit of all the policy considerations) on a State policy
position. If the desired goal is the publication of a document
revealing current State Department policy, it would seem more
appropriate that this be published within State in close
coordination with the policy offices; if the goal is a daily
intelligence digest, CIA should not publish State policy
positions.The CIA daily receives too broad a circulation for a document
reporting on top level State policy decisions. The current
distribution list is attached (Tab B). In addition to the points
of distribution, which have been set in consultation with
Admiral Souers, CIA
has reserved the right to give each recipient as many copies as
he desires. On this basis the Chief of Naval Intelligence is
currently receiving three copies, the Army Intelligence Division
two, and so forth. State Department policy positions are thus
being given a much wider circulation throughout the Government
than was our original intention, and material which we
deliberately do not make available to the various service
intelligence agencies receives in this form a very wide
distribution among them.Furthermore, the CIA summary is receiving very wide
distribution in the office of each recipient. There have been
instances recently where outside agencies have requested that
certain telegrams, identified in terms of items in the daily CIA
summary, be made available to them. There is also some evidence
that both the Army and the Air Force intelligence agencies have
made further dissemination of State policy items available to
them only through the CIA summary.
Recommendations: That we refer this whole question
to the National Security Council with a view to: Securing a uniform interpretation of the provision of the
Unification Act relative to supplying material to CIA which
would be equally applicable on all Departments.Securing an NSC ruling on the
type of daily summary to be published by the CIA, which ruling
should stipulate either: an operational summary, as at present, with the
distribution limited to one copy only for each member of
the National Security Council;an intelligence summary only, with distribution
maintained at the present level and any changes referred
to the NSC.
351. Statement by Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job
86–B00269R, Box 2, Folder 3. Secret. The remarks were prepared for
presentation before the Committee on National Security Organization
(informally known as the Eberstadt
Committee) of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of
the Government (Hoover
Commission). The date on which the statement was delivered has not been
found, since this presentation was not recorded in the summary of
testimony prepared by the committee staff, but it appears to have been
in September 1948. (Truman
Library, McCloy Manuscript, Box
17, Folder 119) See the Supplement under date of September
7.Washington, undated.
SUGGESTED REMARKS REFERENCE CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS TO THE
HOOVER COMMISSION
I know the Commission is concerned with the status of our foreign information
collection activities conducted by clandestine or semi-clandestine
means.
There has been entirely too much publicity in this regard, favorably and
unfavorably. The public has come to regard the collection of all
intelligence information as a sinister and dangerous operation by strictly
illegal methods. Without discounting certain actual dangers which do exist
in the collection of information, particularly by clandestine means, I would
like to stress the point that it is mostly a “pick and shovel” job
supervised by able intelligence operators.
Approximately 75% of all intelligence information is gathered by strictly
open methods, that is—through military, naval, commercial, and other
attaches; through the study of readily available books, magazines,
newspapers, radio broadcasts, photographs, conferences; and through
interrogation of travellers, students, employees of American concerns active
in foreign fields, and selected foreigners. About 10% of all intelligence
information is collected by
clandestine or semi-clandestine means. But, while the quantity is lower than
that collected by overt methods, often the quality of such information far
outweighs the other. About 10% of the potential collectible information
defies all methods of collection and about 5% exists only in the knowledge
of top leaders in the target country.
Your interest is in whether the job is being well done. Let me remind you
that we are building up a system, under pressure and many years behind, that
the British, for example, have been efficiently operating since the days of
the first Queen Elizabeth. It is not a system which can
be perfected in a short space of time. Our junior mission case officers, for
example, can seldom be put in the field in less than fourteen months. You
may be interested in this timing. Having selected a candidate who appears to
have the proper academic, cultural, moral, and physical requirements, it
takes us approximately four months to thoroughly check his past life,
habits, discretion, loyalty, and other necessary attributes. Having accepted
the candidate he is put through a training period of from six to ten months.
Upon completion of his training it requires another three to four months to
arrange his cover and to place him in the area concerned. We can expect
little from him until he has firmly established himself and opened up his
communications channels. This may take several months.
You may be interested in the type of individual who best fits our
requirements for assignment as a station chief. Let me assure you he is not
the publicized police or detective type. First he must have an intense
desire to further the interest of his country, by any means if necessary and
directed. His academic training must be unquestioned and he must be
dignified, calm, intelligent—and able to discuss a broad range of subjects
with individuals of any stature. You may be further interested in knowing
the general background of some of our station chiefs occupying positions in
current hot spots:
One is a former professor of history at one of our oldest
universities and an authority on world economics. He has been a
successful operator in the clandestine collection of intelligence
for over five years. He is 41 years old.
One is a former consultant to the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and is internationally famous, under another name, in the
field of electronics. He has been an extremely efficient operator in
the clandestine intelligence field for over six years.
These are the type men we strive to place in foreign fields and as our branch
chiefs here in Washington. We have, we feel, been very successful in this
regard.
As to our success to date. Let me assure you that the nation has just cause
to be proud of the operations of our comparatively young espionage and
counter-espionage system. Unfortunately we cannot tell the world about our successes—we can only bow to
the criticism of our failures.
Espionage is a most delicate as well as a most dangerous operation. It is
competitive in a field in which no holds are barred. The men who control
these operations are naturally secretive and aloof to the casual
approach—for they are dealing in the lives of fellow Americans and proven
agents regardless of nationality.
Success in clandestine operations is not based on the absence of failures. It
is based on the knowledge of “those who need to know” that the successful
operations exceed the failures. There will always be “flaps” and they will
always, unfortunately, be referred to as “intelligence fiascoes” by the ever
present second guesser.
One commentator recently stated:
“The fiascoes—they might be called intelligence ‘catastrophes’—have
occurred in Rumania, Hungary, Finland and elsewhere.”
I am sure that, as time goes on, many other countries will
be added to this list. But if we are going to judge the efficiency and
coverage of our clandestine intelligence system by the fact that we do have
failures—then we should get out of the business!
It is hard to be a hero in one’s own home town, particularly in a town where
so many people are expert in so many fields. That certainly applies to the
conduct, by this country, of an espionage system. You will be interested in
proof that our people in this field are competent and that we are better
appreciated away from home than we are here. Further, there are many
individuals here at home who understand our efforts but who, for security
reasons, can say little about it. Fortunately we do have some records along
the lines of commendation and I have taken the liberty of bringing along a
few miscellaneous items. If you desire, and will permit me to eliminate
names and places, I will be glad to discuss a few of them. For security
reasons they cannot be released but we have no objection to either Mr.
Bross or Mr. SutherlandMembers of the staff of the Eberstadt Committee. screening
them.
(Here suggest Bross or Sutherland pick 4 or 5 papers at
random and then paraphrase them.)
It is vital for you to know that our centralized operation of clandestine
intelligence collection is a “service” to all governmental intelligence
activities and is not an operation for the interests of CIA alone. During
the build-up of our clandestine system over the past three years of CIA
operation, we have been guided by the experience, the successes, and the
failures of the clandestine systems of other powers. Many of our operations
follow a pattern which has been international practice for hundreds of years. Yet we feel that
American ingenuity and efficiency have provided us with new methods that
have placed us very high in the field of clandestine intelligence.
There have been statements that our operating personnel are inexperienced in
this field. If security would permit, I could prove that our operating
personnel, on any basis desired, are more experienced in the espionage field
than any other group of American nationals.
There have been statements that clandestine intelligence collection should
not be centralized. The voice of experience challenges such statements from
so many angles that I will not take the time to discuss them unless the
Committee particularly desires a discussion along those lines.
One of our primary tasks in this field is a constant search for new
information relative Communist activity in the foreign areas. Naturally
these matters tie in with over-all Soviet activities in the field. Because
of security restrictions, I cannot show this document (display ST–22) to the
Committee as a whole but I can tell you it is dated as of 1 August 1948 and
contains the names, official designations, and certain cover activities of
approximately 15,000 Soviet officials abroad. We have no objection, if the
Committee desires, to permit closer study of this document by either Mr.
Bross or Mr. Sutherland.
It is obvious, of course, that we cannot completely divorce our foreign
activities with regard to world communism from our own domestic worries
along the same lines. They must be tied together with close collaboration
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation—and I can assure you that
cooperation in this regard is of the highest. Further, we have our own
experts in domestic communism, each highly qualified and experienced. In the
event you desire to pursue this problem further I have asked two of our
experts, both former members of the FBI, to
be with us here to answer any questions which can be answered within
security restrictions.
To sum up. We feel the nation has due cause to be proud of its young but
increasingly successful clandestine intelligence system. The continued
growth and ability of the system depends upon a full realization of the
sensitive nature of such activities and the need for ever-improving
security. The system needs time for full fruition and it needs the maximum
of freedom from publicity and inquiry. The personnel involved are, we
believe, selected and screened as no other governmental group has been
selected and screened. There will always be failures in the field—but I ask
you again to realize that such failures are the hazards of a very dangerous
game. Our successes must remain comparatively unknown.
This is but a very general review of our clandestine intelligence activities.
There are no doubt many questions still in your mind regarding this work.
Where I can, with due regard to security restrictions, I will frankly and
honestly try to answer any questions you desire to ask.
352. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Policy Coordination
(Wisner) to Director
of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 2,
Folder 3. Top Secret.Washington, September 13, 1948.
SUBJECT
Appearance Before Eberstadt
Subcommittee of the Hoover
CommitteePursuant to the clearance which I obtained in advance from General
Wright and Admiral Souers, I appeared before the
Eberstadt Subcommittee of the
Hoover Committee in response
to the request communicated to me by Mr. Eberstadt via Admiral
Souers. I was called at 5:00 p.m., 10 September 1948, and
was questioned extensively by various members of the committee for
approximately 40 minutes.It was evident from Mr. Eberstadt’s introductory remarks that he and various
members of his committee were already quite familiar with the
establishment of my new activity. Mr. Eberstadt cautioned the members of his committee
concerning the highly classified character by statements but beyond that
he did nothing to restrict the course of the inquiry. However, I was
able to adhere very closely to the pattern of presentation which had
been rehearsed in advance in conversations with Admiral Souers and General Wright. That is, I concentrated upon
the fact that the members of the National Security Council regarded the
new activity as being of the greatest importance and urgency, and that
various of the most prominent members of that body had personally
assured me of the importance which they attached to the activity and of
their intention to give it their full support. In regard to the
character of my activities, I stressed the planned aspects and refrained
from indicating that we are now engaged in or presently contemplating
actual operations.The most inquisitive members of the subcommittee were Mr. Eberstadt himself, Mr. John McCloy and Mr. Hanson
Baldwin. They were particularly curious to know how the
new activity ties in with the structure of government; whether it might
not better be placed under the National Military Establishment; whether,
in the event of war, it would be necessary to create a new “OSS type” organization for sabotage and
guerrilla activities, etc. To this line of questioning, I replied
generally that I had not as yet devoted sufficient consideration to
these problems to have a definitive view and that I was operating
pursuant to a directive which had been carefully considered by the
National Security Council in
accordance with which my activity has been placed within the framework
of the CIA organization.Notwithstanding the fact, as indicated above, that I managed to adhere
very closely to the predetermined pattern of presentation, I should like
to register for the record my concern about the security aspects of this
appearance before the committee. It may well be that most if not all of
the members of the committee have some form of security clearance, and I
am duly aware of the fact that a substantial proportion of the committee
members are important and responsible individuals who well understand
and will respect Mr. Eberstadt’s
admonitions on the score of security. The fact remains, however, that as
a result of this appearance, some 15 individuals who are not directly
connected with the intelligence organization of this government are now
aware of the existence and much of the significance of the Office of
Policy Coordination. I consider it unlikely that all of these people
have been fully indoctrinated in the principles of security and it is,
therefore, reasonable to assume that some disclosure of the activity of
this office may result from this appearance. Should a leak occur, it
would be my recommendation that we continue to maintain the position
that our activity is one of “planning and coordinating policy.”
353. Letter From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to Allen W. DullesSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 5. Confidential.Washington, November 17, 1948.
Dear Mr. Dulles: Thank you very much for your letter of 12
November, advising that the Survey Group will be in Washington on 22 and 23
November and will be available for any suggestions or recommendations which
the Central Intelligence Agency may wish to make. I have discussed this
question with all of our people, and we feel that there are no suggestions
or recommendations that the Central Intelligence Agency wishes to make.
However, if the Survey Group desires to ask any questions or to receive
further clarification on any points, any or all of us will be most happy to
appear before the Survey Group at the convenience of the Survey Group.
In view of the shortness of time remaining, I am delivering this personally
to Mr. Robert Blum.
Very sincerely yours,
R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
354. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to the Intelligence Survey
GroupSource: National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of
State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research: Lot 62 D 42,
Box 7385, Dulles, Correa, Jackson Report and NSC
50. Secret. According to a covering note, “The final hearing for the
Department to give its views was held on Monday, November 22, at which
time the attached memorandum was submitted.” (Memorandum from Armstrong to
Daniels et al., November 22; ibid.) See the
Supplement.Washington, November 22, 1948.
The Department of State welcomes the opportunity to present a brief statement
on the intelligence activities of the Government, and in particular on the
Central Intelligence Agency and the relations of that Agency to the
Department. It is hoped that this statement summarizes the discussions which
members of the Department have had with the Group and its staff over the
past months.
In general, the Department believes that the experience of the past year has
shown that the principles and concepts of the National Security Act of 1947
relating to intelligence are sound. The Department is in fact encouraged and
hopeful that with further effort and cooperation an eminently successful
governmental intelligence organization will evolve. It is, therefore, in the
light of this fundamental position that the Department makes its comments on
certain aspects of the working arrangements.
In making its comments, the Department wishes to have it clearly understood
that in most areas of intelligence operations it feels that an excellent effort is being made by
the Central Intelligence Agency and that the relationship with the
Department is wholly satisfactory. The comments which follow, therefore, are
directed at those areas of the CIA–State Department relationship which the
Department feels are in need of attention.
1. With respect to the Research and Evaluation
functions:
The Department agrees completely with the basic philosophy set forth in the
National Security Council Intelligence Directives which deal with the
production of intelligence. The Department believes, therefore, that
relations between CIA/ORE and the Department
could, under existing basic directives, be satisfactory. Those directives
divide up among the Departmental intelligence agencies basic
responsibilities for production within a number of generally recognized
fields of intelligence while allocating to CIA the responsibility for
producing “national” intelligence, which is defined as “integrated
departmental intelligence that covers the broad aspects of national policy
and national security, is of concern to more than one Department or Agency,
and transcends the exclusive competence of a single Department or Agency or
the Military Establishment.” CIA is directed, furthermore, in preparing such
national intelligence, to draw upon Departmental facilities as much as
possible, which must mean a maximum effort to compose national intelligence
by combining mutually agreed contributions from the Departments interested
in any national intelligence problem.
The Department would construe these directives to mean that CIA/ORE should participate in, indeed should be an
essential element in, the coordinating responsibilities of CIA as a whole.
Thus CIA/ORE should, with respect to the
other agencies: constitute a center of information concerning all intelligence
activities in all fields, by means of surveys of departmental
agencies;be responsible for allocating projects among the agencies in
accord with their assigned responsibilities;stimulate in other agencies programs and procedures which appear
desirable;assist the agencies in developing means and facilities to meet
their responsibilities.
The Department finds, however, that in actual practice, CIA/ORE acts in few or none of the above ways. It
appears to the Department that, rather than confining its activities to the
foregoing and to the production of national intelligence, CIA/ORE has tended to develop a maximum production
capacity for departmental intelligence which, in turn, tends to duplicate
the work of other agencies. CIA/ORE, the
Department finds, has not as a rule voluntarily forwarded requests received
by it to appropriate agencies, but has rather endeavored whenever possible
to fill such requests itself. The “national” or inter-agency participation
is then achieved through the procedure of “concurrences” which is, in the
first place, after the fact of
planning and composition, and, in the second place, difficult of
accomplishment and generally unsatisfactory.
A notable exception to this tendency is found in the planning and execution
of the NIS program.
The Department should point out also that the unbalance described is
particularly evident in the fields of political, sociological and certain
economic intelligence, which are the fields allocated to the State
Department. It does not appear that duplication to the same degree occurs in
the various military fields. The result has been, for the Department, both a
conspicuous expenditure of time and effort in avoiding duplication where
possible and preventing deleterious discrepancies in the finished,
coordinated intelligence, and also an absence of those forms of assistance
and support which it feels the directives give it a right to expect.
While desiring not to exaggerate, the Department feels that this situation is
serious and arises from an erroneous interpretation of the basic philosophy
of the NSC directives and from the resulting
series of policies adopted by CIA in implementation of that philosophy. In
the opinion of the Department, CIA/ORE
should treat Departmental intelligence agencies more as the base of the
intelligence production pyramid of which it is itself the apex. It should
seek to strengthen the base, in the knowledge that upon it rests the whole
structure. It should conceive its coordination mission in broad terms,
suggesting coverage, gaps and projects of national interest. It should
concentrate on a national mission rather than on fields effectively
allocated to Departments. Finally, while the Department is not aware of the
exact size of CIA/ORE, it cannot help but
feel that the obviously growing staff represents a duplicative effort; that
CIA/ORE should, therefore, emphasize
quality rather than numbers in its own staffing.
[4 paragraphs (34 lines of source text) not
declassified]
3. With respect to the CIA “Daily Summary”:
The Department believes firmly that adjustment is needed in the CIA Daily Summary. As presently issued, the Summary is
composed almost exclusively of briefs of State Department cables.
Furthermore, no distinction is made between cables dealing with intelligence
and those presenting policy matters (some of which are not crystallized and
fully formulated) so that the Summary is at once an operational and
intelligence publication.
It is admittedly difficult, when dealing with foreign affairs, to separate
clearly intelligence, as such, from policy or “operational” matters. This is
particularly true because in some instances telegrams from the field contain
elements of both. Nevertheless the Summary has over the past months been
composed, in almost half of its entries, of items which are clearly and
entirely policy and have no intelligence aspects at all. Policy instructions
to the field, position papers, and recommendations on courses of action fall into this category. This
tendency has even reached the point where CIA in its comment upon items has
over-stepped the boundaries of the field of intelligence by agreeing or
disagreeing with policy or operational determinations. The Department
recognizes that policy matters are of concern to members of the National
Security Council and should be conveyed in appropriate channels to them, but
the Department feels quite firmly that dissemination of this information
along with intelligence, and to officers not necessarily concerned with
policy formulation, is not the appropriate method. This is all the more true
since the information on policy already is being distributed by the
Department to the proper levels of the other agencies of the government who
have need for it. The inclusion of these items therefore represents a
serious duplication of effort as well as, in the opinion of the Department,
an inappropriate activity for CIA.
Treating the Summary as an intelligence organ, and apart from policy matters,
the Department believes that the source of information is almost exclusively
the Department itself and that this one-sided aspect tends to destroy the
purpose for which the Summary was instituted. Moreover, the intelligence
materials are also separately distributed by the Department to the several
agencies. Unless comparable contributions from the other agencies are
included, the Department itself derives no benefit, nor, would it seem, do
the other agencies, since they are already receiving the State Department
material.
The Department therefore suggests:That the Daily Summary not contain any
matters of policy; that the dissemination of information on policy
to other agencies and, for that matter, to the President, is the
responsibility of each Department and cannot be considered a
suitable subject for centralized distribution or for an intelligence
publication.That the Daily Summary can serve no useful
purpose for intelligence dissemination unless a comparable
contribution is made by the other agencies which serve as a source
of “national” intelligence.
For the Secretary of State:Printed from an
unsigned copy.
355. Verbatim Minutes of a Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory
CommitteeSource: Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–657. Secret. The meeting was
held in the Federal Works Building.Washington, December 3, 1948, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Rear Admiral R.H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
chairMembers PresentMr. W. Park Armstrong, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMajor General Stafford L. Irwin, Director,
GSUSARear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceColonel E.P. Mussett, acting for Director of
Intelligence, Office of Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations, USAFDr. Walter F. Colby, Chief, Office of
Intelligence, Atomic Energy CommissionMajor General Walter E. Todd, Deputy Director,
Joint Intelligence Group, JCSAlso PresentMr. Prescott Childs, Central
Intelligence AgencyColonel Merritt B. Booth, Department of
StateMr. Philip Strong, Department of StateLt. Col. Edgar J. Treacy, Department of the
ArmyCaptain John M. Ocker, USNMajor W.C. Baird, Department of AirMr. William C. Trueheart, Atomic Energy
CommissionColonel Wendell G. Johnson, Joint Intelligence
GroupCaptain Henry C. Doan, USN, CIAMr. Shane MacCarthy, CIAColonel Charles C. Blakeney, CIA
Director: The paper we had on the agenda today was the Scientific
Attaché.Not found. You know that
went around and was approved by the IAC then
Mr. Forrestal disapproved it in the
Security Council. We tried to get earlier a proposed directiveNot found, but apparently a draft of NSCID No. 10, Document 429. from the Research and Development Board,
but it didn’t come around until the 1st of December. Copies were handcarried
to everybody. I don’t know whether you have had time to consider it or not.
If not, we had better leave it until the next meeting.
Mr. Armstrong: We are ready to
discuss it.
Director: This was made by Mr. Beckler of the Research
and Development Board. He said he thought Mr. Forrestal would approve it, but did not assure us he
would.
Adm. Inglis: Did it require the
approval of Mr. Forrestal only?
Director: I don’t know.
Adm. Inglis: He only has one vote.
Director: What are State’s comments on this Proposed Directive here?
Mr. Armstrong: We don’t find that the
changes proposed are objectionable in a substantive way. In fact we don’t
feel they change the intent and the spirit of the Directive as it had been
approved by the IAC to any considerable
extent. There are one or two minor corrections that I propose for clarity,
but the Department would be willing to accept the Directive as revised by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Director: What are the changes? We have a few changes too.
Mr. Armstrong: In paragraph c, page
2, unless you read that with great care you wouldn’t get the full
significance of that phrase “for exchange purposes” and you wouldn’t relate
that to the word “unclassified.” So change it to read as follows: “for the
purpose of inducing exchanges with other countries.”
Director: Yes.
Mr. Armstrong: That makes the word
“unclassified” fall into the context, where before it is of gratuitous
significance. That is the only language change we propose.
Director: Tommy?
Adm. Inglis: The Navy agrees in
principle with the paper. We have a few editorial suggestions we would like
to make eventually when we get around to it, and one which would possibly
have substantive matter. Director: Dr. Colby?
Dr. Colby: Seems quite all right. I would say a little
verbose.
Director: W.E.?
Gen. Todd: No.
Col. Mussett: Except one thing. We understood we were to
discuss this thing but not commit ourselves to the final paper.
Director: We will have a discussion here.
Gen. Irwin: We agree with the principle.
Director: We agree with the principle. It seems much the same as the other
one. I think they should put in mostly, it is an editorial change, I think
Navy has the same thing for the last paragraph. “The National Military
Establishment will assign specially qualified scientific personnel” there
should be a qualifying clause in there. “As practicable,” or something. You
may ask them to do an impossible thing.
Mr. Armstrong: That is in paragraph
e.
Director: Paragraph e.
Adm. Inglis: We have one in d and one
in e and then we have a change in f all along the same line.
Director: That one there is saying they must do something and whether it can
be done is another thing. What are your changes,
Tommy?
Adm. Inglis: In subparagraph a the
sentence: “The Departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force will collect
scientific and technological information” insert after “information,”
“including basic research when necessary.” Our Office of Naval Research
would like to have the right to collect its own information concerning basic
research, where and when this agency that is being set up here is unable to
satisfy our requirements, as well as the applied research. That was the
reason for that. Then I had another suggestion which parallels Mr. Armstrong’s in subparagraph c. Just to
clarify the language by “the Department of State with available unclassified
information pertaining to the basic sciences.” We didn’t think much of the
grammar and construction of that paragraph c. “… with available unclassified
information pertaining to the basic sciences,” and then delete the rest,
from that through the rest of the sentence.
Director: c will read then: “The National Military Establishment shall, for
the purpose of inducing exchanges with other countries, provide the
Department of State with available unclassified information pertaining to
the basic sciences.” And then delete the rest of it?
Adm. Inglis: Yes. And down in
paragraph d after the word “will”—“or from the agencies served, other than
the National Military Establishment”; after “will” insert “as practicable.”
“… will, as practicable, appoint specially qualified scientific or technical
personnel.”
Director: I think that is a good addition there.
Adm. Inglis: And the same thing in
paragraph e. “… appropriate measures to obtain the necessary funds from the
Congress and will”; then insert “as practicable,” “assign specially
qualified scientific” and change “or” to “and” “technical personnel.” Then
we had a change that might be more substantive in paragraph f. “The
Department of State shall call upon agencies of the Government which require
scientific or technological information for advice and assistance” and then
cross out the rest and substitute “for advice and assistance as may be
necessary in connection with the requirements of this directive.” Now the
reason, that was given to me, for that suggestion was to broaden it out
beyond the advice and assistance of organizing and staffing offices in
Washington and abroad. It was felt possibly advice and assistance as to
collection and dissemination might be helpful also.
Director: Anybody got any comments on those changes? Park?
Mr. Armstrong: I am not certain I got
it.
Adm. Inglis: The suggestion is that
the entire paragraph read: “The Department of State shall call upon agencies
of the Government which require scientific or technological information for
advice and assistance as may be
necessary in connection with the requirements of this directive.” That
broadens it out rather than restricts it.
Dr. Colby: May I inquire about an early change.
Technical information also includes basic science?
Adm. Inglis: Including basic when
necessary. “The Departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force will collect
scientific and technological information, including basic research when
necessary, to meet the requirements of the National Military
Establishment.”
Gen. Todd: I would like to comment on paragraph e, if I
may. The closing part of that sentence seems to me should be qualified. That
is, “will, as practicable, assign specially qualified scientific or
technical personnel to the staffs of their respective attachés” and “at
selected” or “appropriate” “United States Missions.” You wouldn’t want them
in many countries where we do have Missions. “Selected United States
Missions for this collection responsibility.”
Adm. Inglis: I certainly agree with
the sense of that. It shouldn’t be a requirement. How would you like “will,
as practicable and necessary, assign specially qualified”? “Will, as they
find practicable and necessary.”
Director: I would rather have General Todd’s “selected”
on that.
Mr. Armstrong: That ties in with
paragraph b where the DCI is given the
responsibility.
Adm. Inglis: O.K.
Col. Mussett: Who does the selecting? Each individual’s
responsibility?
Director: Yes.
Adm. Inglis: “The Departments of the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force shall take measures.” There too, who is
going to do the selecting?
Col. Mussett: “Appropriate” might be better.
Director: I don’t think it makes much difference.
Col. Mussett: Since this is by way of a directive that
they shall do so and so.
Director: Make it “appropriate” U.S. Missions.
Adm. Inglis: Who is going to decide
what is appropriate?
Col. Mussett: If we used your version “as practicable
and necessary” it puts it on the Department concerned up here. We will put
it as you suggest.
Adm. Inglis: It is tightening it up to
say “as they may find practicable and necessary.”
Col. Mussett: It seems to make it a little plainer if
you put it in up here.
Adm. Inglis: See, you have got a
subparagraph b “The Director of Central Intelligence, in collaboration with
pertinent agencies, shall determine those countries.”
Gen. Todd: “Such U.S. Missions as may be required for
this collection responsibility.” You are charging it definitely or at those
U.S. Missions as required for this collection responsibility.
Adm. Inglis: Your suggestion is after
“U.S. Missions” insert “as may be required”?
Gen. Todd: “At such U.S. Missions as may be required for
this collection responsibility.” “As required.”
Director: Will you give us your comments, Dr. Colby?
Dr. Colby: I am worried about the comment I asked about
at first. You mean on those occasions where there are no scientific
attaches?
Adm. Inglis: The idea was where the
mechanism set up by this paper didn’t fulfill the requirements. In my case,
in the Navy, in the field of basic research that we would reserve the
privilege of getting that ourselves if we couldn’t get it through the
machinery that there is, as necessary.
Dr. Colby: Where the machinery was not necessary, it
doesn’t make the collection responsibility lacking.
Adm. Inglis: In a sense it gives a
threshold area there. It does—we might consider it wasn’t satisfactory for
our purposes where you or State Department might insist that it was.
Gen. Todd: There might be periods of time when the
scientific attaches were not on station or present and wouldn’t want to.
Dr. Colby: Or where they were not assigned?
Adm. Inglis: Or where given priority
to a particular field of research which overrode something we thought was of
a higher priority. That was the reason for putting it in. If there is a
rather serious objection from the other members of the Committee, I wouldn’t
want to have a split of the paper over that. It is not that important to
us.
Dr. Colby: It struck me there would be occasions when
basic research collection was immediately assumed by the other attaches so
the other man became by-passed.
Adm. Inglis: The thought was only that
this clause would only be implemented when our requirements were not
satisfied by the State Department machinery that is set up here.
Dr. Colby: There is no machinery to direct an attaché,
being instructed by other agencies, toward items which are being neglected,
because attachés, of course, are appointed by their users.
Adm. Inglis: He might not even be
qualified in that particular field. The priority of his targets might place
the priority so far down the list he wouldn’t get around to doing it in time
to satisfy our needs.
Mr. Armstrong: I presume, of course,
by the preceding sentence that the Navy would ask that its requirements be
satisfied only after finding that couldn’t be the case.
Director: In the following sentence there are “utilizing whenever practicable
the facilities.” It has a cover clause that seems to me it doesn’t take
anything away, but it may add to it. I mean to get a thing done. Have you
any other comments?
Dr. Colby: “When requested.” That means it will be
requested?
Director: W.E.?
Gen. Todd: No.
Director: Colonel Mussett?
Col. Mussett: No.
Director: General Irwin?
Gen. Irwin: No.
Director: Since this thing just came around and we know it was a very short
notice for you people here in the Committee, we will now write it up and
send it around for formal approval.
Mr. Childs: And send it back to the
Security Council as a substitute proposal for the other one.
Director: I don’t know what we will do if they don’t approve this one.
Mr. Childs: We shall request in a
letter to Mr. Souers that he submit
it to the Security Council since it had been reconsidered by the IAC and the enclosed proposal is suggested as a
substitute.
Director: This one says practically the same thing.
Adm. Inglis: Since the representative
of the R&D Board has agreed to this one, it will be helpful.
Director: He is going to be there. That is the last item of the formal
agenda.
We have some semi-formal ones we would like to bring up. One is the meetings.
We haven’t had them very often and I would like to know—shall we have them
at fixed times?
Mr. Armstrong: I think it is a good
idea, Hilly, even if the interval is fairly large. My
experience has been that a machinery of this kind tends to get rusty and the
weeds grow over it if it isn’t used and there is a tendency to bring more
problems before a Committee of this kind if there is a scheduled
meeting.
Director: I agree with you on that myself. Any other? The Navy?
Adm. Inglis: I agree with Mr.
Armstrong and will add another
to show for the record that we are alive to our responsibilities and do meet
once in awhile. If you allow five or six months in between, the record
doesn’t look very good.
Dr. Colby: I agree.
Gen. Todd: I agree wholeheartedly.
Col. Mussett: I agree.
Director: Every two weeks, maybe?
Adm. Inglis: Not less than once a
month.
Mr. Armstrong: Yes.
Director: Not less than once a month?
Adm. Inglis: Regular, monthly, routine
meetings, and have them in between when some matter arises which requires
immediate attention.
Col. Mussett: I would like them once a month.
Director: The next thing is what day of the month? I would like to suggest
this, it may be a help, I would like to suggest, since it is once a month,
the third Friday. The Security Council has a meeting the day before and
there may be things you can bring up here the next day.
Gen. Todd: That is good as far as JCS is concerned.
Director: Morning or afternoon?
Mr. Armstrong: It doesn’t make any
difference on Friday. The third Friday.
Gen. Irwin: I would prefer the afternoons.
Director: The third Friday of each month at this time. Sometimes, when there
is a lot to be done, we can get started earlier.
Col. Mussett: I am fairly sure I can accept that for
General Cabell.
Director: Do we want another one this month? Let’s have one, if it is
agreeable, there is not much to be done but just get out in the open air.
December 17 will be the next one. Unless you are otherwise notified.
Let me get your views on a subject here that has come up. Admiral Inglis and I are rather more familiar with
it because it came up through the Navy. We have a letterNot found. addressed here from Commodore
Greenman, Director of the Naval Petroleum Reserves. The firm is a civilian
firm of DeGolyer and MacNaughton
and they are making various estimates and other researches into petroleum.
He wrote to me that he wanted an exceptionally large report on the
availability of crude oil on a world-wide basis and the information he asked
me for in this letter he would turn over to this civilian firm. He asked if
we would turn over to him all the Naval Attaché reports on that. We wrote
back that we could not supply intelligence material to any civilian firm or
organization and that they could get those through the Navy. He then came
over to see me about it and said his letter had been a little confusing and
that he really didn’t want Navy Attaché reports alone, but our dope on crude
oil reserves in the world. And I told him in that case we would give it
after taking it up with the
Security Council members, about it going to a civilian firm, and he assured
me it had always been very discrete in its dealing. Then we sent our man
over to get the details of it and Commodore Greenman came up then and said
his objective was to obtain all available raw intelligence material,
particularly statistics on exploration, discoveries of new fields,
development and production of crude petroleum. This on a continuing basis as
reports come in. Primarily MA, NA, AA, State,
OO, and OSO reports. That was the first we had heard about that. I
talked to Admiral Inglis about it and
our opinion is that such reports should not be given to a civilian firm. We
will make him up a survey on the information which we have on crude oil
reserves and tell him that is our estimate. I want to get your opinion. Do
you want your reports going out like that? We would much prefer not to give
them. If you say give—I would like to ask Admiral Inglis to fill out on that because he was
first approached on this.
Adm. Inglis: I can’t add much to what
you said. What was represented to me by Commodore Greenman that they are the
outstanding experts in this country and possibly in the world. They are
consulting engineers on the subject of oil reserves. In fact, not only
proven reserves, but unproven reserves. It was represented to me that this
firm was entirely unbiased and unprejudiced. That it wasn’t obligated in any
way to a particular oil company. It is a high-principled firm so that we
need not fear that any one company was going to obtain any unfair
competition over any other firm. It was also represented as being discreet,
American, patriotic citizens. And the thing that bothers me about it is that
they have a reputation which probably no Government agency, even ICA, could
compete with. That is, a professional reputation as consulting engineers. So
I think we may have a chestnut in our hands that is going to have to be
cracked along that line. A case will be made if we refuse to give these
reports over. We can’t hope to be able to evaluate them as his company could
and if it would be to the advantage of the country and the departments
interested in petroleum to allow them to do this work, as an alternative
possibly the Army–Navy Petroleum Board would swallow this pill more readily
if it were represented that CIA would enter directly into a contract with
this company. But still CIA could not retain control of this whole
proposition. Then if CIA wanted to give them five thousand dollars, or ten
thousand dollars for their advice the end product is a joint effort of CIA
and this very fine firm of consulting engineers without losing control of
the source material. But I don’t think this is a simple problem and I don’t
think any solution which will be entirely acceptable to you will be
acceptable by the users without argument. Commodore Greenman is only acting
for the Army–Navy Petroleum Board, and I might also add that Commodore
Greenman told me this was initiated a year or a year and a half ago by Secretary Forrestal when he was Secretary of the
Navy. So there is a little pride of authorship involved.
Director: All I can say on that same thing is that this firm unquestionably
must be very good, but if we give them all our information they can make a
re-estimate and come out with a report of all the crude oil in the world.
Our own people can come out with an estimate and when you are dealing with
two or three hundred billion barrels, whether you are ten billion barrels
off or not, or twenty billion, when you are dealing with up to two hundred
billion barrels it wouldn’t make much difference. When you get up there to
where this thing is, like in geometry, instead of taking the circle, you use
the sine of the circle. Any evaluation is going to be of not much import
because both of them are going to be estimates.
Gen. Todd: If that error occurred in one particular
area, it would be of considerable significance.
Director: It may be of significance but none of us around here would ever
know about it and whether it would be an exact error or not, an error that
actually occurred, for the world petroleum is going to last for another 25
years.
Adm. Inglis: I think “Wee” has a point
though that the strategical importance of the area might have a great
significance as compared to the estimated oil that is in the ground in that
area. In other words, if we overestimate the oil in Venezuela, an
overestimate might make a tremendous difference.
Director: It might, but I think if he is using the same raw materials as we
are it is not going to be that much greater. We take the Middle East and
make an estimate from the raw material which we have, and we have a
petroleum engineer fairly high in the oil business who makes an estimate. We
estimate there is in that area one hundred billion barrels of oil, and this
boy comes out and says you have yours way up there—there are only
seventy-five billion barrels.
Gen. Todd: I was thinking of areas such as Brazil, who
have been given encouragement to develop that which is believed to be there.
When our estimate is wrong and Brazil goes ahead and develops it, it is
expensive.
Adm. Inglis: You might have United
States capital and the Petroleum Board puts a lot of Uncle
Sam’s money down there. I wonder if we have all the
raw material that is available. I wonder if this consulting firm has some
more? I think they would say they have whether they have or not.
Gen. Irwin: Are you going to take these people’s
estimates in preference to our own?
Director: No, add them to our own. What we want to do is know whether you
want us to give them your raw material reports on it.
Adm. Inglis: I don’t like to establish
that precedent. Next it will be the consulting engineers in chemistry or
biology that are going to demand the same thing.
Gen. Todd: Would it be practicable for them to put in an
integrated working group or have access to the material?
Gen. Irwin: They could assist your evaluators.
Director: We may be able to do that.
Adm. Inglis: That is the idea I
had.
Gen. Irwin: I think that is a lot better.
Adm. Inglis: As an alternative to a
flat turndown.
Gen. Irwin: Then you feed them what you think they could
use?
Adm. Inglis:
Hilly would work with them much as you are working
with the University of Maryland.
Gen. Irwin: They do research jobs for us. That is fair
enough.
Director: I prefer it much better that way. We have very good relations with
a number of the big oil companies, only in the past it has worked that we
wouldn’t communicate what we get from one company to another. This may be
one place where the slip came and you would be licked on it. We will go
ahead then on that basis and suggest we hire this guy to do the
research.
Mr. Childs: He would want to keep that
for his own company.
Director: He would keep a copy of it. We can go ahead on that. There is
another proposal and this is one that touches us all very much. Admiral
Inglis suggested it and it has
been taken up indirectly with Admiral
Souers who thinks it would be a fine idea and approved it.
That is, getting a request from us to the Security Council to get out a
directive that there will be no more publicity and no more talking about
intelligence. The Navy sent this paperNot
found, but from the ensuing discussion it appears that this may have
been an early version of NSCID No. 12,
Document 431. today, and we will go
through it.
“The current publicity concerning intelligence is of such a character and
volume as to defeat the efforts of all responsible agencies. Articles
are appearing in publications which deal entirely with intelligence as a
subject.”
A lot of them have come out—radio shows—they come out and
talk about it whether it is right or wrong. It doesn’t help the country.
“Publicity concerning intelligence is definitely undesirable for many
reasons, some of which are as follows:
“Basically, the success of any intelligence system depends upon
effective security.
“Sources, methods, and degrees of success are highly classified and
publicity of any kind pertaining thereto defeats the purposes of
intelligence.
“Publicity serves to alert our potential enemies to intelligence
activities and increases the difficulty of collecting information by
focusing attention thereto. Favorable publicity is especially
detrimental.”
I think that is true.
“Failures and indiscretions in the matter of protecting intelligence can,
all too easily, be paid for with American lives.
“Although certain intelligence publicity is fictional, the connection
between the fact and fiction remains and can be analyzed by trained
foreign intelligence agents. Intelligence experience on the part of
certain writers nullifies to a major degree attempts to fictionalize, as
the background of any individual unconsciously colors his statements and
actions. The general public will often accept fictionalized material as
being reliable and are thereby misled.
“Virtually all persons who are engaged in intelligence work have a fund
of information which if organized into a narrative is saleable. This
applies to unclassified as well as classified information. Those who
have engaged in intelligence publicity have set a bad example for
others. Consequently the volume of publicity will grow.”
The directive that is proposed to be sent in to the National Security
Council, title, “Control of Publicity Concerning Intelligence.”
“1. Any publicity concerning intelligence factual or fictional is
potentially detrimental to the effectiveness of an intelligence
activity and to the national security. Accordingly, the following
policy of the National Security Council is announced. “(a) Departments and agencies of the United States
Government shall not permit the disclosure for publication
of any information concerning intelligence or intelligence
activities.“(b) Departments and agencies of the United States
Government shall use every effort to inform the management
of all privately owned media of publicity of the danger to
the National Security of any publicity concerning
intelligence and shall attempt to dissuade them from
permitting such publicity through their respective
media.”
None of us have had time to look that over. I would like to
turn that over to the Committee and have them draw it up. I would like to
have one thing. The heads of the departments or agencies will not permit
disclosure for publication of any information, except by individuals
indicated by the head of the department or agency. There may be a time when
you would want to do it and that will be more acceptable if the Secretary of
the Navy says I will indicate Admiral Inglis to give out information. That wouldn’t do any harm.
If it is agreeable we will turn this over to our working boys and let them draw something up. Maybe we
can get it through, and maybe not. I don’t see any harm, do you?
Dr. Colby: I agree completely that we move in that
direction.
Director: That is from the civilian standpoint.
Mr. Armstrong: Do we still have in
force that directive of the testifying before Congressional Committees?
Director: Yes, each department head can give his orders like that. The
Attorney General rules on that. Each department head can forbid it; we took
that up and the Attorney General said that worked for each department head,
he didn’t have to testify.
Adm. Inglis: It wasn’t necessary to
have a Security Council directive, but haven’t got a department.
Director: The Congress can call on that department head and he doesn’t have
to testify, but as far as CIA’s head is concerned, he would have to stand
and go to jail. Dr. Colby will be the same way.
356. Verbatim Minutes of Meeting of the Intelligence Advisory
CommitteeSource: Central
Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC-657. Secret. The meeting was
held in the Federal Works Building.Washington, December 17, 1948, 2:30
p.m.
PARTICIPANTS
Rear Admiral R.H.
Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence, in the
chairMembers PresentMr. W. Park Armstrong, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and IntelligenceMajor General Stafford L. Irwin, Director,
General Staff, United States ArmyRear Admiral Thomas B. Inglis,
Chief of Naval IntelligenceMajor General Charles P.
Cabell, Director of Intelligence, Office of Deputy Chief
of Staff, Operations, United States Air ForceDr. Walter F. Colby, Director of Intelligence,
Atomic Energy CommissionColonel Wendell G. Johnson, acting for Deputy
Director, Joint Intelligence Group, JCSAlso PresentMr. Prescott Childs, Central
Intelligence AgencyColonel Merritt B. Booth, USA(R), Department of
StateLieut. Col. Edgar J. Treacy, Department of the
ArmyCaptain John M. Ocker, USN, Department of the
NavyMajor W.C. Baird, Department of AirMr. William C. Trueheart, Atomic Energy
CommissionMr. Shane MacCarthy, Central Intelligence
AgencyColonel Charles C. Blakeney, Central Intelligence
AgencyMr. Fisher Howe, Department of StateLieut. Col. James H. Skinner, Department of the
ArmyLieut. Col. C.J. Stattler, Department of
Air
Director: We do not have any formal things to take up. ICAPS is moving Monday up to the
Administration Building and I am moving the following Monday. The telephone
numbers will be the same. What is the status of the Scientific Attaché
paper?See footnotes
1 and 2, Document 355.
Mr. Childs: It is going to the Security
Council saying it has been reconsidered by the IAC and their staffs and the Research and Development Board and
the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The other one has been withdrawn and
the new proposal is enclosed.
Adm. Inglis: Does the R&D Board
and Secretary Forrestal’s Offices
accept the changes?
Mr. Childs: As far as we know. They do
not rate a formal voting slip from this group.
Col. Johnson: I saw Mr.
Beckler yesterday and I asked him about it and he
said they were going to. There were minor changes.
Director: Dr. Hafstad told me the same thing for the
Research and Development Board. That should take care of Mr. Forrestal’s objections. Do we have anything
else to bring up? Do you have anything, Park?
Mr. Armstrong: I haven’t anything
very pressing. You might allude to the incorrect impression, I might call
it, that the Department of Justice may have created about the Department of
State’s position on the question of defectors in this country, when they
sent around a memoNot found. to the
Service Agencies saying the Department of State had seen and concurred in
the proposal they presented. We have circulated to each of the agencies a
copy of our correspondence to Justice on the subject and I hope that serves
to correct the misunderstanding because we had never concurred in the
proposal. That leaves me to wonder whether this Committee might discuss the
question of refugees and defectors of all kinds as intelligence targets. I
know this is a matter that the Army is concerned with and General
Bolling has given his attention to it. I know it is
in the hands of a working group under Kirkpatrick of
your Office with representatives from each of the offices, including Justice
Department. We have been speculating, or wondering, in our shop, as to
whether that isn’t a problem that has the natural factors that would perhaps
make it worthwhile to consider
reviving the SANACC 395 Committee,SANACC 395 was
a designation for papers on Soviet refugees prepared by a working group
of the State–Army–Navy–Air Force Coordinating Committee. since it
has already dealt with some phases of that particular series of questions.
We don’t have any question at all as to the working committee that is at
present engaged on it, but wonder whether they are bringing into play all of
the experience and considerations that developed during the SANACC 395 sessions; whether the membership
of the present committee, at the working level, should not include for its
purposes some of the members of the SANACC Committee which I don’t believe at present is the case.
I have raised this question to see if anyone here wants to discuss it. If
the feeling is that it should go on under the present group, that is
entirely agreeable to us, but we feel that the problem is an urgent one
requiring an early solution and that it is a very broad one and would like
to see the greatest possible talent put to work on it.
Gen. Irwin: Is that the Committee General
Bolling is on?
Mr. Armstrong: I think it is Mr.
Todd of your organization.
Col. Treacy: That is right, and Lieut. Col.
Edwin L. Clark is on the other.
Gen. Irwin: Is that about the questioning? That is an
important one.
Mr. Armstrong: It is very important.
It is not only a domestic problem of getting proper intelligence handling
for foreign intelligence out of the defectors in this country, but it has
been broadened to include the related problem of defectors abroad and
refugees.
Director: I saw Kirkpatrick and the two FBI people and they claim they are practically
finished with a solution everybody is agreed to, including the FBI. I think you had better wait to see that
and if we don’t like that, refer it to the SANACC 395 Committee.
Mr. Armstrong: It is perfectly
agreeable with me and it is not a reflection of the working committee, but
to raise the question whether all past experience has been brought to bear
on it.
Director: This tentative thing looks like it ought to be all right.
Mr. Armstrong: On the domestic only
or also considering the foreign?
Director: The foreign too.
Adm. Inglis: Who is my man on
that?
Director: You have one, but I don’t know who.
Adm. Inglis: Was the 395 series that
on broad civil defense?
Mr. Armstrong: The refugees,
displaced persons, and bringing in the Voice of America.
Director: This committee is so close to an answer we will see what they have
before we drag in someone entirely new on it.
Mr. Armstrong: It is entirely
agreeable to me.
Director: They ought to get the answer within a week or two unless Christmas
interferes and we will get it after Christmas. Tommy,
do you have anything?
Adm. Inglis: I don’t know whether
anyone wants to discuss the intelligence about China or not, but it is of
interest to us. We have seen General Barr’s (Chief
JUSMAG) estimate of the situation in China and we are inclined to agree with
that, but I would be reassured if I felt that the other members of the
Committee had the same appraisal of his estimate. Have you seen that?
Mr. Armstrong: I don’t recognize it
by that name.
Adm. Inglis: The gist of it is they
think that the situation north of the Yangtze is hopeless and is just a
matter of days or weeks before the whole thing folds up. What happens after
that, of course, is a matter of terrible concern and conjecture. Do you feel
that this Li that is Vice President is going to be successful in forming
some kind of a coalition cabinet and if so just how much Communist influence
will be exerted in that? My people say they have checked on the working
level with Army, State and the rest and they say that they believe he will
be successful and in the beginning the Communists will be in the minor
position, but as time goes on will it grow as it did in Czechoslovakia.
Gen. Irwin: I am not particularly briefed on the
problem, but from what you said I don’t think you would find a
disagreement.
Gen. Cabell: I don’t think you will
find a disagreement among us, except I personally am confident that Li will
do that.
Adm. Inglis: We question that very
closely. Do you think the Communists would be satisfied with what followed
down from the Chiang regime? It might be the Communists
would feel it to their advantage to set up a coalition Government because it
would give them a certain prestige in international trade with the USA.
Director: I think our people got the same answer. They said the Communists
would come into the government because they would be a recognized government
in the United Nations and, as a purely personal thing, that the United
States and the West could supply them with articles of trade that they
couldn’t possibly get from Russia. They would want that for a while.
Adm. Inglis: The United States would
be hard pressed for an excuse not to recognize it.
Gen. Irwin: You think the reason is they would not
dominate with ease?
Director: I think they could. The opinion our people got from
Barr’s report is that they are not going to force
the issue now. Maybe in six months.
Mr. Armstrong: We can gain much more
by moving slowly.
Adm. Inglis: Do you have any ideas on
that?
Gen. Irwin: No. I think we could accept the Communists
taking all to the North of the Yangtze, but I doubt whether they go South
for some time.
Adm. Inglis: For some time?
Mr. Armstrong: Although they have the
capability?
Gen. Irwin: Yes.
Adm. Inglis: One thing that puzzles us
is the superiority and the strategic direction of the Chinese Communists and
their ability to support themselves logistically and in communications. It
just doesn’t seem Chinese.
Gen. Irwin: I don’t think it is.
Adm. Inglis: We wonder where the beans
and bullets are coming from.
Director: I think a lot of that strategic direction is—the fact that they
look so good—because they do not have any good fast opposition against them.
But it does not explain the beans and bullets; probably the captured U.S.
things that were turned over to the Nationalists. Perhaps you can justify
the strategic direction by some Russian influence, but even so they would
have to work through a lot of Chinese then. The thing certainly has me
stopped.
Gen. Irwin: They must have good communications. There
was a report that I saw today that said they were running rather low on
supplies and that their morale was low.
Adm. Inglis: My people didn’t believe
that particular report because it was in conflict with other reports.
Gen. Irwin: The Nationalists don’t have the will to
fight.
Adm. Inglis: And another thing,
turning our attention to the condition in Formosa. Does anyone know a strong
man in Formosa who we would do well to back instead of carpet baggers from
China or Chiang Kai-shek.
Gen. Irwin: Didn’t we have a report that the Formosans
were very bitter against any movement of the Chinese? Someone must have
fronted for them.
Adm. Inglis: Park, do you know of any Formosan who is
capable of leadership?
Mr. Armstrong: No, the Formosans are
quite leaderless.
Director: There was a name on this Formosan People’s Political Committee.
That report said they didn’t want the Chinese there and intimated they might like the United States
to come in and take over those people. They seem to have the thing in hand.
But I don’t remember the name.
Adm. Inglis: You think you have some
information?
Director: Yes. One thing I do remember is that this outfit, the Communists,
did start some kind of violence and they put it down with a very heavy hand.
It did not go to the grand jury, they just cut off their heads. It is the
same outfit that wanted a free and independent Formosa under the United
States. I know we have something on that.
Gen. Cabell: That would indicate some
kind of strong leadership—that quick and positive degree of action.
Mr. Armstrong: Wasn’t that the
Chinese Government?
Adm. Inglis: They assassinated the
first person that came over.
Mr. Armstrong: The second one was run
out.
Adm. Inglis: He wasn’t quite as brutal
as the first one. He came over with a group of soldiers.
Gen. Irwin: There was some discussion about shipments to
China, of diverting one to Formosa. That would head it up and put the stuff
in the hands of the Chinese. Maybe we decided to do it for the benefit of
the Chinese.
Adm. Inglis: That has been suspended
for the time being.
Gen. Irwin: It was discussed.
Mr. Armstrong: Has the Chinese Navy
moved over there yet?
Adm. Inglis: Some have moved over from
Tsingtao and the naval training school is to go to Amoy. We had a report
that the move was now in progress, but there was no indication of how long
it would take.
Gen. Irwin: I wonder whether Chiang
has surrendered yet?
Director: He hadn’t yesterday afternoon and when we got our message from
there this morning.
Adm. Inglis: I had one other thing
that has no connection with China. I guess the newspapers last night and
this morning have been full of the Eberstadt subcommittee’s report. And another thing he
mentioned was the lack of medical intelligence. We had a paper which was
prepared currently by an ad hoc committee of the three Surgeons General of
the Army, Navy, and Air Force that they had some idea of setting up a
medical intelligence agency in the Armed Services separate from the present
departmental agencies. We didn’t think much of that idea. I think it was
stopped, but I was wondering if CIA was going to interest itself in medical
intelligence.
Director: It has been under way since about the 10th. The new head of our
Scientific Branch, Dr. Machle, has talked about that to
some of the people in the Medical Corps in the Army and Navy. I don’t know
whether it was Swanson or not.
We got him through Dr. Compton and he talked to him
about it—medical intelligence, BW intelligence and I think he will get
around to that as soon as he gets settled down. Public Health is in on this
too.
Adm. Inglis: I hope you will include
the agencies which are represented by the members of the body here in the
spade work. We didn’t know anything about this until we got this big thing.
It was about cooked and ready to go.
Director: He would do that because he knows Henderson
and some of those people that were working on it.
Gen. Cabell: I understand these
medical people prepared it. My people are not very much in favor of it. The
idea was suggested by somebody and it just grew to some length. We could see
no sense to it.
Adm. Inglis: A great deal of
unnecessary work could have been saved if they had just had a ten minute
talk between the three of us respectively and those who produced this
tremendous tome.
Gen. Irwin: You are currently getting medical
intelligence from your medical people?
Adm. Inglis: Yes. Apparently they are
unhappy about the quantity and the quality. I don’t know that they are
unhappy, but I inferred they were unhappy or they wouldn’t have taken 400
pages to recommend something else.
Mr. Armstrong: The Foreign Service is
a regular contributor to medical intelligence and is supposed to make an
annual report on health and sanitation on its territories. Every foreign
post has to send in quarterly reports on health, sanitation, diseases, and
living conditions.
Gen. Irwin: We have medical and technical attaches.
Speaking about the Eberstadt Committee
statement, I don’t know what backs that statement. I have heard no growls
about our medical intelligence.
Adm. Inglis: I hadn’t either until
this paper confronted me. I have had some growls from the medicos on the
Doctor over in Moscow. That is purely a personal affair.
Gen. Cabell: My medicos didn’t feel
sufficiently strong on it when we non-concurred in it to come around and
talk about it.
Adm. Inglis: That is all I had.
Director: Doctor Colby?
Dr. Colby: No.
Director: General Cabell?
Gen. Cabell: No.
Director: Colonel Johnson?
Col. Johnson: No.
Director: General Irwin?
Gen. Irwin: We are getting out a good deal of political
stuff in our Weekly magazine. Things we think CIA or State Department ought
to put out. A weekly for general theaters and things like that. Do you put
any out?
Director: No.
Mr. Armstrong: We don’t either.
Gen. Irwin: It seems to me we are a little out of our
field. If we could get the material—I don’t know how you would feel if that
field were taken over by either State or CIA and we could confine ourselves
to military intelligence. I know we are getting out a very expensive weekly
digest which is not cultural reading and not enough intelligence in my
opinion.
Mr. Armstrong: Is it classified?
Gen. Irwin: Yes, secret.
Director: Ours is secret.
Gen. Cabell: I wonder if we don’t
have to put out such a publication. We put out one monthly which started
within the last four months. We don’t produce the basic material, we go to
the CIA publications and take some from yours (to DCI) and some from yours (to D/I, Army) but we try to tailor it
to fit the recipient.
Gen. Irwin: I thought the Admiral would pay for it and
we would buy him off.
Director: How many copies have you got?
Gen. Irwin: I will have to look that up.
Adm. Inglis: It seems to me that is a
job for ICAPS. I have often wondered why
ICAPS didn’t interest itself in more
things of that kind.
Mr. Armstrong: I think it is a very
important question.
Director: You let me know how many copies and we will see.
Col. Blakeney: Between 600 and 700 a week are put
out.
Gen. Irwin: At about $1.50 a piece.
Director: It is on slick paper.
Gen. Cabell: Might we not do
this—standardize a monthly publication and look to CIA to prepare section
(a) of our respective publications so that in other words it would be a
custom-built job for them for this purpose then we put in our section (b),
or whatever section we had, for that publication?
Adm. Inglis: There are two things you
have to worry about. One is the departmental intelligence, the other is the
classification. We have a sufficient variety of publications to meet both of
those requirements. It is rather complicated.
Gen. Cabell: We couldn’t turn over
the job for preparing it. We still have a message to get across to our
recipients.
Gen. Irwin: So have we.
Gen. Cabell: We could do it on a
monthly basis and it would save us work and we could lean upon you (CIA) to
prepare a certain section.
Adm. Inglis: Or perhaps have CIA put
out a basic publication and each department come out with its own
publication or call particular attention to that which is of general
interest to all the departments.
Mr. Armstrong: Would that mean CIA
would be putting out the political and economic, and sociological? That is
in the bailiwick of the Department of State.
Adm. Inglis: I again say this is a job
for ICAPS, we can’t settle the
details.
Gen. Irwin: Then State would be the best person to put
that out.
Adm. Inglis: If State wants to give us
the dope through CIA at $1.50 a piece for 700 copies.
Mr. Armstrong: I am interested in
getting at a method to solve this. It would cure one problem we have of
overlap between CIA and ourselves, and we haven’t readily grappled with the
problem yet. I would like to suggest that the Director assign that to ICAPS or any appropriate committee for
study.
Director: It is assigned to ICAPS.
Gen. Irwin: It has a particular interest to our attaches
and would be of interest if they got the State Department’s material as the
basis.
Adm. Inglis: I don’t think our people,
that is, the commanding officers of ships, and our naval attaches, the
customers, are getting the information they would like to have and should
have under the subjects that are State Department stuff.
Mr. Armstrong: We are not getting out
a journal of any kind that can be distributed beyond the departmental
borders.
Adm. Inglis: I think there is a little
gap there which we try to fill in a very amateurish way, but it also seems
to me that the material that CIA puts out should supply several different
needs. The Top Secret business as it is now, it is all right, but the
distribution is so limited that its usefulness is impaired. The Top Secret
goes to 20 people, maybe 30. Another set of customers may include 200 people
and maybe another set of customers 2,000 people. Adopt the classification
for the size of the body. There seems to be a lack in the publications which
is useful to a wider distribution.
Gen. Irwin: I would like something with this political
section and then the military section.
Director: ICAPS, you have a job. You get
that out every week?
Gen. Irwin: It is a weekly. It is a pretty expensive
operation and for that they should get more. It ought to be the best we can
furnish.
Mr. Childs: The Navy has a weekly
too?
Adm. Inglis: We have a daily, weekly,
and monthly. They are several different classifications.
Mr. Childs: I mean a similar
publication to that.
Adm. Inglis: No, the only slick paper
publication we get out is monthly and classified confidential.
Director: Well, we can go into that and see what we can do.
Adm. Inglis: We also get out a
quarterly classified restricted for reserve officers on inactive duty. That
is a quarterly.
Director: You get one out monthly?
Gen. Cabell: Yes.
Col. Treacy: Ours is the only one for distribution
outside of the Division.
Gen. Cabell: It is pretty ambitious
to have that weekly, isn’t it?
Gen. Irwin: By the time it is distributed and all it is
a little on the cold side. Therefore, I would like to put more basic
material in and the military items in it that are of interest to field
people.
Mr. Childs: You would rather stick to
the weekly?
Gen. Irwin: I would rather go into it more.
Director: A weekly comes around very quickly.
Adm. Inglis: We get out one, a
dispatch, and I think you do too; and we get out a weekly mimeograph sheet
of about eight pages.
Director: When you try to fill it up for the weekly you have to start
padding.
Gen. Irwin: It could be cut back to monthly and have it
mimeographed. It would be cheaper with the cooperation of State and so it
could be more or less uniform on the State Department material.
Adm. Inglis: That sounds as though it
is just what we are looking for.
Director: I think it should work out because in some of these you can see the
boys have to fill out on some of it. You can’t help it when you do a
weekly.
Gen. Irwin: I was a customer of this before I came
here.
Director: We will go into that and see if we can’t do something about it.
Mr. Childs: There are several State
publications.
Mr. Armstrong: We put out a weekly
summary that is SECRET level, but is distributed only in the Department and
to Ambassadors. Now, it is entirely possible that a lot of that material can
be written more as an operational summary. It is entirely possible that a
lot of that material can be readily adopted to be used by the Services. I am
very anxious and glad to look into this.
Director: I think it would be a good idea to do it. Any other subjects?
Mr. Childs: The attaches see that which
goes out to the field.
Mr. Armstrong: They probably do.
Mr. Childs: That which goes to the
embassies.
Col. Johnson: They do some places.
Director: They do most places.
Mr. Armstrong: It depends on the
Ambassador.
Gen. Irwin: They really should see them, shouldn’t they?
It would be a means of getting the information into their hands.
Director: Anybody have anything else? I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, and we will see you after the first of the year.
357. Letter From the Executive Secretary of the Intelligence Survey Group
(Blum) to Mathias F. CorreaSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 86-B00269R, Box 5. No classification marking. The source
text is dated December 18, 1949, but from the context this is clearly a
typographical error.Washington, December 18, 1948.
Dear Mat: This is merely to
tell you that twenty copies of the Survey Group Report were delivered to Mr.
Souers this afternoon.Presumably these were advance copies. The report
as finally issued is dated January 1, 1949, on the cover sheet and
included a formal letter of transmittal to the NSC dated January 15, 1949. See the source note, Document 358. I spoke with him yesterday
to ask him whether he had decided how to handle the report. He said that he
had not yet done so, as he wanted first to see what the report looked
like.
I have not yet shown the report to the Secretary,Secretary of Defense Forrestal. but will do so shortly. I am sure that the
question which still preoccupies him is that of “the man.”Director of Central Intelligence, Admiral Hillenkoetter. In this
connection, Souers said yesterday
that in his conversations with the President, he (Souers) was taking the position that no
move should be made for a change until a suitable successor had been
found.
The report seems to be in good shape and I will keep my ears close to the
ground awaiting reactions.
Sincerely yours,
Bob
358. Report From the Intelligence Survey Group
to the National Security CouncilSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 66 D 148, Box 1555. Top Secret. The report includes a January 15
letter transmittal to the Executive Secretary of the NSC from the members of the Survey Group,
Allen W. Dulles, Mathias F. Correa, and William H. Jackson; see the Supplement
for the full text of the report.Washington, January 1, 1949.
THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION AND NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
FOR INTELLIGENCE
Summary
The primary object of this survey has been the Central Intelligence Agency,
its organization and activities, and the relationship of these activities to
the intelligence work of other Government agencies. Examination has been
made of these other intelligence agencies only to the extent that their
activities bear upon the carrying out by the Central Intelligence Agency of
its assigned functions.
Section 102(d) of the National Security Act of 1947 creates the Central
Intelligence Agency as an independent agency under the direction of the
National Security Council. It gives to the Council broad powers in the
assignment of functions to the Central Intelligence Agency and creates a
framework upon which a sound intelligence system can be built. The Central
Intelligence Agency has been properly placed under the National Security
Council for the effective carrying out of its assigned function. It should,
however, be empowered and encouraged to establish, through its Director,
closer liaison with the two members of the National Security Council on whom
it chiefly depends and who should be the main recipients of its product—the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.
The National Security Act, as implemented by directives of the National
Security Council, imposes upon the Central Intelligence Agency
responsibility for carrying out three essential functions:The coordination of intelligence activities;The correlation and evaluation of intelligence relating to the
national security, which has been interpreted by directive as
meaning the production of national intelligence;The performance centrally of certain intelligence services of
common concern. These include services of a static nature, such as
research in fields of common usefulness, and operational services
such as the collection through the central agency of secret
intelligence.
These three functions constitute the basis of an integrated system of
intelligence and they have been used as the frame of reference for the
examination of the Central Intelligence Agency and the related activities of
other intelligence agencies of the Government represented on the National
Security Council, particularly the Department of State and the Departments
in the National Military Establishment.
No amendment to the provision of the Act relating to intelligence is required
at this time. What is needed is action to give effect to its true
intent.
The Responsibility of the Central Intelligence Agency for
Coordinating Intelligence Activities
Under the statute, the Central Intelligence Agency has broad responsibility
to coordinate intelligence activities relating to the national security. In
the discharge of this responsibility, the Central Intelligence Agency should
review the intelligence field and ascertain where there are gaps or
overlaps. The agency best equipped to do a particular job should fill any
gaps. Where two or more agencies are doing similar work, the one best
equipped ought to carry on the job and the others drop out or their efforts
be coordinated.
This vitally important responsibility for coordination is to be exercised by
recommending directives for approval by the National Security Council. The
Central Intelligence Agency has the duty of planning for coordination and,
in consultation with the other intelligence agencies, of taking the
initiative in seeking directives to effect it. Today this coordinating
function of the Central Intelligence Agency is not being adequately
exercised.
To assist it in carrying out this task the Central Intelligence Agency has
available the Intelligence Advisory Committee. This group includes the
Director of Central Intelligence as chairman, the heads of the intelligence
staffs of the Departments of State, Army, Navy and Air Force, the Atomic
Energy Commission and the Joint Intelligence Group of the Joint Staff.
A number of formal directives for the coordination of intelligence activities
have been issued by the National Security Council upon the recommendation of
the Central Intelligence Agency and the Intelligence Advisory Committee.
These directives, except those specifically assigning to the Central
Intelligence Agency the carrying out of certain common services described
below, have not gone far enough in defining the scope and limits of
departmental intelligence activities. These activities continue to present
many of the same jurisdictional conflicts and duplication which the National
Security Act was intended to eliminate. Consequently, the absence of
coordinated intelligence planning, as between the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Service agencies and the State Department, remains serious. What is needed is continuing and
effective coordinating action under existing directives and also directives
establishing more precisely the responsibility of the various intelligence
agencies.
The field of scientific and technological intelligence is an example of lack
of coordination. Responsibilities are scattered, collection efforts are
uncoordinated, atomic energy intelligence is divorced from scientific
intelligence generally, and there is no recognized procedure for arriving at
authoritative intelligence estimates in the scientific field, with the
possible exception of atomic energy matters.
Another important example of lack of coordination is in the field of domestic
intelligence and counter-intelligence relating to the national security.
Jurisdiction over counter-intelligence and counter-espionage activities is
assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States and the
Central Intelligence Agency abroad. However, fifth column activities and
espionage do not begin or end at our geographical frontiers, and our
intelligence to counter them cannot be sharply divided on any such
geographical basis. In order to meet the specific problem presented by the
need for coordination of activities in the field of domestic intelligence
and counter-intelligence relating to the national security, it is
recommended that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation be made
a permanent member of the Intelligence Advisory Committee.
The Intelligence Advisory Committee so far has had little impact on the
solution of the problem of coordination, except in formally approving
proposed directives. It should be re-activated and called upon to play an
important role.
To assist the Director of Central Intelligence in carrying out his duties to
plan for the coordination of intelligence, the staff in the Central
Intelligence Agency known as the Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning
Staff should be reconstituted and strengthened. It should be composed of
personnel definitely assigned to, and responsible to, the Director of
Central Intelligence and charged, on a full-time basis, with carrying on
continuous planning for the coordination of specific intelligence
activities. This staff, which might be called the “Coordination Division,”
should support the Director in fulfilling one of his most important and
difficult duties under the National Security Act.
In concluding the consideration of this most vital problem of coordination of
intelligence activities, it should be emphasized that coordination can most
effectively be achieved by mutual agreement among the various agencies. With
the right measure of leadership on the part of the Central Intelligence
Agency, a major degree of coordination can be accomplished in that
manner.
The Responsibility of the Central Intelligence Agency for
the Production of Intelligence Relating to the National Security
A long-felt need for the coordination, on the highest level, of intelligence
opinion relating to broad aspects of national policy and national security
was probably the principal moving factor in bringing about the creation of
the Central Intelligence Agency. The lack of any provision for the prompt
production of coordinated national intelligence of this kind was one of the
most significant causes of the Pearl Harbor intelligence failure.
This type of national intelligence, expressed in the form of coordinated
national estimates, transcends in scope and breadth the interest and
competence of any single intelligence agency. Hence, such estimates should
be fully participated in by all of the principal intelligence agencies. All
jointly should share in the responsibility for them.
With one or two significant exceptions, whose occurrence was largely
fortuitous, the Central Intelligence Agency has not as yet effectively
carried out this most important function.
The Office of Reports and Estimates in the Central Intelligence Agency was
given responsibility for production of national intelligence. It has,
however, been concerned with a wide variety of activities and with the
production of miscellaneous reports and summaries which by no stretch of the
imagination could be considered national estimates.
Where the Office of Reports and Estimates produces estimates, it usually does
so on the basis of its own research and analysis and offers its product as
competitive with the similar product of other agencies, rather than as the
coordinated result of the best intelligence product which each of the
interested agencies is able to contribute.
The failure of this type of intelligence product to meet the requirements of
a coordinated national estimate is not substantially mitigated by the
existing procedure whereby the Office of Reports and Estimates circulates
its estimates to the intelligence agencies of State, Army, Navy and Air
Force and obtains a formal notation of dissent or concurrence. Under this
procedure, none of the agencies regards itself as a full participant
contributing to a truly national estimate and accepting a share in the
responsibility for it.
It is believed that this situation can be remedied if the Central
Intelligence Agency recognizes the responsibility which it has under the
statute and assumes the leadership in organizing its own work and in drawing
upon that of the other intelligence agencies of Government for the
production of coordinated intelligence. Thus, within its own organization,
the Central Intelligence Agency should have, in lieu of the present Office
of Reports and Estimates, a small group of specialists, which might
appropriately be called “Estimates Division.” It would be the task of this
group to review the intelligence products of other intelligence agencies and of the Central
Intelligence Agency, and to prepare drafts of national intelligence
estimates for consideration by the Intelligence Advisory Committee.
The final process of coordination should take place in the Intelligence
Advisory Committee which would review and discuss the proposed estimates.
The finished estimate should be clearly established as the product of all of
the contributing agencies in which all share and for which all take
responsibility. It should be recognized as the most authoritative estimate
available to the policy-makers.
Where particular scientific or technical intelligence matters are involved,
the Intelligence Advisory Committee should secure the views of the best
qualified technical experts available to them, including experts from the
Research and Development Board and the Atomic Energy Commission.
There should also be provision for the prompt handling of major emergency
situations so that, as a matter of course, when quick estimates are
required, there is immediate consultation and collective appraisal by the
Intelligence Advisory Committee on the basis of all available
information.
The inclusion of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a permanent member
should assure that intelligence estimates will be made in the light of
domestic as well as foreign intelligence. Provision should be made for the
representation on the Intelligence Advisory Committee of other agencies of
the Government when matters within their competence are under
discussion.
Performance Centrally of Services of Common Concern
Under the National Security Act, the Central Intelligence Agency should
perform, for the benefit of the existing intelligence agencies, such
services of common concern as may be assigned to it by the National Security
Council.
These services, as now being performed by the Central Intelligence Agency,
can be broken down into (1) static services, consisting of intelligence
research and production on certain assigned subjects which do not fall
exclusively within the function of any one existing intelligence agency, and
(2) operating services, consisting of certain types of intelligence
collection and related secret operations.
Static Services of Common Concern
At the present time the static services of intelligence research and
reporting are carried out in the Office of Reports and Estimates. If the
duties of this Office in relation to the production of national intelligence
are assigned to a newly constituted Estimates Division, the miscellaneous
reporting functions presently carried out by the Office of Reports and Estimates and a part at least
of the personnel engaged in them could be reconstituted as the nucleus of a
separate division of the Central Intelligence Agency to be known as the
“Research and Reports Division.” This Division would also include the
Foreign Documents Branch of the Office of Operations and the various
reference and library functions now carried on in the Office of Collection
and Dissemination.
The economic, scientific and technological fields are ones in which all of
our intelligence agencies have varying degrees of interest. At the present
time there is serious duplication in these fields of common concern. Central
production and coordination by the proposed Research and Reports Division
would result in great economy of effort and improvement of the product. For
example, the organization within this division of a scientific branch,
staffed by highly qualified personnel and empowered to draw upon the
scientific personnel of such organizations of Government as the Research and
Development Board and the Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of
dealing with specialized scientific problems, is a project which should have
the highest priority.
This division of the Central Intelligence Agency should be staffed in part by
representatives of the departmental intelligence services so that the
reports produced would represent authoritative and coordinated opinion and
can be accepted as such by the various consumer agencies.
The Director’s planning staff for coordination of activities, the proposed
Coordination Division, should review the question as to what subjects might
appropriately be assigned to the new Research and Reports Division for
central research and report and what services now centrally performed in the
Central Intelligence Agency might be eliminated. The Intelligence Advisory
Committee would be the agency to determine the allocation of work, and in
case of any failure to agree the matter would be referred to the National
Security Council.
Operating Services of Common Concern
The operating services of common concern presently performed by the Central
Intelligence Agency consist of the collection, through the Office of
Operations, of certain types of intelligence in the United States—i.e.,
intelligence from private individuals, firms, educational and scientific
institutions, etc.; the collection of secret intelligence abroad through the
Office of Special Operations; and the conduct of secret operations abroad
through the Office of Policy Coordination.
All of these services are appropriately allocated to the Central Intelligence
Agency. These operating functions are so inter-related and inter-dependent
that they should have common direction at some point below the Director of
Central Intelligence.
The general administrative problems of these operating offices are unique
because of their secrecy and the consequent security requirements. They differ importantly from that
part of the work of the Central Intelligence Agency which is concerned with
the coordination of activities and the production of intelligence.
Accordingly, these three operating offices should have common administrative
services, separate from those of the balance of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
The three activities, with the possible addition of the Foreign Broadcast
Information Branch, should be responsible to one official charged with their
direction. The new “Operations Division” would be self-sufficient as to
administration and semi-autonomous. This would, to a large extent, meet the
criticism frequently voiced, and with a good deal of merit, that it is
essentially unsound to combine in a single intelligence agency both secret
operations and over-all coordinating and estimating functions.
In its secret intelligence work, the Office of Special Operations requires a
closer liaison with the other intelligence agencies, especially those of the
military services and of the State Department which are its chief consumers
and which should be able to guide its collection efforts more effectively
than they do at present. The counter-intelligence function of the Office of
Special Operations requires more emphasis and there is need for better
coordination of all its activities with the military, particularly in the
occupied areas.
The Organization and Direction of the Central Intelligence
Agency
The principal defect of the Central Intelligence Agency is that its
direction, administrative organization and performance do not show
sufficient appreciation of the Agency’s assigned functions, particularly in
the fields of intelligence coordination and the production of intelligence
estimates. The result has been that the Central Intelligence Agency has
tended to become just one more intelligence agency producing intelligence in
competition with older established agencies of the Government
departments.
Since it is the task of the Director to see that the Agency carries out its
assigned functions, the failure to do so is necessarily a reflection of
inadequacies of direction.
There is one over-all point to be made with respect to the administration of
the Central Intelligence Agency. The organization is over-administered in
the sense that administrative considerations have been allowed to guide and,
on occasion, even control intelligence policy to the detriment of the
latter. Under the arrangements proposed in this report, the heads of the
newly constituted Coordination, Estimates, Research and Reports, and
Operations Divisions would be included in the immediate staff of the
Director. In this way the Director, who at present relies chiefly on his
administrative staff, would be brought into intimate contact with the day-to-day operations of his agency
and be able to give policy guidance to them.
In commenting on administration, the question of security should also be
stressed. The Director is charged under the law with protecting intelligence
sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. One of the best methods of
achieving this is to correct the present situation where the Agency is
viewed and generally publicized as the collector of secret intelligence and
to bury its secret functions within a Central Intelligence Agency whose
chief recognized activities are the coordination of intelligence and the
production of intelligence estimates.
In reviewing the work of the directorate, consideration has been given to the
question whether or not the Director should be a civilian. The work of the
Agency, from its very nature, requires continuity in that office which is
not likely to be achieved if a military man holds the post on a “tour of
duty” basis. For this reason, as well as because freedom from Service ties
is desirable, the Director should be a civilian. This recommendation does
not exclude the possibility that the post might be held by a military man
who has severed his connection with the Service by retirement.
The Service Intelligence Agencies and the Intelligence
Functions of the State Department
The Service intelligence agencies and the intelligence organization of the
State Department have been reviewed from the point of view of the over-all
coordination of intelligence and of the contribution which these agencies
should make to the assembly and production of national intelligence.
As regards the Service intelligence agencies, the active exercise by the
Central Intelligence Agency of its coordinating functions should result in a
more efficient allocation of effort than is presently the case. The Service
agencies should concern themselves principally with military intelligence
questions, leaving the Central Intelligence Agency to perform agreed central
services of common interest. In addition, continuing responsibility of the
Central Intelligence Agency for coordination should be exercised with
respect to certain Service activities, for example, espionage and
counter-espionage in occupied areas. The Joint Intelligence Committee would
continue to operate with its membership unchanged and would concern itself
exclusively with military and strategic questions as directed by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. The Services would participate in the formulation of
national intelligence estimates through their membership in the Intelligence
Advisory Committee and would share in the collective responsibility for
these estimates.
In the case of the Research and Intelligence staff of the State Department,
the conclusion has been reached that this staff, as at present constituted,
is not sufficiently close to
operation and policy matters in the Department to furnish the necessary
liaison or the political intelligence estimates required by the Central
Intelligence Agency for the preparation of national estimates. Accordingly,
it is desirable that a high official of the State Department be designated
as its Intelligence Officer to coordinate these activities, to act as the
Department’s representative on the Intelligence Advisory Committee and, in
general, to act as liaison with the Central Intelligence Agency with respect
to the intelligence and related activities of the two agencies and to
develop close working relations between them.
Conclusion
While organization charts can never replace individual initiative and
ability, the Central Intelligence Agency, reorganized along the functional
lines indicated in this report, should be able more effectively to carry out
the duties assigned it by law and thus bring our over-all intelligence
system closer to that point of efficiency which the national security
demands.
The foregoing summary is only a brief outline of the main points of the
report and does not take the place of the detailed discussion in the report
and the various conclusions and recommendations at the close of the
respective chapters.
[Here follows the remainder of the report.]
359. Letter From Robert
Blum of the Office of the Secretary of Defense to Allen W. DullesSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 80-M01009A, Box 1, Folder 12. No classification
marking.Washington, January 19, 1949.
Dear Allen:
Twenty copies of the report were given to Mr. Souers yesterday, along with the signed letter of
transmittal.
As of this morning, it was Souers’
intention to send one copy to each Member of the NSC and one copy to Hillenkoetter with a request for his comments. Because of
the nature of the report, it is pretty difficult for the NSC to take any simple action on it and the
intelligent handling of the report
may prove to be rather difficult unless the single question of personalities
is faced immediately.
Souers told me yesterday that in his
conversations with the President, he (Souers) took the view that nothing should be done to bring
about a change of Director until a qualified successor had been found. At a
meeting this morning, Hillenkoetter
suggested that the Eberstadt Committee
material on intelligence should be circulated at the same time as the Survey
Group Report. He mentioned in particular that whereas the Eberstadt Committee recommended
simplification of administration in the interest of efficiency, he
understood from his conversation with you that the Survey Group would
recommend decentralization (Hillenkoetter had not yet seen a copy of the report).
However, this suggestion was not accepted by Souers, who said that Hillenkoetter, in his comments on the Survey Group
Report—the only report officially before the NSC—could, if he wished, refer to the Eberstadt Committee Report.
Forrestal has not yet seen the report,
but I hope to have him read it over the weekend.
I will keep you informed of any further developments.
Sincerely yours,
Bob
360. Memorandum From Allen W.
Dulles to Mathias F.
Correa and William H.
JacksonSource:
Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 80–M01009A, Box 1, Folder 12.
No classification marking.New York, January 21, 1949.
Attached is a copy of a letterDocument 359. from Bob
Blum which is self-explanatory.
I have examined a copy of the Eberstadt
report on intelligence and do not feel that Hillenkoetter’s reference to a divergence of views on
administration is well founded. It is true that the chapter on intelligence
in Volume II of the Eberstadt report (the chapter prepared
largely by John Bross) indicated over-administration
and too much administrative interference in certain operational matters.
Here we reached approximately the same conclusions.
The Eberstadt report states in Section
V(c):
“The present size of the Administrative Division seems excessive,
particularly in light of requirements for an administrative staff in each of
the offices in some of which security requires a large degree of
independence. On the other hand, an organization as large as CIA requires a
substantial amount of housekeeping, telephone service, maintenance of
personnel records, etc. The problem is complicated by the fact that
accommodations to house CIA centrally are not available and could only be
constructed at a substantial cost and with considerable publicity. A certain
amount of decentralization of CIA may be desirable for security reasons. CIA
is spread amongst twenty-two separate buildings, including warehouses, all
of which must be maintained and serviced separately. Moreover, CIA maintains
a large number of field stations of one sort or another in various parts of
the United States and abroad which are supplied by the Administrative
Division. Reduction of the administrative overhead is possible and
desirable. There is some evidence of interference by administrative
functionaries in matters of primarily operational concern. A certain amount
of such interference is inevitable due to the fact that a Director will tend
to entrust the enforcement of budgetary controls to his immediate
administrative representatives. Too much interference of this sort is
undesirable, but this is an administrative problem that must be solved
internally.”
AWDPrinted from a copy that bears
these typed initials.
361. Letter From Robert
Blum of the Office of the Secretary of Defense to Allen W. DullesSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 80-M01009A, Box 1, Folder 12. No classification marking.
Copies were sent to Jackson and
Correa.Washington, February 7, 1949.
Dear Allen:
Since our telephone conversation this morning, I have checked further
regarding the procedure being employed in handling the Survey Group
Report.
There still seems to be some uncertainty on the subject which will not be
clarified at least until after the meeting of the IAC Standing Committee on Wednesday.
Mr. Souers included the following
paragraph in his covering memorandumSouers’ memoranda to the NSC members and to Hillenkoetter, January 24, are in
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the
National Security Council, NSC
50. when he distributed the Report to the National Security
Council and IAC members:
“The Director of Central Intelligence is being requested to submit,
for concurrent consideration by the Council, comments on the
conclusions and recommendations in the enclosed Report, together
with the views, in appropriate matters, of the members of the
Intelligence Advisory Committee.”
I am told that General Irwin has stated
that he will not agree to having the Director of Central Intelligence
coordinate his comments except in those cases where his comments can be
reconciled with those of the other agencies. As representative of the Army,
he will submit independent comments wherever he feels this is necessary.
I have talked with Park Armstrong who
feels very strongly on the subject. He accepts the principle of joint,
reconciled comments only insofar as they deal with the IAC. He will insist on submitting separate
comments (whether directly to Souers or through Acheson is not yet clear) on the subject of CIA and internal
State Department problems. Armstrong’s representative at the Standing Committee meeting on
Wednesday will have formal instructions to state this policy and, in
general, to try to clarify the entire procedure.
In view of the above, I suggest that you take no further action at least
until after the Standing Committee meeting on Wednesday when the situation
should become somewhat clearer.
Sincerely yours,
Bob
362. Letter From Allen W.
Dulles to Robert Blum of the
Office of the Secretary of DefenseSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 80–M01009A, Box 1,
Folder 12. No classification marking.New York, February 8, 1949.
Dear Bob: Many
thanks for your letter of 7 February 1949.Document 361. I agree that we should
take no further action with respect to the matter of handling the report
until we have further details. If the position of General
Irwin, Park
Armstrong, etc. is accepted, there would certainly be no
reason for us to raise our voice on the subject.
I enclose for your files signed receipt from Matt Correa
for copy No. 21 and I enclose my own receipt for copy No. 22.
Also enclosed is a copy of a letterNot
found. I just received from Justice Jackson with regard to Gisevius. It is
possible that he may call on you as I gave him your room and telephone
number in the Pentagon.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
A.W. DullesPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
363. Memorandum From the Chief of the Intelligence Coordinating and
Planning Staff (Childs) to
Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research: Lot 62 D 42, Box 7385, Dulles, Correa,
Jackson Report and NSC 50. Confidential. The words “but Eyes
Only!” have been added by hand after the classification.Washington, February 8, 1949.
SUBJECT
“Coordination of Intelligence”With reference to the recurring statements throughout the Dulles Report that the IAC Agencies should more actively
participate in CIA’s
production of intelligence estimates, we think that complaints by State
are justified that it is not being consulted in the production of
Intelligence Memoranda, when the subject is obviously within the field
of State’s dominant interest. Furthermore, the Air Force received no
prior notification on two recent papersNeither found. produced in ORE—“Reinforcing the Israeli Air Force,” and “Uncontrolled
International Air Traffic”. Obviously these were both within the field
of dominant interest of the Air Force.NSCID No. 3 paragraph 1c (5) states
that CIA and the Agencies shall for purposes of coordination, exchange
information on projects and plans for the production of staff
intelligence, and paragraph 1e (4) states that the DCI shall request and receive such special
estimates, etc., etc. prepared by the individual departments in their
fields of dominant interest, etc., etc.In October we discussed this with Messrs. Babbitt and Borel when State first
brought up the subject of not participating, and of not being consulted
orally when the subject of the IM was obviously within their field of
dominant interest. (See October memoranda.)Not further identified. Again State brought up this
complaint at the end of December, so we again, in a memo of January 72
referred this matter to Mr. Babbitt. All State wants is to be consulted orally or
advised of the subject under consideration. We think it would be no
hardship, and not at all difficult for ORE to advise State, or Air, or any IAC member of the subject under consideration, even if it
is so urgent that there is not time for actual participation by the
IAC Agency. DCI 3/1 covers the way this should be done under normal
procedures, under urgent procedures, and under exceptional
circumstances. We think ORE should
follow these instructions.State says that it very recently began to receive mimeographed slips
about the subject that is to be considered, but that these slips usually
reach it after the dead-line specified therein. It would be better
pleased if it could be given prompt oral information on the subject to
avoid future confusion like the recent case of Manganese (?).The reference is not clear but it may be two
Central Intelligence Agency memoranda of December 1948 suggesting
that the USSR would reduce manganese exports to the United States,
leading to a serious shortfall in U.S. supplies (memorandum from
Hillenkoetter to the
President, December 10, 1948; Truman Library, Papers of Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files) and Intelligence Memorandum No. 99, dated
December 22, 1948. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG
218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Leahy Files)ORE claims that State never meets its
dead-lines, but we think that should not be used as an excuse for CIA
not doing its part in accordance with the established regulations.
Furthermore, we wonder if 100%
of the IM’s are so urgent that the subject matter cannot be at least
orally given to State before production is completed.We also think that the “Review of the World Situation” which is now
published regularly for the National Security Council would carry a lot
more weight and be more in accordance with the laws and regulations if
it were coordinated at least orally in advance of publication. Formerly,
there was an irregular dead-line making such a procedure too difficult,
but now that it has a fixed date of publication each month, we should
think that the IAC members could
participate in this publication also.The feeling that CIA has a free hand in current and staff
intelligence, we think has gone too far, because the basic law and
regulation under which we function give to CIA the responsibility for
only national intelligence, and the method for setting up national
intelligence is participation by the various established intelligence
agencies in the National Military Establishment and State. We think that
CIA should stick to the rules of the game and not by-pass them. Then
after we have no mote in our own eye, we can with justification get
after the beam in the other fellow’s.Prescott ChildsPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
Comments:The
following “Comments” are a handwritten addendum, possibly in
Childs’ hand.
If there actually is the fullest flow to CIA from the IAC, CIA’s files would be complete for
hurry-up preparation of an Estimate requested by Ad. Leahy or Mr. Forrestal. They at least look upon CIA
as the central agency for “intelligence.”
Should be more oral coordination, at any rate, in almost everything and
DCI will give instructions to this
effect.
364. Memorandum From the Chief of the Intelligence Coordinating and
Planning Staff (Childs) to
Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 5. Top
Secret.Washington, February 9, 1949.
SUBJECT
Standing Committee Meeting of 9 February 1949
1. Herewith are some side-lights on the Standing Committee meeting this
morning. As indicated in the attached memo,Not
found. they agreed or concurred in most of the Conclusions and
Recommendations.The Conclusions and
Recommendations of the Dulles
Report; see Document 358. All of the page and
paragraph references below are to the Conclusions and Recommendations of
Chapters IV, Coordination of Intelligence Activities, and V, National
Intelligence Estimates. They did not wish, however, to take up
every item in the Report about the IAC. It
is thought that the Navy will comment on some of the IAC references throughout the Report, but that the others will
confine their comments largely to the Conclusions and Recommendations in the
attached memo.
2. Whereas in many of the recommendations in the attached memo there is
merely a statement of concurrence or agreement with the Report, there was,
needless to say, discussion on most points, as the meeting lasted three
hours. Here follow some of the side-lights on the recommendations.
3. On page 63, paragraph 3: Some thought the DCI should do what he wishes about bringing the
FBI into the IAC. Navy and State seem to have the only positive feeling on
this, and the others have “no objections.” They all, more or less, agreed
that the FBI would probably not accept an
invitation to become a permanent member, and/or would probably not attend
meetings. They feel sure that Mr. Hoover would not come, and that anyone he designated to come
might carry the ball to the detriment of pure intelligence discussions among
the intelligence agencies.
On page 63, paragraph 5: The Navy is still holding out
for its Board of Directors theory about the IAC and will advocate that in its reply. No one else agrees to
this theory, although they all favor more active participation by the IAC in substantive intelligence.
On page 81, paragraph 4: All members of the Standing
Committee vehemently said that CIA is not doing this and should do it. The
general consensus of opinion seemed to be that CIA should follow the JIC procedure, whereby papers would be
submitted to the IAC and if they were approved no discussion would be
necessary, but if there were a dissent, they would be reconsidered and a
discussion would be held with a view toward dissolving this dissent. Then
the new paper would be re-submitted, with or without a dissent, depending
upon a result of the discussions. It was even suggested that the Standing
Committee would do this approval of estimates as well as its policy work!!!
Also some thought if it were not resolved on lower levels this would go to
the IAC members themselves at a meeting for
discussion. But no one would really commit himself, other than saying this
should be done, and they would not permit an inclusion in the
recommendations to the IAC that it was not
being done at present. Furthermore, about “assuming collective
responsibility,” the Army and the Air Force think that they do this only in
a limited way as it pertains to their own affairs, not as it pertains to the
whole estimate.
There was such a diversity of views on this one paragraph that we tried to
get them all to say that they would submit their individual comments, but
they would not commit themselves even on this point.
In connection with the discussion and approval of estimates, State was
vehemently opposed to the things which CIA is producing without consulting
the IAC Agencies, and the Army was not
pleased either. See my memo of February 8Document 363. about Coordination of
Intelligence,” i.e., CIA as well as the agencies really working under NSCID No. 3 and DCI 3/1 and 3/2, and not by-passing them.
On page 81, paragraph 5: None of them agrees that
General Irwin’s statements at the IAC meeting the other day provided arrangements
for handling “crisis situations.” Booth wants you to
march right into the Secretary of State with a club and tell him to give you
his “Eyes Only” telegrams and, incidentally, to give them to
Booth’s office also!!!
On page 81, paragraph 6: The Standing Committee
thought this was a desirable feature and would be a boost for CIA if it were
issued by the NSC to the various
departments. They agree, however, that a horse may be led to water but
cannot be made to drink.
PC
365. Letter From Robert
Blum of the Office of the Secretary of Defense to Allen W. DullesSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 80-M01009A, Box 1, Folder 12. Confidential. Copies were
sent to Jackson and Correa.Washington, February 11, 1949.
Dear Allen:
I am sure that you would like to hear from time to time about further
developments in the handling of the report.
The IAC Standing Committee met on
Wednesday,February 9. at which time
it was decided to submit a coordinated IAC
reply on certain recommendations in the report. It was also agreed to submit
separate views on other recommendations in the report. There was discussion
of the various questions involved and some agreement was reached as to the
comment to be submitted. This might be roughly summarized as follows: The Director of CIA will submit separately whatever comments he
wishes.The IAC will submit joint comments
on the following questions: There should be a closer relationship between the IAC and JIC (general agreement on this
recommendation)CIA should establish a closer relationship with the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense (general
agreement)The FBI should be added to
the membership of the IAC
(general agreement)The concept of the IAC is
sound, but the IAC should be
more active (agreement except for Navy dissent on grounds
yet unspecified)The IAC should assume
collective responsibility for national intelligence
estimates (general agreement by all Standing Committee
Members except CIA, whose position is still in doubt)Provision should be made for handling estimates in crisis
situations (same as under “e” above)Joint Staff and Atomic Energy representation on the IAC should not be terminated (general agreement to dissent on
this point)It was agreed to submit separate comments on the following points: The performance by the Director of CIA of his
responsibility to coordinate intelligence activities
(apparently State holds that he should “crack the whip”
whereas the military people held that he should not and
could not do so insofar as the Military Establishment is
concerned)The preparation by CIA of separate, independent reports
and estimates
That is a summary of the discussion in the IAC Standing Committee meeting. There is to be an IAC meeting next Friday, at which, presumably,
decisions on the above questions will be reached.
It is obvious that comments limited to the above points will not get to the
heart of the matter, as the IAC is avoiding
commenting on all those recommendations which concern internal CIA
organization as well as the competence of CIA direction. The State
Department, in particular, is well aware of this drawback and is proposing
to submit independently of the above a general departmental comment on the
entire report over the Secretary’s signature. The report has not yet been
studied by Acheson and Webb, but has met with a very favorable
reception among all those in the State Department who have seen it (this
includes Kennan, Armstrong and Humelsine, who is Head of the Secretariat). In order to
elicit overall comments from the other departments, Mr. Souers may be asked (probably by Mr.
Ohly) specifically to request individual
departmental comments on the entire report, separate from the IAC comments. Incidentally, Webb, the new Under Secretary of State,
called Mr. Souers earlier this week
to express his disapproval of the procedure whereby comments were being
channeled through Hillenkoetter and
to tell him that the State Department was proposing to submit separate
comments to the National Security Council.
I think that about summarizes the present position. You can see that the
procedure is a confused one, although I believe it can be prevented from
getting out of hand. It is my estimate that the NSC will probably meet to review the situation toward the end
of the month, and I think that, at that time, Forrestal and Acheson
should be asked to come back to the NSC with
formal recommendations on action to be taken. I hope that the members of the
Survey Group will be asked to attend the initial NSC meeting when the report and comments are discussed.
Sincerely yours,
Bob
P.S. Gisevius came to see me yesterday and spoke to
me of the importance of properly exploiting the captured German
documents which are here and in St. Louis. I promised to inquire just
what was being done with them, and we are planning to meet again next
week.
366. Memorandum by the Office of Reports and Estimates, Central
Intelligence AgencySource:
Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 15. Top Secret.
Transmitted to the Director of Central Intelligence by the Assistant
Director for Reports and Estimates, Theodore
Babbitt, under a memorandum of February 14. The February
14 memorandum and the full text of the comments are in the Supplement.
(Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box
5)Washington, February 14, 1949.
COMMENTS ON THE DULLES COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ON
THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY AND NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
INTELLIGENCE
I. General Statement
1. The Objectives of ORE
in Reviewing the Dulles
Report.
In reviewing the Dulles Report, the
Office of Reports and Estimates has as its basic objective, not
self-justification or the denial of admitted shortcomings, but a genuinely
constructive effort to shed the light of practical working experience upon
the problem of improving the production of the intelligence upon which
United States policy should be based.
ORE has, therefore, proceeded to examine the
recommendations contained in the Dulles Report, has pointed out certain impractical aspects,
and has indicated how the recommendations might be most effectively
implemented. ORE considers that its intimate
acquaintance with the actual problems involved in the production of national
intelligence enable it, with the help of the detached perspective of the
Dulles Report, to suggest
concrete means for carrying out the principles underlying the Report.
2. ORE Reaction to the
Report as a Whole.
The Dulles Report is an admirable
effort to re-direct CIA to fundamentals and first principles in the
production of national intelligence; it proposes in effect a return to the
concepts developed at the close of the war during two years of earnest and
intense discussion among the most experienced intelligence personnel in
Washington. The observations of the Committee appear accurate, and its
objectives are sound; but its conclusions are in many respects faulty, and
the recommendations for their attainment are in many cases impracticable.
Although the proposals bearing on this Office lack, perhaps by intent, both
precision and detail, ORE believes that sound administration of
the suggested organization, combined with strong NSC direction to the IAC
agencies to make their facilities available to CIA, could bring about
improved intelligence production.
The Report’s greatest weakness stems from the Committee’s restricted concepts
of the extent to which the departmental intelligence activities needed to be
investigated in order to appraise their relationship to the operations of
CIA. Although the Committee claimed to appreciate the danger of considering
CIA activities alone and frankly stated that some correctives were needed
outside CIA, specific recommendations were addressed only to CIA and an
indefensible share of responsibility for CIA’s admitted shortcomings was
attributed to the Director. The resulting Report contains many acute
observations but it also embodies recommendations which could not by
themselves bring about the desired results.
3. Summary of ORE
Recommendations.
On the basis of the detailed comments (to be found in Section II) on the
conclusions and recommendations of the Dulles Report, ORE makes the
following summary recommendations.
NSCID #1 and NSCID #3Documents 432 and 426. should be revised to:redefine CIA’s intelligence production responsibilities as set
forth in Section II, paragraph 1 b;define those intelligence categories, in fields of common
interest, which should be produced centrally by CIA;clarify and define departmental intelligence responsibilities
to CIA;require departmental intelligence agencies to grant priority
to the production of intelligence required by CIA; andclarify IAC coordination
procedures on CIA estimates as recommended in Section II,
paragraph 4.Reorganization of ORE may be required
to provide for the production of national intelligence estimates, as
distinguished from central research in intelligence fields of common
concern. Such reorganization should not be attempted, however, until the
action in paragraph (1) above has been completed. ORE should not be divided into two separate
CIA Offices for the purpose of separating the two types of intelligence
production unless the need for such action is proved and
demonstrated.ORE agrees that ICAPS should be responsible solely to CIA
and not to the departmental agencies its members are supposed to
represent. It strongly recommends, however, that ICAPS should not be reconstituted along
the lines suggested in the Report, but should be replaced by a working staff acting for a
Council, composed of the DCI and his
Assistant Directors, and established to deal with intelligence problems
of concern to two or more offices of CIA. The Assistant Directors
concerned should attend all meetings of the IAC standing committee.ORE has not desire to operate the CIA
library nor to assume the functions of the Foreign Documents Branch, as
long as such services continue to be conducted in support of ORE. It is recommended, therefore, that
these two functions remain where they are or be merged as a library
service within OCD.ORE regards as one of its major
responsibilities the furnishing of specific and long-range guidance to
OO and OSO collection facilities, through the development of
coordinated interdepartmental requirements for information. It
recommends that this function should not be decentralized to OO and OSO.ORE direct working-level relations
with NSC, JCS, and the State Department Policy Planning Staff should
be authorized in order (a) to enable ORE
to receive the guidance necessary for its production effort, and (b) to
give more direct and effective intelligence support to policy and
operational levels.
367. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Policy Coordination
(Wisner) to Director
of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 5. Top
Secret. Another copy bearing a typed signature is reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, pp.
247–250.Washington, February 14, 1949.
SUBJECT
Observations upon the report of the Dulles–Jackson–Correa
report to the National Security CouncilDocument 358.
1. I return to you herewith copy #17 of the report of the Dulles–Jackson–Correa
committee to the National Security Council, dated 1 January 1949. Pursuant
to your request, I am submitting to you in this memorandum my comments upon those portions of the
report which pertain specifically to the Office of Policy Coordination, its
activities and its relationships to various of the other offices of the
Central Intelligence Agency. I understand that you have likewise solicited
the comments of the chiefs of other offices and divisions of the Agency
which are applicable to their respective areas of responsibility and I trust
that my rather limited observations may be of some assistance to you in your
overall consideration of this matter.
2. The most important feature of the report having direct application to
OPC is the recommendation that the
Office of Policy Coordination, the Office of Special Operations and the
Contact Branch of the Office of Operations be integrated under a single
overall direction in a new “Operations Division”. I agree with this
recommendation and with the reasoning which supports it and I further agree
that any such new office should be established and should operate as a
distinctly separate entity, having a considerable degree of autonomy within
the Agency. The considerations which are marshalled in support of this
conclusion and recommendation appear at pp. 94, 96, 97, 99, 100 and 131
through 134 in the report. It was my original conviction that a very close
degree of coordination between the three activities mentioned was essential
and inevitable and I believe that our experience to date has furnished many
proofs of this basic premise.
The report itself takes cognizance of a technical difficulty in this regard
which arises from the anomalous setup of the Office of Policy Coordination
within the Central Intelligence Agency. This arrangement, which was
originally ordained by the National Security Council, could doubtless be
revised as a part of the very important readjustment which is the substance
of this recommendation.
3. Of particular importance to the effective and secure operation of OPC—or of OSO
or the proposed new “Operations Division”—is the recommendation that these
covert operations have their own administrative support services. The
arguments which support this recommendation are, I believe, conclusive and
are set forth at pp. 10, 32, 116 and 136. The gist of these contentions is
as follows.
The general administrative problems of these covert operating offices are
unique because of their secrecy and consequent security requirements. They
differ importantly from that part of the work of CIA which is concerned with
the coordination of activities and the more or less overt work of research
and analysis. The security of covert operations is inevitably prejudiced
when overt and covert administrative units are placed together. Of equal
importance is the fact that the unique character of secret operations
renders inapplicable most ordinary rules of administration. One of the
results of the moving of the administrative support from the direct
authority of the officials responsible for secret operations is that administrative considerations are
hard to guide and even control intelligence and operational policy. Any
gains in overall efficiency which may appear to result from the
centralization of all administrative services are much more than offset by
the resultant losses in the efficiency, effectiveness and security of
operations—and it is submitted that the latter should be the paramount
consideration.
4. Although the comment at p. 37 in regard to the serious results of delay in
obtaining security clearances is obvious, it is nevertheless of sufficient
importance to warrant mention in this memorandum. While recognizing the
essentiality of care and thoroughness in personnel investigations, it is
imperative that a degree of flexibility be retained in the system of
security clearances if the agency is to fulfill its responsibilities. In a
limited number of cases, it will be necessary to request waivers on persons
who have long and well known records of loyalty and responsibility in the
public service. The seven way name check is no doubt desirable in all cases
but the full investigation in cases of the kind mentioned should be allowed
to go on after the individuals have entered upon their duties. Moreover,
there must be a balancing of interests as between absolute security on the
one hand and the necessity of obtaining talent, imagination, initiative and
knowledge in certain fields.
5. A relatively small but nevertheless important point which I should like to
raise for the record is that the report appears to suggest that the role of
OPC is subordinate to that of OSO in the field of encouraging the defection
of strategically placed personnel in the Soviet and satellite government
services. It is our interpretation of our charter (NSC 10/2) that OPC is given
this responsibility, but we fully recognize the special interests of both
OSO and the Contact Branch of OO. You will recall the memorandumNot found. which was prepared by my office and
concurred in by the other two branches, which outlined a proposed method of
coordinated activity both within and without the Central Intelligence Agency
in this increasingly important field. I hope that you will be able to
reconsider your adverse decision in this matter in the interest of enabling
the three interested branches to discharge their respective responsibilities
in a coordinated and effective manner. (See recommendation #3 at p.
129.)
6. I should also like to make a comment for the record upon the observations
of the committee at p. 123 about the insecurity of the present physical
setup of the Washington Headquarters of OSO
(and OPC). I agree that it is very
prejudicial to the security of the personnel and contacts of these secret
operations offices to be isolated in a conspicuously identifiable building,
and that it would be vastly preferable for them to be covered in a large
establishment having no previous OSS and CIA
taint and having so many services
and visitors that the identification of the staff members and their visitors
would be rendered most difficult. I fully recognize that because of the
drastic shortage of government housing space in Washington, this criticism
is easier to make than to remedy, but I nevertheless believe that it should
be made the subject of serious and continued consideration by all concerned.
The problem is aggravated by the inability to date of the Services Branch to
provide sufficient space for present OPC
staff personnel even in Temporary L Building.
7. The observations of the committee at pp. 148 and 149 of the report
concerning the repute of intelligence as a career within the armed services
has an important bearing upon the work of the Central Intelligence Agency
and OPC. Because of the important use which
CIA should always make of military intelligence personnel, as well as the
many relationships which CIA must have with the armed services in order to
be an effective and useful agency, it would be to the interest of all
concerned if steps could be taken to improve the lot and prospects of
service intelligence personnel.
8. My final comment is made in connection with the recommendation of the
committee that a so-called “Intelligence Officer” within the Department of
State be created to serve as the principal liaison between that Department
and the Central Intelligence Agency, including the Office of Policy
Coordination. My reaction to this proposal would depend very largely upon
the identity of the individual selected for this new position and the level
at which he is placed in the hierarchy of the State Department. Unless this
Intelligence Officer is situated at a very high policy level within the
Department of State, the result would be very detrimental. Under no
circumstances should the liaison between OPC
and the Department of State be tied in with the research and intelligence
staff of the Department.
Frank G. Wisner
368. Memorandum From Daniel DeBardeleben
to the Acting Deputy Assistant Director for Special
Operations, Central Intelligence AgencySource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job
86-B00269R, Box 5. Top Secret. The addressee has not been further
identified.Washington, February 17, 1949.
SUBJECT
The Dulles Report
Below are listed my comments on certain passages in the body of Chapter VIII,
“The Collection of Secret Intelligence,” and my remarks concerning the
conclusions and recommendations which appear at the end of the chapter.
It is recommended that representatives of State, War and Navy be
assigned to ICS in order more effectively to direct our activities in
the collection of intelligence and more helpfully to evaluate the
information which we collect. Both in direction and evaluation we can
reasonably expect to receive greater assistance from the user agencies.
Several schemes have been tried in the past to stimulate more detailed
direction and more conscientious evaluation. Regrettably there still
remains much to be desired and this proposal may be the answer to the
problem. British MI-6 has for a long time followed such a general
principle with, I understand, gratifying results. Certainly this
possibility should be explored to the fullest.It is recommended that administrative services be an integral part of
the OSO organization for several obvious
reasons. I agree.It is true that no plan for rotation of personnel on a world-wide
basis has yet been worked out. It is doubtful whether this organization
should ever attempt wholesale rotation of operating personnel between
continental areas except in those unusual cases where individuals have
equal qualifications for work in more than one area. Our present
rotation plan of encouraging our people to remain at their present posts
as long as possible, consistent with cover, is entirely sound during
this formative stage of our existence. Consistent with cover, the longer
an individual can remain in his area of assignment, the more valuable he
becomes to us. This fact will be more greatly emphasized as we succeed
in placing our representatives under unofficial cover where they can
remain as a part of the community for indefinite lengths of time without
arousing curiosity and suspicion. Rotation in OSO must be very carefully considered to the end that we
will not deprive ourselves of the knowledge and experience of our representatives
concerning various areas simply to adopt an appealing policy of
world-wide rotation. The latter would require starting from scratch in
new jobs which would greatly retard the accomplishments of this
organization.It is recommended that OSO, OPC and Contacts Branch, all covert
activities, be combined in one covert office and placed under a
responsible head. There seems to be much to recommend such an
organization provided the peculiar demands of these three offices be
provided for and no attempt be made to perform centrally certain
functions for the three offices which are in no sense common to
them.It is recommended that closer coordination be effected in occupied
areas between OSO and to clandestine
operations of the occupying authority. Such coordination is highly
desirable and I believe is gradually improving. [2
lines of source text not declassified]It is recommended that procedures for handling defectors be worked out
with the concurrence of the interested agencies. Such a procedure is
very important and is now in the process of being determined through the
work of two committees—one dealing with the problem of defectors abroad,
the other considering the handling of defectors in the United States.
The work of these two committees will eventually be drawn together and
overall policy and procedures will result.It is pointed out that contact between agents and our official
representatives abroad should be avoided. Such avoidance is OSO policy and steps are continuously being
taken to observe and follow strictly such policy; however, there will
always be certain cases where this policy must be violated and a
calculated risk taken. There is no way in which the conduct of espionage
can be made entirely safe. It should be our endeavor to avoid
unnecessary risks.It is pointed out that cover for OSO,
CIA here in Washington is unsatisfactory. The conditions as to housing
and the admission by employees of OSO
that they are CIA are undesirable, but there appears to be no immediate
solution. When the activities of OSO
were placed in a separate office in CIA it was assumed that CIA would
provide cover for OSO. This assumption
seemed reasonable at the time because it was expected that CIA would be
recognized by the public and the other departments of the Government as
primarily a research organization performing centrally an overt function
for the Government; however, because of unfortunate publicity, CIA is
rather recognized as a clandestine organization with the result that
OSO is regrettably providing cover
for the overt activities of CIA. It does seem desirable to have OSO quartered in a large building where
other activities are conducted and where OSO personnel are not singled out. Further, it would be
advantageous to adopt some cover name for OSO and its allied activities which would not bring to mind
espionage and clandestine activity.It is recommended that the CE
activities of OSO be expanded and that
closer cooperation with FBI be realized.
This is an entirely sound recommendation and every possible effort will
be made to accomplish such ends.
Conclusions and RecommendationsThis refers to the Conclusions and Recommendations of
Chapter VIII of the Dulles
Report. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 66 D 148, Box 1555) See the Supplement.
Referred to above.Referred to above.Referred to above.In process.Every effort is presently being made to increase the use of unofficial
cover for our representatives abroad. [13 lines of
source text not declassified]Referred to above.Referred to above.No comment.Agree. It seems reasonable that OSO
should enjoy the privilege of disseminating its product in a fashion
comparable to the procedures followed by other collectors.Accomplished.Agree—highly important. DDeB
369. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Reports and Estimates
(Babbitt) to Director
of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–100, Item
17. Confidential. The source text is a transcript made for the CIA
Historian on October 1, 1953. This memorandum draws heavily on a
February 16 memorandum from Ludwell L.
Montague to Babbitt. (Ibid., HS/HC–450, Item 30)See the
Supplement.Washington, February 17, 1949.
SUBJECT
“Coordination of Intelligence”
REFERENCE
Memorandum, 8 February 1949, to Director from Chief, ICAPSDocument 363.Reference memorandum lends considerable weight to the recommendations
concerning the functions of ICAPS
contained in ORE’s comments on the
Dulles Report.Document 366. It
should be pointed out that ICAPS, in
reference memorandum, is representing the point of view of OIR and is passing on this point of view to
the Director without consultation with the interested Office in CIA,
to-wit: ORE.Reference memorandum refers, first, to intelligence memoranda, and
second, to the monthly Review of the World Situation. In regard to the
IM’s, as the Director is well aware, requests for these reports come in
from a variety of sources but in almost all cases it can be said that
the normal procedure is “Urgent” because of the short time factor
permitted. ORE is currently informing
OIR of the subject of each IM as
expeditiously as possible. Such notices of the subject matter and scope
of reference cannot be done by telephone for security reasons in a vast
majority of cases. Delays in communication being what they are, it is
quite true that OIR frequently gets its
information after the report is prepared and sometimes even after it has
been forwarded to the Director. Attempts are being made, whenever
possible, to give advance information to OIR as well as to the other IAC agencies concerned.Paragraph 5 of reference memorandum more than implies that ORE is not “doing its part in accordance
with the established regulations.” In spite of the fact that the
regulations prescribe a cumbersome and time-consuming procedure, ORE is endeavoring to comply with them as
fully as possible. It is obvious that the observance of the “normal”
coordination process, or even the “urgent” one, would in many cases
place the Director in the position of having to reply to a request from an officer of Cabinet
rank that while CIA had the information requested, it was unable to
forward it until the departments had been consulted. The reference, paragraph 6, implicitly recommends that the CIA
SeriesReference is to a monthly CIA
publication entitled Review of the World Situation
as it Relates to the Security of the United States, which
was regularly considered at NSC
meetings during 1947–1950. The first issue, which carried the
designation “CIA 1,” was prepared for the NSC’s first meeting on September 26, 1947. See the
Supplement for selected issues. be subjected to the same
processes of coordination as are required in the case of the ORE Series.Reference is to intelligence estimates and coordinated intelligence
reports, which at that time were identified by a series designator
that included the prefix “ORE,”
e.g., ORE 3–48, ORE 1–49, etc. The basis of this
recommendation is indicated in paragraph 7 which says:… the basic law and regulation under which we function give to CIA the
responsibility for only national intelligence, and the method of setting
up national intelligence is participation by the various established
intelligence agencies.…CIA is also specifically authorized by “regulation” to produce current
intelligence in NSCID #3, paragraph
1b(2). The concept of national intelligence indicated in the foregoing
quotation is obviously taken from the Dulles Report, where, I believe, it finds official
expression for the first time. It is entitled to respectful
consideration, but is, in my opinion, the most controversial aspect of
the Dulles Report and certainly
has not yet the force of “basic law and regulation.”This controversial concept equates “national intelligence” to
“coordinated intelligence” in terms that make “coordinated intelligence”
mean nothing more than “joint intelligence.” In the minds of those who
took part in the early post-war discussions and conferences on the
subject, the central intelligence organization to be set up was to
produce, as “strategic and national policy intelligence,” something
above and beyond joint intelligence. “Strategic and national policy
intelligence” (now called “national intelligence” for short) was
understood in terms of the function such intelligence was intended to
serve, not in terms of a particular method of production. The essential
idea with respect to the production of such intelligence was expressed
in the term “final synthesis”: it was to be an authoritative final
evaluation and synthesis of all available intelligence, free from the
influence of departmental bias. A process of “coordination” was
retained, not because joint intelligence was the end in view, but as a
means of discovering and noting any departmental position substantially
different from the essentially independent final analysis and
interpretation of CIA.This clear concept has been somewhat lost sight of since June 1946. It
is still valid, however, and is consonant with the existing “basic law
and regulation.” Moreover, the Dulles–ICAPS concept
finds no explicit support in the existing law and regulations.The law says only that CIA shall “correlate and
evaluate intelligence relating to the national security.” It makes no
stipulation with respect to “coordination”: it is CIA that is to
correlate and evaluate, language originally used to express the concept
of independent final analysis and interpretation set forth above.NSCID No. 1
defines “national intelligence” in terms of the national security (its
function), not in terms of “coordination” or any other process of
production. It specifies that, insofar as is practicable, CIA shall not
duplicate departmental research, but shall make use of departmental facilities and production.
It says nothing whatever about any coordination of
interpretation.NSCID No. 3
describes “national intelligence” as “integrated”
(not “coordinated”) departmental intelligence.
This distinction appears to be deliberate and points toward the original
concept (“final synthesis”) rather than the Dulles-ICAPS concept
of CIA’s function. Coordination is referred to only with respect to the
procurement of departmental contributions for CIA consideration, not
with respect to any process of joint interpretation.DCI 3/1,
intended to “facilitate departmental participation in the preparation of
national intelligence,” is the highest law or regulation pertinent to
the subject and the reference. In view of the preceding demonstration,
its relevant provisions must be regarded as a matter of current policy
rather than of compliance with the law or with NSC direction. DCI 3/1
prescribes various procedures for obtaining departmental contributions
to and concurrence or dissent on “national intelligence reports and
estimates” (the SRSituation Reports, a series of periodic reports on
individual countries. and ORE
Series). It specifically provides that coordination is not required with
respect to current intelligence.DCI 3/1, dated
8 July 1949, was contemporary with the tenth number in the CIA Series
(CIA 7–48). It was specifically understood at that time that the
procedures prescribed therein with respect to the ORE Series were not intended to apply to
the CIA Series, which, by mutual agreement with the departmental
agencies, was already accepted, for these purposes, as current
intelligence.This agreement was not reached on any basis of abstract consideration,
but as a result of practical experience. Initially we undertook to
coordinate items in the CIA Series as though they were items in the
ORE Series. CIA-1 (September 1947)
was so coordinated, at a cost in time and effort, to the agencies as well as to ourselves,
far in excess of any resultant benefit. CIA-2 was not coordinated, for
absolute lack of any time in which to do so. I do not recall precisely
when the agencies begged off. They may well have been prompted to do so
by their relief on those occasions when coordination proved impossible
to accomplish for want of time. In any case, I do recall distinctly that
agreement to regard the CIA Series as current intelligence was reached
on agency initiative and was as much for the relief of agency analysts
as for our benefit. If any agency representative now wants to resume
coordination, he is presumably arguing in the abstract without
appreciation of the practical consequences of his proposal.This observation has particular application in the case of the
Department of State. One obstacle to the efficient coordination of any
appreciation of global scope, such as items in the CIA Series, is the
lack of any unit in the IAC agencies
comparable to the Global Survey Group, ORE. To coordinate with us in such a case OIR has to employ a team of half a dozen
area specialists. Each such specialist is inclined to demand that his
area be treated as though it were the sole subject of consideration. The
net result is vexatious delay and diversion of effort for ORE and a much greater loss in man-hours
for OIR, without substantial effect upon
the tenor of the estimate.The Series is presently prepared with cognizance of departmental views
as conveyed to us through various media and in discussions relative to
estimates in the ORE Series. Specific
prior consultation with departmental specialists would consume their
time and ours without contributing materially to the preparation of the
initial draft. Moreover, experience shows that the comment elicited in
the process of coordinating a draft of such scope and character as an
item in the CIA Series is essentially editorial in character and without
significant substantive effect.It is, of course, quite feasible to coordinate items in the CIA Series
as though they were items in the ORE
Series, but it can be done only at considerable cost in loss of
timeliness and in terms of man-hours expended, without commensurate
gain. Under present procedures, which include elaborate coordination
within ORE, it is necessary to write in
terms of the situation existing ten days in advance of the publication
date. The imposition of external coordination would require allowance of
at least an additional week, very definitely impairing the timeliness of
the appreciation as of its date of publication. (In this connection,
ICAPS should be advised that there
is not, and cannot be, in real life any such thing as a meaningful oral
coordination.) Moreover, in view of the fact that the Global Survey
Group is already experiencing difficulty in giving proper attention to
its many and various commitments, the additional consumption of time
(approximately one man-week) would require the provision of an additional member to the Group. If
consultation and coordination with the departmental agencies (including
consultation with half a dozen area specialists in OIR) is the controlling consideration, the
best procedure would be to set up a permanent interdepartmental
committee to produce the monthly review for the Security Council.The issue is, in essence, whether the CIA Series is intended or
desired to be (as we suppose) a responsible synthesis and interpretation
of the developing global situation, written with cognizance of
departmental views, but with independent judgment, or merely a routine
joint intelligence periodical.It is recommended that no action be taken on reference memorandum
pending a basic policy decision by the National Security Council with
respect to the Dulles
Report.Theodore BabbittPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
370. Memorandum From the Chief of the Intelligence Coordinating and
Planning Staff (Childs) to
Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 5. No
classification marking. The source text indicates it was prepared for
discussion with Mr. Souers.Washington, February 21, 1949.
SUBJECT
Crisis Situations
REFERENCE
Section 102(d), (1), (2), and (5) National Security Act 1947ICAPS has given consideration to the
above subject and thinks the real problem is in the delay and difficulty
in the intelligence agencies’ obtaining promptly within their own
Departments information indicating that a crisis is developing.If this information were in the intelligence offices, the provisions
prescribed in NSCID 1, paragraph 8 and
the procedures set forth in DCI 1/1,
paragraph 2 would cover the expeditious handling of this material, and
the calling of an IAC meeting to give it
proper attention.Furthermore, any facts or information of this category coming to the
attention of executive departments and agencies outside the IAC, should be transmitted without delay to
the DCI who will process the material as
outlined in the same directives just mentioned.We think, therefore, that the NSC
should give consideration to this matter so that the Heads of all
Federal Departments and agencies, Chiefs of Staff, etc. would be
instructed to make available to their intelligence officers, or to the
DCI as appropriate, facts or
knowledge regarding any potential international crisis affecting the
national security.We suggest, therefore, that you discuss this important problem with
the Executive Secretary of the NSC with
the objective of issuance by the President of a directive covering this
subject adequately.Prescott ChildsPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
371. Central Intelligence Agency Memorandum of Comments on the Dulles ReportSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job
86-B00269R, Box 5. Secret. The full text, including the tables not
printed here, is in the Supplement. Sent to the Executive Secretary of
the National Security Council who transmitted copies to the members of
the NSC. (Memorandum from Souers to the NSC, March 2; Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job
86-B00269R, Box 5) See the Supplement.Washington, February 28, 1949.
The Committee’s report is an admirable effort to direct the Central
Intelligence Agency to fundamentals and is a genuinely constructive effort
to improve the production of intelligence on which the policy of the United
States should be based. The observations of the Committee are, in general,
accurate, and its objectives are sound; its conclusions, however, are, in many respects, faulty, and
the recommendations for their attainment are, in many cases,
impracticable.
The larger part of the Report is concerned with the amount of coordination
exercised by the Central Intelligence Agency in regard to the other
intelligence activities of the Government. It is realized that an optimum
coordination has not yet been reached; however, not only a start, but
considerable progress along the path of complete coordination has been
attained. No gaps remain even though all duplication has not yet been
abolished. On this subject of coordination, I am sure the members of the
National Security Council realize the difficulties encountered;
particularly, those members having to do with the unification of the Armed
Services. A comparable problem has confronted the Central Intelligence
Agency with the added obstacle that one additional department is
involved.
The Committee states (page 5): “—coordination can most effectively be
achieved by mutual agreement among the various agencies.” There is no
question as to the validity of that statement. However, to achieve
coordination in such a manner, compromises of wording, emphasis, etc., have
to be accepted. For example, three months were required to secure agreement
on most of the present NSCID’s, while it
required one year to resolve the differences between the Air Force and the
Navy on one NSCID.
The Committee begins its discussions on coordination with the above-mentioned
declaration, but, in numerous cases thereafter, throughout the Report, the
element of “direction” in coordination is intimated and even stressed. This
element of “direction” has usually been entirely unacceptable to the
interested agencies. Further, the Director of Central Intelligence, per se,
has no authority to enforce coordination, and,
indeed, the Committee (page 41) recognizes this when it says, “The Act does
not give the Central Intelligence Agency independent authority to coordinate
intelligence activities.” Yet many of the Committee’s recommendations hinge
upon having such authority, and many of the alleged shortcomings are due to
this lack of authority. The phrase, “such procedure would violate the chain
of command,” was repeated over and over again in the discussions during the
drawing-up of the present NSCID’s.
In view of this lack of explicit authority, in view of the progress made in
the relatively short time this activity has been in operation, and in view
of the progress already made in coordination by mutual agreement, it is
considered that in not too long a period the continued augmentation of such
a program will more than justify any delays incurred.
A second alleged shortcoming is that the Central Intelligence Agency is
“overadministered in the sense that administrative conditions have been
allowed to guide and, on occasion, even control intelligence policy, to the detriment of the latter.” The
administration of the Central Intelligence Agency has been developed on the
following pattern: Budget, personnel, and other support services are essential to any
operation, and are centralized to serve all components of the
Agency.Control procedures are restricted to keeping within the budget
requirements, insuring that illegal transactions are not permitted,
avoiding waste and duplication in expenditures, and maintaining
certain standards required by security, the Civil Service
Commission, the Bureau of the Budget, and the General Accounting
Office. No agency, regardless of its nature, and most emphatically
one that handles confidential government funds, can possibly avoid
such controls.
Administration has advised on policy matters and should continue to do so,
particularly, in the determination of the ability to support operational
proposals and in the achievement of greater efficiency with the means
available for operations. Administration has no voice in determining the
substance of operational direction, guidance, and production, nor should it
ever have.
There is a never-ending argument on the merits of administration versus
operations. The operating people would like to be given a lump sum for their
operations and complete latitude with regard to numbers and grades of
personnel, travel authorities, new projects, etc. The results of such
action, without controls, is obvious—chaos—and, again, it simply cannot be
done where government funds are involved.
The Committee further declares: “Administrative arrangements which do not at
first appear to be efficient or economical may be necessary in the Central
Intelligence Agency. Personnel requirements for certain types of work cannot
conform to normal civil service standards, and the demands of security often
impose special and unusual procedures. This situation must be understood not
only by those responsible for the internal organization of the Central
Intelligence Agency but also by Congress and the Bureau of the Budget.”—“The
centralization of all administration in one office is undesirable since
secret operations require their own separate administration.”
The Committee’s report seems to indicate undue emphasis and alarm in
connection with complete autonomy for covert components of the Central
Intelligence Agency. There has to be an umpire some place, and no one,
directly responsible for operations, should be his own final authority and
judge in the utilization of funds and personnel.
Security is adequately served through the physical segregation of covert
administrative branches and the establishment of direct channels, both to
the covert operational officials and to the responsible administrator who is
the third senior official in the Agency. Covert and overt support activities
are not intermingled, but a single administrative chief over each phase
insures adequate mutual support and minimizes duplication. The Central
Intelligence Agency saved over sixty positions by the new organizational approach and so far has had
few complaints. From a strictly security point of view, there will be better
security than before because of not pointing up autonomous separate support
functions in a single agency.
It is all very well for a group with no responsibilities or authority to
state that both Congress and the Bureau of the Budget must understand that
the Central Intelligence Agency must be given, in effect, a blank check and
a free hand. In practice, the Central Intelligence Agency must justify its
demands with some reason and logic and must reassure both of those bodies
that the Central Intelligence Agency is, at least, somewhat careful with
government funds and does its best to guard against waste and fraud.
Another Committee comment is: “Many able persons have left the organization
and few qualified ones have been attracted to it. On the higher levels,
quality is uneven, and there are few persons who are outstanding in
intelligence work.”
The above statement seems to be totally unwarranted, as well as to have no
actual basis in fact. Out of 267 employees in the three top grades (P-6 to
P-8 and CAF-13 to CAF-15, both inclusive), 20 employees have left, not all
of them voluntarily. The following table shows this turnover.
[Here follows a table of losses of CIA personnel in the top three grades for
CY 1948.]
For the calendar year 1948, the turnover in the Central Intelligence Agency
for all personnel, for all causes—death, sickness,
maternity leave, and all other voluntary or involuntary separations—has
averaged 1.6% per month. This is a considerably lower rate than for most
other government agencies.
The charge that there are few persons outstanding in intelligence work is
another general one and is difficult to sustain. It is admittedly difficult
to establish an absolute criterion as to ability, but, if scholarship and
experience do have some bearing, the following tables will demonstrate that
the Central Intelligence Agency is not totally devoid of capable people.
[Here follow two tables showing the qualifications of professionals in the
CIA and ORE as of September 1948.]
Another error, states the Report, is “The placing in key positions of a large
percentage of military personnel, many of them on relatively short ‘tour of
duty’ assignment, tends to discourage competent civilian personnel from
looking to employment in the Central Intelligence Agency as a career.”
Omitting the post of Director, which is considered in another part of the
Report, there is only one—out of six—Assistant Director who is a military
man. Four—out of six—Deputy Assistant Directors are from the military
services, but, considering the fact that the military services are both the greatest suppliers and
the greatest customers, this does not appear unreasonable. The overall
figure is 58 military personnel, or less than 2% of the total number of
employees in the Central Intelligence Agency.
The above Committee statement seems somewhat inconsistent with
recommendations in other parts of the Report which urge the assignment of
military personnel to various branches of the organization.
Budget
On page 33 of the Report is the statement: “Both Congress and the Bureau of
the Budget have refrained from examining in detail the internal workings of
the Central Intelligence Agency in order to determine the justification for
the budget.” This statement is only partially correct as, while Congress, so
far, has not inquired into detail, the details have been gone over in the
Bureau of the Budget by an official who has full security clearance. It was
at the insistence of the Bureau of the Budget that a centralized
administrative staff was set up.
Security
The Committee recognizes the need for security, “—in the Central Intelligence
Agency which has unfortunately become publicized as a secret intelligence
organization.” The Central Intelligence Agency concurs completely in this,
and the publicity received has neither been sought nor encouraged, but has
been actively discouraged. By special plea of the Director, various
periodicals and newspapers (Life, Time, Newsweek, U.S.
News, New York Herald Tribune, among others) have refrained from
publishing articles. Under the existing conditions of press and radio, it
would be practically impossible to conceal completely, desirable as it
undoubtedly would be, activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The
more practicable manner, which has been adopted, is to conceal the covert
sections by allowing the overt sections to serve as a “lightning rod” and
draw off attention from the clandestine activities.
Concise comments on the individual conclusions and recommendations of the
Committee follow:
[Here follow 11 pages commenting on Chapters II-IV.]
Chapter 7, page 81.This
and similar chapter, page, and paragraph references are to the text of
the Dulles Report; see Document 358.
“(1) In the Central Intelligence Agency there has been confusion between
the responsibility of producing coordinated national intelligence
estimates and responsibility for miscellaneous research and reporting
activities.”
This is a broad statement that needs qualification. Both types of activities
may have been performed, but there has been no confusion between them, and
both were found to be necessary. It is believed that what the Committee
describes as “confusion” has resulted from the Central Intelligence Agency’s
recognition of its threefold responsibilities as the producer of national
intelligence estimates, as the intelligence facility of the National
Security Council, and as the agency responsible for performing services of
common concern. The Committee has failed to recognize the gap that exists
between the Central Intelligence Agency’s explicit
responsibilities, as set forth in NSCID
#3, and the Central Intelligence Agency’s implicit
responsibilities as the intelligence facility of the National Security
Council. Moreover, NSCID #3 is so rigid
with respect to the Central Intelligence Agency’s production
responsibilities and so flexible with respect to those of the departmental
intelligence agencies that its usefulness as a working document is seriously
impaired. The Committee’s conclusion is made on the basis of a dangerously
limited view of the Central Intelligence Agency’s responsibilities for
intelligence production. Such responsibilities should be considered not
solely in terms of the production of “coordinated national
intelligence estimates” and “intelligence in
fields of common interest” but also in terms of the Central
Intelligence Agency’s role as the intelligence facility of the President,
the National Security Council, and such agencies as may be designated by
them.
The Central Intelligence Agency’s intelligence production responsibilities
should include the following, and NSCID #1
and NSCID #3 should be modified
accordingly to include a revised and more appropriate definition of national
intelligence: To produce intelligence required to reduce to a minimum the
element of surprise in foreign situations and developments which
affect United States national security.To produce coordinated intelligence estimates required for
national planning, policy, and operational decisions.To produce intelligence required to support those agencies
designated by the National Security Council to receive it.To produce intelligence in fields of common interest to the
Central Intelligence Agency and the departmental intelligence
agencies, including economic and scientific intelligence.To produce intelligence required for Central Intelligence Agency
estimates not normal to any departmental responsibilities.
(It should be noted that paragraph (2) above is the only
category of intelligence which conforms to the definition of national
intelligence in NSCID #3.)
“(2) The provisions of the National Security Act for the production of
national intelligence estimates, as interpreted by the National Security Council Intelligence
Directives, are sound but have not been effectively carried out.”
Concur in the assertion that the provisions of the National Security Act for
the production of national intelligence estimates are sound, but, after
almost a year’s experience, believe that NSCID #1 and NSCID #3 should
be revised for the reasons cited immediately above and for the following
reasons: The directives do not provide for adequate treatment of the matter
of priority within the departmental intelligence agencies with
respect to their support of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Consequently, the Central Intelligence Agency is unable to make
optimum use of departmental intelligence and cannot depend upon
timely departmental action in meeting Central Intelligence Agency
commitments and deadlines.
The directives do not adequately allocate production
responsibilities and do not define intelligence fields of common
concern.
“(3) There should be created in the Central Intelligence
Agency a small Estimates Division which would draw upon and
review the specialized intelligence product of the
departmental agencies in order to prepare coordinated
national intelligence estimates.”
The Report is vague concerning the details of the proposed reorganization,
and, therefore, opinion is divided on the necessity or desirability of a
drastic internal reorganization now. However, if the Committee’s
recommendation means that the Estimates Division is to be large enough to
provide its own relatively high level research support, the recommendation
is workable and might result in simplification of the process of producing
estimates. The problem of a greater duplication of effort, than now exists,
immediately arises. It is believed, therefore, that this recommendation is
premature and should be considered only after a revision of NSCID #1 and NSCID #3.
“(4) Under the leadership of the Director of Central Intelligence,
these estimates should be submitted for discussion and approval by
the reconstituted Intelligence Advisory Committee whose members
should assume collective responsibility for them.“(5) Provision should be made in these arrangements for the
handling of crisis situations when coordinated estimates are
required without delay.“(6) Coordinated intelligence estimates produced in this way must,
in order to be effective, be recognized as the most authoritative
estimates available to the policy makers.”
These three recommendations have been considered together as parts of the
same problem. The Central Intelligence Agency cannot agree with the view
that members of the Intelligence Advisory Committee should assume collective
responsibility for Central Intelligence Agency estimates. It is considered
that the main question is what sort of estimates should emerge from the
national intelligence structure. Those who developed the original concept of a central
intelligence group had clearly in mind the ever-present factor of
departmental bias as well as the shortcomings of joint intelligence, which
often produces estimates so watered down in the process of reaching
agreement as to be valueless. The Central Intelligence Agency estimates can
be free from such faults only if they are produced with full cognizance of
departmental views but without subservience to departmental prejudices.
Intelligence Advisory Committee review of the Central Intelligence Agency
drafts should undertake to eliminate minor or apparent differences but not
to gloss over divergences of informed opinion. The resultant estimate must
be essentially that of the Central Intelligence Agency and not that of the
Intelligence Advisory Committee collectively. Any statements of dissent
should be limited to substantial and well-defined issues, as the directives
now provide. Moreover, these directives should be further modified to
restrict dissent to the field of responsibility of the dissenting agency.
(For example, the Office of Naval Intelligence has an interest in political matters but is not responsible for estimates in that field, and the Central
Intelligence Agency should not be required to publish a dissent by the
Office of Naval Intelligence on purely political matters if the State
Department concurs in the Central Intelligence Agency position.) The logic
of this contention is simply that, just as a dissenting member of the
Intelligence Advisory Committee cannot be expected to share in the
responsibility for a Central Intelligence Agency estimate in which he
dissents, so, by extension, the Central Intelligence Agency has sole
responsibility for its estimates, even when Intelligence Advisory Committee
concurrence is complete, and does not share this responsibility collectively
with the members of the Intelligence Advisory Committee. Concurrence should
fortify the estimate; it should not create an artificial responsibility. The
Report does not reflect a clear understanding of this vital aspect of the
coordination theory. To the Committee, “national” intelligence is merely
“coordinated” intelligence, and coordinated intelligence is joint
intelligence, at the mercy of departmental bias.
Although the Report favors the method of preparing drafts in an ad hoc
committee, experience shows that this procedure is time-consuming and
inefficient. The Central Intelligence Agency believes that coordination
procedures will be effective only if its own estimates personnel produce the
initial draft as a basis for discussion with a permanent, full-time
substantively competent Intelligence Advisory Committee sub-committee, prior
to the submittal of the estimates to the Director for Intelligence Advisory
Committee action.
There must be effective means for handling crisis situations. In the past, an
informal procedure, which worked, was in effect. This procedure is now in
process of being formalized by agreed, written understanding.
The Central Intelligence Agency’s estimates must earn
their distinction as the most authoritative intelligence available to the
policy makers. It is, however, recommended that the National Security
Council enjoin the policy makers to give the Central Intelligence Agency
such guidance in matters pertaining to national policy that Central
Intelligence Agency support will be more directly responsive to their
needs.
[Here follow 16 pages commenting on Chapters VI-IX.]
Chapter X, page 138.
“(1) The directing staff of the Central Intelligence Agency has not
demonstrated an adequate understanding of the mandate of the
organization or the ability to discharge that mandate effectively.”
Do not concur. Had the Central Intelligence Agency been constituted in a
vacuum, where relations with other established agencies need not have been
taken into account, progress in coordination, organization, and production
might have been much more rapid. However, the relationships and impacts
between not only the other intelligence agencies, but also the
administrative agencies of the Government—the Bureau of the Budget, the
General Accounting Office, the Civil Service Commission, etc.—had to be
adjusted and had to be lived with. Dismissing the theoretical conditions
which one might have liked to enjoy, and considering the realistic
conditions which have confronted the Central Intelligence Agency, it is
believed that much progress along sound lines has been made. And, what is
more gratifying, this tendency is increasing in both scope and in the right
direction.
“(2) Administrative organization and policies tend to impede the carrying
out of the essential intelligence functions of the Central Intelligence
Agency under the Act.”
Do not concur. The development of our organization and functions has been
based on a policy of centralization of specific responsibilities in single
offices and the coordinated work of the offices as a team, each
concentrating in its own field and looking to the others for support from
other fields. Only in this manner can we avoid the confusion, duplication of
effort, inefficiency, and major frictions which always attend a situation
wherein every component tries to be self-sufficient and attempts to do the
same things, at the same time, in the same sphere, and in constant
competition. Our organizational policy has resulted in the centralized
groupings shown below: Research, evaluation, and production, and coordination in these
fields: Office of Reports and Estimates (except science)Office of Scientific IntelligenceCollection and liaison control, dissemination, liaison service,
and information service, and coordination in these fields: Office of Collection and DisseminationOvert field collection: Office of OperationsCovert field collection and counterespionage: Office of Special OperationsCovert field operations: Office of Policy Coordination.
(The last two functions which had been integrated into one
covert office were separated as a result of a directive issued by the
National Security Council.)
“(3) Continuity of service is essential for the successful carrying out
of the duties of Director of Central Intelligence.”
Concur. This principle is obvious, and a lack of the assurance of continuity
works a hardship on both the personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency
and the quality of work performed. Changes of Directors with the following
changes of organization tend to make the Central Intelligence Agency
employee feel uncertain and insecure in his job with consequent harm to the
quality and quantity of his output. This was particularly noticeable last
Fall just before election when literally dozens of rumors were extant in
Washington that one of the Committee members was to become Director of
Central Intelligence as soon as the election was over.
“(4) As the best hope for continuity of service and the greatest
assurance of independence of action a civilian should be Director of
Central Intelligence. If a Service man is selected for the post he
should resign from active military duty.”
This is a question that has arisen time and time again. Perhaps the best
discussion of this problem is that stated in the report of the Eberstadt Committee which is quoted, as
follows:
“A moot question is whether the Director should be a civilian or a
professional military man. The argument in favor of a service man is that he
will command more confidence from the armed services who talk his language
and will respect his position and security. With a military man, the present
pay scale will not prove a deterrent. The job could be developed into one of
the top staff assignments available to members of the three services.
“Against this, it is said that the position requires a broader background and
greater versatility and diplomatic experience than is usually found in
service personnel; that the best qualified and most competent officers would
not accept the position if to do so meant permanent retirement and an end of
the road to important command or operational responsibility. If a military
man is assigned to the position as a tour of duty, he will, it is said,
inevitably be influenced to some degree, in the execution of his duties, by his rank and status as
compared with that of other officers with whom he deals. He may also be
influenced by concern for his next billet.
“The principal argument against a civilian is the difficulty of getting a
good one. It will be difficult to attract a man of force, reputation,
integrity, and proven administrative ability who has an adequate knowledge
of foreign history and politics and is familiar with intelligence technique
and the working machinery of the Government and the military establishment.
Not only is the pay low in comparison to industry and the professions, but
the reward of success is anonymity. The wisdom of putting an individual who
lacks intelligence experience in charge simply because he is a competent
administrator is dubious. A civilian would have the advantage of being free
from taint of service ambitions or rivalries. On the other hand a civilian
may be more subject to political pressure than a military man. In certain
foreign countries this has occurred. In any event a civilian would have to
be a man of commanding reputation and personality in order to secure the
respect and cooperation of the services. CIA’s relations with the State
Department would undoubtedly benefit from the presence of a civilian
director, known and respected by the Secretary of State and his
assistants.
“The intrinsic interest of the work, its potential influence on policy, and
recognition of public service to be performed might combine to persuade a
competent civilian to accept the position. If so, his appointment would seem
desirable. A change in the statute that would disqualify a military man is
not, however, recommended.
“Moreover it would not be wise, at this time at least, to amend the statute
to include a mandatory requirement that a military man, appointed as
Director, must retire from the service. A competent officer could be
persuaded to retire from his service and abandon his career to become
Director of CIA only if he felt some assurance of a reasonable tenure of
office. That no such assurance exists today appears from the fact that three
different Directors have been appointed since January of 1946. A provision
requiring the retirement from service of any commissioned officer appointed
Director might appropriately be included in the statute—if coupled with the
provision for adequate retirement pay in case he is removed as
Director.”
[Here follow 9 pages commenting on Chapters XI and XII and charts showing the
organization of the CIA.]
372. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to Secretary of State AchesonSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Records of the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351, NSC 50, Box 4207. Top Secret. Drafted by
Armstrong. Cleared in C, A,
S/P, EUR, NEA, ARA, and FE.Washington, March 3, 1949.
SUBJECT
Comments on the Dulles
Committee Report and Recommended Action for the NSC
Discussion.
There are attached: A proposed action paper for the NSC on the Report (Tab A).The comments of the Department on the several recommendations
of the Report (Tab B).See the
Supplement.A briefing of the Report and Summary (Tab C).The Dulles Committee
Report (Tab D).See Document 358.The Department strongly endorses the Report and believes it desirable
to propose to the NSC a positive course
of action to carry out certain of the recommendations.The Director of Central Intelligence expresses disagreement with
important parts of the Report on grounds of undesirability,
unworkability, etc.; he states that a number of the Report’s
recommendations have already been effected.The Navy takes the position that the Intelligence Advisory Committee
(IAC) should be constituted as a
“board of directors” over the Director, thus assuming more the status of
a sub-committee of the NSC on
intelligence matters, in contrast to its present function of a
coordinating element in conjunction with, and advisory to, the Director.
Its position is based on the theory that the Dulles Report tends to give the IAC responsibility without comparable authority. The
Department believes that such a concept is in contravention of the
National Security Act, which places the Director immediately under the
NSC.The NSC will almost certainly be
confronted with a diversity of views on the implementation of the Report
which it cannot itself take the time to reconcile. For the resolution of
such differences, the Staff of the NSC
would hardly be the most competent body in the face of the technical character of the subject. If
an ad hoc sub-committee of the NSC is
appointed to review the several comments and views of the agencies, it
should not include the Director as a number of the conclusions and
recommendations bear upon his position and person. The same
consideration applies to a referral to the IAC, of which the Director is chairman.
Recommendations:
That the attached letter be sent to the NSC enclosing: A paper for the consideration and action of the Council,
andThe comments of the Department in accordance with the request
of the Executive Secretary.That in order to resolve the differences of views submitted to the
NSC, you suggest that the Council
constitute a representative each of the Secretaries of State and Defense
and possibly a representative of the JCS
as an ad hoc subcommittee to review the proposals of the Department in
the light of the comments from the several agencies and to recommend
further action to the Council.
Tab ATop Secret.
FOR NSC CONSIDERATION
Problem:
To take the necessary action to implement the recommendations of the
Dulles Report.
Analysis:
The Dulles Committee has
performed an extremely useful service in producing, after diligent
study and analysis, a comprehensive report on the Central
Intelligence Agency, and the organization for national
intelligence.Certain of the conclusions and recommendations can and should be
the subject of immediate implementation. Other recommendations will
require further study and their implementation will take some
time.The all important conclusion reached by the Report is that if we
are to have an effective Central Intelligence Agency continuity of
tenure of the Director is
essential and that to achieve this the Director of Central
Intelligence should be a civilian. Although the ultimate objectives
of the Report cannot be reached until such time as a properly
qualified civilian assumes responsibilities as Director of Central
Intelligence, immediate steps should be taken to implement as far as
possible those recommendations of the Report as can be effected
promptly.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
That the Executive Secretary be directed to commend, in the name
of the Security Council, the members of the Dulles Committee and its staff for
the extremely able and objective study and report, on which the
Security Council is taking immediate action.That the President give consideration to the early selection of a
highly qualified civilian as Director of Central
Intelligence.That the Director of Central Intelligence be instructed to take
the necessary steps immediately to effect changes in accordance with
the following recommendations of the Dulles Committee Report, and to report on a monthly
basis to the Council, with the Intelligence Advisory Committee
(IAC) the progress made:
(Note: The recommendations of the
Dulles Committee
are summarized by chapters for identification only, and in
no sense as an interpretation.)
Chapter III—Organization and Administration
of CIA:The Director should refer to NSC questions of
compliance with requests for disclosure of
information.CIA should accent role as coordinator rather than
as organization for secret activities.
Chapter IV—Responsibility of CIA for
Coordination:The IAC is soundly
conceived, but should participate more actively with
the Director in continuing coordination of
intelligence activities.The Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning
Staff should be reconstituted as a staff responsible
only to the Director with task of developing plans
for coordination.Responsibilities of Office of Collection and
Dissemination (OCD)
re collection and dissemination should be carried
out under a new Coordination Division.
Chapter V—Responsibility of CIA for
National Intelligence Estimates:There should be a small Estimates Division in CIA
to prepare coordinated national intelligence
estimates (draw upon specialized intelligence
product of the agencies).Under the Director these estimates should be
discussed and approved by the IAC, whose members should
be collectively responsible.Provision should be made to handle crisis
situations.
Chapter VI—Services of Common Concern,
Intelligence Research and Reports:A Research and Reports Division in ORE should accomplish
research in and coordinate production of
intelligence in fields of common interest. Staff
should include representatives from State and the
Services.The Coordinating Division (reconstituted
Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff)
should be responsible for studying the scope of the
Research and Reports Division and for recommending
the services of common concern which should be
performed centrally.Various reports, studies and summaries which are
not national intelligence or recognized services of
common concern should be discontinued.
Chapter VII—Services of Common Concern,
Overt Intelligence:The Director and IAC should take steps for more active
coordination of efforts to exploit intelligence from
foreign nationality groups and individuals in
U.S.The Foreign Documents Branch should be made part
of proposed Research and Reports Division.If retained in the CIA, the Foreign Broadcast
Information Branch should be administered by the new
Operations Division, but its product should be
available for analysis in the new Research and
Reports Division.
Chapter VIII—Services of Common Concern,
Secret Intelligence:Covert operations of the Office of Special
Operations (OSO),
the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) and the activities
of the Contacts Branch of the Office of Operations
(OO) should be
integrated under the single direction of an
Operations Division.CIA should seek methods for better coordination in
handling defectors [from] intelligence agencies
abroad and in the continental U.S.Cover policies of OSO in field should be reviewed and
tightened. Consideration should be given to
increasing use of non-official cover as demands for
diplomatic or military cover are reduced.Counter-espionage of OSO should be increased and closer
liaisons established with the FBI.Relations between departmental agencies should be
brought closer and the guidance which OSO receives from the
intelligence consumers should be
strengthened.The Director should assure that OSO is receiving adequate
information on current and strategic intelligence
needs of the Government. Closer relations might be
established with the Secretaries of State and
Defense.
Chapter IX—Services of Common Concern,
Secret Operations:OPC should be
integrated with OSO
and Contacts Branch of the CIA, all under single
direction of an Operations Division.
That in accordance with Chapter IV,
Recommendation 6, the FBI
be added to the IAC, but that the
AEC and JIG be retained on the
IAC, which revisions appear
acceptable to the other IAC
members.That the Director of Central Intelligence be directed to begin the
necessary steps and to plan for the implementation of the following
other recommendations of the Dulles Report which will require a longer time to
accomplish and to report monthly to the NSC, with the IAC, on
progress:
Chapter III—Organization and Administration
of CIA:Large percentage of military personnel in CIA key
positions discourages competent civilian personnel
from looking to employment in CIA as a
career.
Chapter VIII—Services of Common Concern,
Secret Intelligence:OSO (or new OP
Div) should give primary attention to building a
corps of trained personnel for operations
abroad.
That the Director of Central Intelligence be directed to review,
in conjunction with the IAC, such
recommendations and conclusions other than those listed above, with
a view to implementation where desirable, and to recommend further
action to the Security Council when appropriate.
Tab CTop Secret.Washington, February 9, 1949.
Memorandum From the Special Assistant for Research and
Intelligence (Armstrong) to
Secretary of State Acheson
SUBJECT
Report of the Dulles-Jackson-Correa Committee to the National Security Council
entitled “The Central Intelligence Agency and National Organization
for Intelligence”
Discussion:
The Report was made by a committee comprised of Allen Dulles, William H. Jackson, and Mathias F. Correa, on the authority
of the National Security Council (NSC) dated February 13, 1949. It consists of 163 pages,
with a concise summary of 13 pages at the beginning. The State
Department figures in the Report throughout, essentially in its
relations on intelligence
matters with CIA, the military services, and the intelligence
functions of the Department itself. A very condensed summarySee the Supplement. of the Report
is attached hereto.The NSC Secretariat has asked for
the comments of each agency, including the CIA.The exhaustive character of the Report, including sections on
certain very sensitive activities, presents a security problem in
distribution even beyond its Top Secret classification,
necessitating a handling on the basis of “need to know,” rather than
simply “Top Secret clearance.”Particular attention is drawn to the following sections which have
a direct bearing on the Department, aside from the specific
organization of intelligence: The Intelligence Problem (Chapter I)The Relation of Coordinated National Intelligence to
Policy Formulation and to the NSC (pp. 55, 68, 69, 72, 73, 79)Current Intelligence Summaries (p. 84)Domestic (FBI) vs. Foreign
Intelligence (pp. 56–58; 98, 99)Department and Secret Intelligence, particularly field
representation (pp. 117–119; 122–124; 127)Department and Secret Operations (p. 131)It is of particular importance to realize the budgetary
significance of the CIA and therefore its position in the
governmental organization. At a rough estimate, the total budget for
all government foreign intelligence is approximately $82,500,000. Of
this, the State Department budget is approximately 2–1/2 million,
the CIA, including Secret Operations (OPC), 50 million, and the other services combined, 30
million. This budgetary predominance, when viewed in the light of
the central and coordinating position which the CIA holds in the
intelligence field, indicates the overwhelming significance of any
determination of CIA function and operation.Since the Report is rather strongly condemnatory of the direction
of CIA and of the CIA’s present effectiveness, it raises an
embarrassing problem for the Director of CIA in making appropriate
comments upon it. It may be anticipated, however, that the reaction
to the Report by the Director of CIA will, on the whole, be
belittling of its significance. He has already indicated the view
that the Report is (a) academic, (b) non-professional, in the sense
that it was written by a staff not expert in intelligence matters,
and (c) inconsequential, because its recommendations are only
slightly at variance with present conditions and
organization.The Department, on the other hand, would strongly concur in the
Report and most of the recommendations therein. The Department
believes the Report to be penetrating and objective, the result of
exhaustive study by the
Committee and its staff members, all of whom in one way or another
have excellent background both in intelligence matters and
governmental organization. The Department furthermore believes that
the recommendations represent a drastic change in the concept and
organization of Central Intelligence and are by no means
inconsequential. Finally, the Department believes that the Report
may well serve as a strong incentive toward effecting sorely-needed
changes in CIA and its relations with the other agencies, and
particularly the Department.The attitude of other agencies—specifically the military
services—toward the report is as yet unknown, but it can be
anticipated that they will endorse the report in general, and
possibly most of its recommendations, although with less interest
and force than the Department.
Recommendations:
That, on the basis of “need to know,” this report be circulated,
at the outset, only to the following (aside from the Secretary and
Under Secretary): S/S—Messrs. Humelsine, McWilliams,
BarnesS/P—Messrs. Kennan,
Davies, JoyceA—Messrs. Peurifoy
and HultenEUR—Messrs.
Hickerson and
ThompsonFE—Messrs.
Butterworth and
AllisonNEA—Messrs. Satterthwaite and
HareARA—Messrs. Daniels and
WoodwardThat R prepare, in collaboration
with S/P and with the concurrence of the appropriate offices of the
Department, a paper for the Secretary to submit to the NSC, which will include The Department’s comments in accordance with the request
of the NSC SecretaryAn action paper for the consideration of NSC, recommending directives
for immediate implementation of certain recommendations in
the Report, and eventual implementation of others.
373. Memorandum From the Director of the Executive Secretariat (Humelsine) to the Under
Secretary of State (Webb)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 66 D 148, Box 1555. No
classification marking.Washington, March 8, 1949.
Mr. Webb:
I had a good conversation with Frank
Wisner about the possibility of Mr. Gordon Gray being made head of the CIA. In
the course of this conversation I went into the question of whether Mr.
Wisner would like to have this
assignment. Wisner indicated that he
was well satisfied to stay where he was, if he could look forward to having
a person of the caliber of Gray as
head of the organization. He said that Gray would be perfect in his estimation for the assignment
and that he was certain that under such a set-up CIA could really become an
effective instrumentality.
In querying him further as to how well he knew Gordon Gray he said he knew him quite well and that he would
recommend as people we could check with to get recommendations for Gray the following: Mr. John Graham, Assistant Secretary of the
TreasuryMr. Thurmond Chatham, Congressman from North
CarolinaMr. William Jackson, member
of the Jackson-Dulles-Correa group
I talked to Mr. Lovett on the
telephone to get his reaction to Mr. Gordon
Gray. Mr. Lovett said
“I know Gray and my hunch is that he
would do a good job”. Mr. Lovett said
that he has had a chance to look into the CIA since leaving the Department
as Under Secretary.Lovett resigned as Under Secretary on January 20,
1949. He said, in fact, it was the first real opportunity that he
had had to consider this problem. He said he had talked to Bill
Jackson and to Allen
Dulles, separately, and he certainly concurred in their view
that, unless something drastic was done with the CIA, Mr. Truman was in a position to be “let down
worse that any President ever was” in this particular field.
Mr. Lovett said that this required
“damn fast action” and that the area should “be tidied up” as soon as
possible. He said under the present circumstances anything could happen.
Mr. Lovett went on to say that he had
better intelligence information in many respects available to him in New
York through the Bank than he had while Under Secretary. He said that in his
estimation Admiral Hillenkoetter was
a very ineffective and pedestrian officer. He said this comment applied to
the Admiral only in his present assignment and he had no opinion or idea as
to his worth as a Naval officer.
Mr. Lovett went on to say that
Frank Wisner was first class and
that Gray and Wisner should make an excellent team. He
did say that in his opinion careful consideration should be given as to
whether or not Colonel Carter Clark should not be used
in some capacity in the CIA. He said he knows of Clark’s weaknesses but that in his opinion his strength far
exceeds any weaknesses. He said to tell Mr. Webb that he had been considering this matter and was about
to call him on it when he got the call from me.
I think it is significant that throughout my conversation with Mr. Lovett he used the word “lousy” to
characterize the CIA operation.
CH
374. Memorandum From the Acting Director of the Policy Planning Staff
(Butler) to the
Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence
(Armstrong)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Policy Planning Staff, NSC Files:
Lot 62 D 1, NSC Intelligence Directives,
Box 2517. Secret.Washington, March 17, 1949.
It was suggested at a recent meeting of the Under Secretary’s staff that
suggestions be submitted to you regarding what the Department wants and
needs from CIA. The following points are of interest to S/P: Continued close liaison between OPC and S/P, in order that the former may receive
policy guidance from the Department.S/P needs and wants secret intelligence from all sources just as
soon as it becomes available to CIA.Better clearance with State before the publication of CIA
estimates of situations. Clearance of summaries of information and
similar CIA reports is not of great concern to S/P, but it is
considered important that State have an opportunity to express its
views regarding interpretations of or judgments about information
obtained by CIA.
George H. ButlerPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
375. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Policy Coordination,
Central Intelligence Agency (Wisner) to the Under Secretary of State (Webb)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Executive
Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351,
NSC 50, Box 4207. Top
Secret.Washington, March 18, 1949.
SUBJECT
NSC Consideration of the Dulles Report; selection of special
issues for considerationPursuant to one of the two instructions which you gave Carl Humelsine and myself at the
conclusion of our conversation of last Thursday, March 17, I have had a
further discussion with Carl and
I am submitting to you in this memorandum a number of issues which
Carl and I have agreed would
be appropriate for presentation and disposition at an early meeting of
the National Security Council. I understand that you may want to call a
special meeting for this purpose and that you
might deem it advisable to discuss these issues with Mr. Souers in advance of the
meeting.In the selection of these issues an effort has been made to avoid
recommendations in the Dulles
report which are both controversial and difficult to comprehend.
Emphasis has been placed upon broad issues which are important and at
the same time capable of being understood and decided upon without the
necessity of extensive briefing or examination into the intricate
workings of the Central Intelligence Agency. For your own information, I
have included brief parenthetical explanations following the statement
of each issue. By all odds the most important of the issues selected is
that concerning the character of the Director and if this one could be
decided and acted upon with reasonable expedition, all other aspects of
the matter will fall into their proper places. I have not placed it at
the head of the list for tactical reasons which I believe will be
apparent to you.I understand that in bringing these issues to the National Security
Council, you and Mr. Souers may
use the approach that the Dulles
report raises so many detailed points that a full discussion of it by
the National Security Council would be a very lengthy and tedious
proceeding; and that in order to get underway with this very important
matter, you have attempted to single out certain aspects of the report
which you consider to be susceptible of relatively easy
resolution.The following are the recommended issues: That the Central Intelligence Agency is properly placed in the
governmental structure under the National Security Council.
(This may appear self-evident but as it is one of the leading
recommendations of the Dulles report, it would appear worthy of
confirmation and reaffirmation in connection with any general
consideration of the report.)That the Intelligence Advisory Council is soundly conceived
and that its present advisory
relationship to the Director of Central Intelligence is correct,
but that the IAC should
participate more actively with the Director of Central
Intelligence in the continuing coordination of intelligence
activities. (It would lead to the complete frustration of the
centralizing and coordinating functions of the Director of
Central Intelligence if he were to be made subordinate to the
IAC. This in turn would
defeat the purposes of the legislation which created the CIA.
The IAC is comprised of the
service intelligence chiefs and human nature and bureaucracy
being what they are—and this is most applicable in the field of
intelligence—it would not be long before the CIA would be
largely defunctionalized and rendered both impotent and
insignificant.)That in order to improve coordination in the overall
intelligence and security field, the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation should be made a member of the IAC. (It is impossible to draw a
clear and satisfactory dividing line between foreign and
domestic intelligence activities for the reason that there is an
inevitable interplay and interaction between developments within
the United States and developments overseas. In order to insure
an overall coordinated effort and to reduce the possibilities of
confusion, duplication of function and friction, it would be
highly desirable for the Director of the FBI to become a member of the IAC. As matters now stand the
foreign and domestic intelligence activities are dealing with
each other at arm’s length and there is no satisfactory forum
for the resolution of arguments and conflicts.)That in order to assist the Director of Central Intelligence
in carrying out his statutory duty in protecting intelligence
sources and methods, he should, in cases where the disclosure of
secret information is sought from him (for example by a member
of the Congress) and he has doubt as to whether he should
comply, refer the question to the National Security Council for
a determination as to whether or not disclosure is in the public
interest. (It would be a most helpful protection to the Director
for the NSC, with all its
authority and prestige, to act as a buffer between him and
persons making demands for the disclosure of secret information.
It would also aid him to have the benefit of the collective
judgment of the NSC in questions
of this character. Finally, it would provide necessary insurance
against a duplication of the Bogota fiasco which ended up in a
name-calling performance as between the Director for Central
Intelligence and the
State Department—Mr. Humelsine can supply the particulars.)That the Central Intelligence Agency be empowered and
encouraged to establish through its Director a closer liaison
with the two members of the NSC
upon whom it chiefly depends, namely the Secretaries of State
and Defense. (This might not seem necessary but it is believed
to be advisable in view of the tendency which the CIA has
developed toward establishing itself as an independent
free-wheeling organization. Note in this connection the recent
cable from Minister Jacobs in Praha
complaining of an almost total lack of cooperation or mutual
confidence as between himself and the CIA representative there.
This same story has been told repeatedly by the chiefs of our
missions throughout the world. This is evidence of unsound
indoctrination of the OSO
representatives. Distinctions can be drawn between operational
matters which should be kept secret and policy matters which are
primarily the concern of the State Department chiefs of
mission.)That the Director of Central Intelligence shall be a civilian
and that the President should be invited to give his early
consideration to a person of considerable stature and
prominence, possessing the requisite qualifications of
experience and willingness to serve. (As stated above this is
the crucial issue, for upon the determination of this depends
the question whether the United States is or is not to have a
sound and useful intelligence agency. Virtually every individual
who has had occasion to deal with or look into the activities of
the CIA has recognized that the system of rotating the Director
and top staff personnel at frequent intervals has disastrous
consequences, and that the status and reputation of the CIA can
best and most quickly be revived by the appointment to the top
position of a civilian director of outstanding qualifications.
The appointment of such an individual would bring to the entire
organization the leadership and inspiration which it so badly
needs, and only in this manner can the organization be elevated
from its state of low repute among the government agencies with
which it must work closely in order to be successful. Continuity
of direction is essential for the CIA not only for the reasons
which make it desirable in any governmental department but
because secret intelligence and secret operations are the most
highly specialized undertakings and it is very harmful to be
constantly educating a series of rapidly moving heads and their
immediate staffs—especially when many of them regard their CIA
assignment simply as an unwelcome stopgap to fill in between
more desirable Army, Navy and Air Force commands.
With a military director, progress in the direction of real coordination of
the national intelligence effort will be painfully slow. It is submitted
that any military man, with his ingrained sense of awe in the presence of
superior rank and his absolute dependence upon the good will of the top military hierarchy for his own
future advancement, must be expected to make all of the “necessary
compromises”.
If this principle is bypassed or compromised, all the rest of the effort to
straighten out and improve the CIA becomes relatively meaningless. It is
believed that the President would not be unfavorably disposed toward the
appointment of a permanent civilian director if a means for accomplishing
the changeover can be devised which would not have the appearance of a “vote
of no confidence” in the existing management. The issue of a civilian as
against a military director provides this means.
FGW
376. Memorandum for the President of Discussion at the 36th Meeting of the
National Security CouncilSource:
Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files, Subject File. Top Secret. Prepared on March
23.Washington, March 22, 1949.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 1–4, internal security, U.S.
position with respect to Korea, U.S. objectives with respect to Greece and
Turkey to counter Soviet threats to U.S. security, and airfield
construction.]
5. The Central Intelligence Agency and
National Organization for Intelligence (Memos for NSC from Executive Secretary, same subject,
dated January 24, March 2, and March 8, 1949)The January 24 and March 8 memoranda were not found. Regarding the
March 2 memorandum, see the source note, Document
371.
Mr. Souers reported that there was
such a volume of comments on the Survey Group Report that he felt a meeting
should be held shortly devoted solely to this subject. He suggested that the
Council might care to appoint a committee of three, including
representatives of the National Military Establishment and the Department of
State to point up the issues for Council action.
Secretary Acheson said he had found the
basic report difficult to read and, in addition, had comments by his staff
almost twice as long as the
report. He wondered if the Council could have the analysis of the issues
before a meeting.
Mr. Souers said there would be great
suspicion of such an analysis, but he felt that the papers included a lot of
administrative matters which the Council need not concern itself with. He
felt the Council might approve certain concepts and even set up a mechanism
to watch over the execution of these concepts. One such issue was the
question of a civilian director.
Mr. Acheson inquired if the NSC Staff could not prepare the analysis.
Mr. Souers replied that the Staff
would tie back to the representative intelligence chiefs once again, whereas
what was needed was a fresh appraisal by two or three good neutral men
backed up by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, in order
to avoid departmental partisan feeling.
Secretary Forrestal commented that the
Department of Justice would probably add some acid remarks.
Mr. Lay said that the Hoover Commission Reports had made
recommendations in intelligence matters, and, in effect, these were also
before the Council for consideration in connection with the present
study.
Mr. Souers remarked that there had
been some informal indication that State might undertake such an analysis of
the issues.
Secretary Acheson agreed that the
Department of State, with the assistance of the Executive Secretary, could
prepare an analysis purporting to be its judgment of the main concepts. This
could then be used more or less as an agenda for a debate on the issues.
Mr. Lay added that there was also a
need for a statement of recommended Council actions.
Secretary Acheson suggested that the
Council consider two meetings on the subject: the first to discuss the
problems, and the second to sharpen the issues to decisions.
He added that his Hoover Commission
experience had shown that it was profitable to spend three-fourths of the
time on an examination of the problem, after which the solution would arise
in the remaining quarter.
The National Security Council:The paragraph and note that follow constitute NSC Action No. 198. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, Record of Actions, Box 55)
Agreed that the Department of State should prepare, for Council consideration
at an early meeting, a statement of the issues involved in the reference
papers on this subject.See Document 378. For NSC
consideration, see Document 380.
Note: The above action subsequently transmitted to
the Secretary of State for implementation.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 6 and 7, review of the world
situation and NSC status of projects.]
377. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Occupied
Areas (Saltzman)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776. Restricted.Washington, March 24, 1949.
Charlie:
After reviewing your draft memorandumDated March
16. (Ibid.) on the State-JCS
relationship, I would like to suggest for your consideration the inclusion
of the question of intelligence relations between the Department and the
JCS as one facet of the general problem
that is distinctly susceptible of improvement. If you agree, a section might
be included under Discussion along the following
lines, perhaps to be inserted between your Sections 9 and 10:
Intelligence Relations
During the war and for some time thereafter the Department maintained formal
membership upon the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Joint Intelligence Staff, JCS. In 1947, following the enactment of the National Security
Act and the establishment of the National Security Council and the Central
Intelligence Agency and the reorganization of the structure of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Department relinquished its representation in the
intelligence echelons of the JCS, although
it has maintained informal liaison with the Joint Intelligence Group
(successor to the Joint Intelligence Staff). In theory, the expression of
the Department’s intelligence viewpoint is made to the JCS through the Central Intelligence Agency
and, conversely, the intelligence requirements of the JCS are supposed to be conveyed to the
Department through that Agency. The experience of the past 18 months,
however, has proven this arrangement to be unsatisfactory and
impracticable.
It is not believed necessary that the Department be specifically and formally
represented upon the Joint Intelligence Committee, since its intelligence
relations with the military intelligence services can be satisfactorily
accommodated in the Intelligence Advisory Committee established under the
National Security Council to advise the Director of Central Intelligence),
but it is believed desirable that a direct channel be re-established between
the Department and the Joint Intelligence Group. Such a channel would permit
the continuous conveyance of Departmental intelligence of interest to the
military to its joint intelligence units and the expression of the joint
requirements of the military for politico-economic intelligence.
If you agree that the foregoing should properly be included in your
memorandum, it would probably follow that a brief recommendation also be
included to cover the re-establishment of direct and official liaison
relations between the intelligence area of the Department and the Joint
Intelligence Group, JCS.
W. Park Armstrong, Jr.Printed from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
378. Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State (Webb) to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)Source: Truman Library, Papers
of Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files. Top Secret. Souers circulated Webb’s memorandum to Council members on the same day.
(Ibid.) See the Supplement.Washington, April 4, 1949.
Pursuant to NSC Action No. 198 and your
memorandum dated March 23, 1949, the Department of State considers that the
following are the basic issues raised by the Dulles–Jackson–Correa
report: That the Central Intelligence Agency is properly placed in the
governmental structure under the National Security Council.That the Intelligence Advisory Committee is soundly conceived and
that its present advisory relationship to the Director of Central
Intelligence is correct, but that the IAC should participate more actively with the Director
of Central Intelligence in the continuing coordination of
intelligence activities and in the production of finished estimates. With respect to coordination of intelligence activities,
the allocation of responsibilities among the agencies should
be carried out under the forthright leadership of
CIA.With respect to the production of estimates for the
President and the National Security Council, CIA should
utilize the facilities of the IAC members who should assume collective
responsibility for them.That in order to improve coordination in the overall intelligence
and security field, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation should be made a member of the IAC.That secret operations should be integrated with secret
intelligence and domestic exploitation of foreign intelligence in a
single self-administered office within CIA, rather than being a
separate office directly under the Director of Central Intelligence
independent of but coordinated with other components of CIA.That the Director of Central Intelligence should be a civilian and
that the President should be invited to give his early consideration
to a person of considerable stature and prominence, possessing the
requisite qualifications of experience and willingness to
serve.
James E. WebbPrinted from a copy that
indicates Webb signed the
original.
379. Memorandum From the Chief of the Intelligence Coordinating and
Planning Staff (Childs) to
Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 5. No
classification marking.Washington, April 6, 1949.With reference to the Under Secretary of State’s memoDocument 378. to
Mr. Souers, dated April 4,
about the basic issues raised by the Dulles Report, I hope you will have a chance to express
your opinion at the NSC meeting tomorrow
and that you will be able to say—with reference to
Paragraph 2 it is fine to have the Intelligence Advisory
Committee “participate more actively”, but as you will recall, there
have been very few, if any, positive results reached at the meetings of
this Committee, who prefer to have staff work done before and/or after
any subject is brought up (and they usually disavow or do not agree with
the result of such staff work!!). Certainly, such meetings could never,
around that table, “produce finished estimates”. Their “facilities” now
do participate in the production of estimates by staff meetings at
working levels, etc., and by concurrences, etc., but according to
Admiral Inglis this is assuming
no collective responsibility for these estimates. I think that
“collective responsibility” phrase is misleading. The DCI and CIA have the responsibility for
coordinating, etc., but the various intelligence agencies may well
assume responsibility for their portions of the whole. If they would
stick to their dominant interests, we would like it better.We hope any decision by the NSC on
these “basic issues” will be very carefully and precisely worded (not generalities) as each IAC Agency will interpret it in its own light and in
accordance with its established wishes if it can possibly do so. To
clear up the ambiguities, definite instructions will have to come down
from the top to the Intelligence Agencies. For example, we assume under
CIA’s “forthright leadership” mentioned in Paragraph 2a, we can prepare
original drafts or indicate what we are going to do and tell the boys to
follow on, i.e., take it or leave it just as much as though that
paragraph said under the “direction” of CIA. Our own eager beavers will
certainly interpret it that way.PC
380. Memorandum for the President of Discussion at the 37th Meeting of the
National Security CouncilSource:
Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files, Subject File. Top Secret. Prepared on April
8.Washington, April 7, 1949.
The following notes contain a summary of the discussion at the 37th meeting
of the National Security Council.
Mr. Webb called the meeting to order
and remarked that the President had asked him to preside in the absence of
the Secretary of State.
1. The Central Intelligence Agency and
National Organization for Intelligence (Memos for NSC from Executive Secretary, same subject,
dated January 24, March 2, March 8, and April 4, 1949, respectively)Regarding the memoranda dated January 24, March
2, and March 8, see footnote 1, Document
376; regarding the April 4 memorandum, see the source note,
Document 378.
Mr. Webb suggested, and the Council
agreed, that Admiral Hillenkoetter
should remain during the discussion of the first four points in the
Department of State’s memorandum,Document 378. but that he should retire
during the discussion of point five, with respect to whether the Director of
Central Intelligence should be a civilian, after making a statement with
respect thereto.
Mr. Souers reviewed the action of
the Council at its last meeting, when it was agreed that the Department of
State should prepare a statement of the issues involved in the reference
papers.
Mr. Webb then proposed that the
Council consider whether each of the issues was properly stated, and turn to
point one, that CIA is properly placed in the Government under the NSC.
Secretary Johnson referred to the
comment in the Dulles Report, that
CIA might be just another intelligence agency, and asked if it was intended
that the Report be released to the public.
Mr. Souers said that the Report
contained considerable highly classified information and that he knew of no
intent to release it.
Secretary Johnson then said that he
agreed with the statement of the first issue.
Since there was no other comment on that issue, Mr. Webb turned to point two, with respect to
the Intelligence Advisory Committee.
Secretary Johnson said he did not agree
with the statement of this issue and that he reserved the right to be heard.
Although he did not concur now, he said he might later, and that he had the
backing of the President to
reserve his opinion until he had an opportunity to formulate his views. He
mentioned that he wished to consider the problem in relation to the broad
question of peace or war. In response to Mr. Webb’s suggestion that only an agreement as to the statement
of the problem was involved, Secretary Johnson replied that he wished no implications to flow from
his remarks and that he did not wish to be stampeded into taking a
position.
Mr. Ford said the Attorney General had some doubts about
this point, too.
Mr. Webb then suggested, and the
Council agreed, to defer consideration of the second issue until Secretary
Johnson had formulated his views.
He then turned to point three with respect to the proposal that the Director
of the FBI be made a member of the IAC.
Mr. Ford remarked that the Attorney General had not been
consulted in the drafting of the Dulles Report, and said he would speak briefly on the issue
and then file a memorandum by the Department of Justice on the whole Report.
He accepted, however, the statement of the issue.
Since there was no other comment, Mr. Webb then turned to point four, with respect to the
integration of secret operations with secret intelligence. He suggested that
perhaps the Secretaries of State and Defense, in seeking an answer to this
issue, should follow closely the secret operations work and consult with the
Director of Central Intelligence.
The Council accepted the statement of the fourth issue, and Mr. Webb turned to point five, with respect to
the recommendation that the Director of Central Intelligence be a civilian.
Mr. Webb remarked that the Department
of State was inclined to feel that a civilian Director was preferable, but
did not wish to tie the hands of the President in getting the best person
available, civilian or military. He suggested that we might have a civilian
Deputy Director if the Director was a military man. He then asked Admiral Hillenkoetter to comment on this
issue.
Admiral Hillenkoetter said he felt
that the whole question was unnecessary and that the question of a uniform
should not enter into the selection of a Director. Only the man himself and
his qualifications should be considered, he said. If he had any leaning, he
said, it would be for a military officer. [5 lines of
source text not declassified] CIA, he said, is primarily a military
operation intended to foretell possible attacks on our national security and
to provide information to beat our enemies in the event of war. If peace
could be assured by the United Nations or other means, then there would be
no need at all for a CIA. He concluded that the Director should be chosen
solely as the man to do the job. He agreed, however, that the issue was
correctly stated.
(Admiral Hillenkoetter retired at
this point.)
Secretary Johnson said he was not sure
that the issue was correctly stated, because it did not take into account
the added issue as to whether the Director of Central Intelligence was to be
the permanent chairman of the U.S. Communications Intelligence Board.
Mr. Webb inquired, if the Director
were to be chairman of the USCIB, whether
he would have to be a military officer.
Secretary Johnson said that would
pre-judge the issue. He added that the Dulles Report recommended that the Director be permanent
chairman of the USCIB and suggested that
Mr. Souers prepare and circulate a
restatement of this issue for consideration by the Council.
Mr. Souers referred to the growing
stack of papers that had accumulated on the whole subject and the difficulty
of the Council in dealing with any one or all of the issues which had been
raised. Accordingly, he suggested that the Council refer all these papers to
the Secretaries of State and Defense, as the most interested parties. They,
in turn, might designate officers to sift through all the material and
prepare specific recommendations in appropriate form for Council
action.The State-Defense recommendations
are in NSC 50, July 1; Document 384.
Secretary Johnson thought this was a
good suggestion and said he would designate General
McNarney to do the job.
Mr. Souers also suggested that State
and Defense consult with Treasury and Justice in preparing recommended
actions for the Council.
Secretary Johnson said he felt that
Justice had a general stake in the whole intelligence problem.
The National Security Council:The following paragraph constitutes NSC Action No. 202. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, Record of Actions, Box 55)
Considered the reference papers on the subject and referred them to the
Secretaries of State and Defense to prepare, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General and in the light of the
discussion at this meeting, specific recommendations for Council action.
Note: The above action subsequently transmitted to the
Secretaries of State and Defense.
[Here follows agenda item 2, NSC status of
projects.]
381. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Policy Coordination,
Central Intelligence Agency (Wisner) to the Counselor of the Department of State
(Bohlen)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Executive
Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351,
NSC 50, Box 4207. Secret; Eyes
Only.Washington, April 15, 1949.
SUBJECT
Material for use in connection with proposed conversations with
General McNarney, et al.Pursuant to your oral request of last evening, I am submitting to you
herewith a number of points which I believe could be employed to great
advantage in your forthcoming conversations with General
McNarney.No record
of these conversations has been found. McNarney
was an adviser to the Secretary of Defense who subsequently prepared
the comments and recommendations on the Dulles Report embodied in NSC 50, Document 384.
These points all relate to the central issue
which is involved in this matter. This issue is a fairly delicate one,
not merely because of the anticipated opposition, but also because of
the disposition on the part of the service people to feel that there is
an implied criticism of the competence of the services as a whole in the
suggestion that there should be a civilian director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. The following points have been drafted in the light
of these “angles”.In the first place, I should like to call your attention again to the
arguments set forth in subparagraph (f) of paragraph 4 of my
memorandumDocument
375. to Mr. Webb dated 18 March. Although I agree with you that not
all of these statements are appropriate for use in connection with your
proposed conversation with General McNarney, there
are, nevertheless, some points here which are very important and which
could and should be used. For example, I think that you should point out
the fact that virtually every individual who has had occasion to deal
with or to look into the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency
has recognized that the system of rotating the director and the top
staff personnel at frequent intervals has had disastrous consequences.
This is the argument about continuity. I am convinced that continuity of
direction is essential for the Central Intelligence Agency “not only for
the reasons which make it desirable in any governmental department but
also because secret intelligence and secret operations are the most
highly specialized undertakings, and it is very harmful to be constantly
educating a series of new chiefs and their immediate staffs”. It should
take a new chief up to at least a year to begin to understand the very technical and complicated
ramification of this business and to learn about the personalities
throughout his own service and also in the foreign intelligence services
sufficiently well to be able to deal with them intelligently and
incisively. The service system of rotation renders it inevitable that
just about the time a man becomes proficient at this new complex job, he
can expect to be relieved. Apart from the question of secret operations
(OPC), the significance and
character of a sound secret intelligence operation is a very slow and
long range affair. In order to accomplish really valuable penetrations,
it is sometimes necessary to allow the operatives to lie completely
dormant for a period of years, gradually working their way into the
confidence of their chiefs. Such operations are not apt to have much of
an appeal to people who will only be with the outfit for a short period
of time, for they will regard themselves as only sowing the seeds for a
harvest to be reaped by a successor. The tendency, as already
demonstrated, is to achieve quick and spectacular results in order that
the incumbent may have something to show for what he has done while in
office. Along with this comes the very strong tug to allow or even
stimulate publicity. The recent series of articles and news items which
have appeared in a number of magazines and newspapers can no doubt be
traced to this, at least in part. The absolute requirement of this
particular profession is a “passion for anonymity”.A related security argument is that the chief of the CIA must
necessarily come to know all of the most significant secrets of the
organization, and upon his departure it is inevitable that he will take
many of these with him and outside the organization. It is generally
impossible to predict what his next duty will be but it may well turn
out to be such as to place him in an exposed position. He might become a
military attache in a sensitive area or be placed in command of a
battleship or division in some forward area with the incident risk of
capture. He would obviously be a prize target for capture and it would
be foolish to suppose that the enemy would not make a concerted effort
to pick him off and to squeeze out of him all possible information which
he might have.The next argument proceeds from the regrettable but very definite fact
that the services generally have never in the past and do not now
acknowledge that intelligence is a function which requires (a)
specialization, (b) continuity, or (c) particular recognition. (There
are, of course, many in all the services who disagree with this
standardized point of view—such as Generals
Gruenther and
Wedemeyer—but even they acknowledge the existence
of this condition.) It is the natural consequence of this general
approach toward intelligence within the services that the best service people shun an intelligence service
assignment like the plague—and are even less prone to accept an outside
intelligence assignment than one within the services, such as G–2, ONI and
A–2. Al Gruenther has told me that unless and until
recognition in terms of both rank and influence is given to the function
of intelligence in far greater measure than is now the case, it is
unreasonable to expect and unfair to ask the people with bright futures
in the services to go into it. [I think that this is a particularly good
line of argument to use with General McNarney, and
even more so with Mr. Johnson,
because Mr. Johnson has already
recently taken issue on this precise point with the various service
representatives with whom General McNarney is
discussing this matter. When these persons told him that they did not
think much of the argument of continuity, he replied, with Johnsonian
firmness and some heat, that intelligence is a highly specialized
business which requires experience to learn. Obviously this bracketed
material is for your own information and guidance, since it would be
unwise to reveal our knowledge of the argument which took place in the
other camp.]Brackets in the source
text. You should also be careful to make it clear that the
arguments in favor of a civilian chief do not mean that the State
Department does not fully recognize and heartily subscribe to the
importance and necessity of the fullest service participation in the CIA
enterprise. The argument has been used and will be used again and again
by the military that the CIA is a joint venture and that even under
present circumstances the percentage of military personnel on duty with
CIA is very small (2 or 3% of the total). I would suggest a response
that the number of military personnel should be much increased—and that
is certainly the line which I am taking in my activity. This is the best
way that I can think of to dispose of this very specious
argument.There is also the argument which you yourself suggested concerning the
fact that no representative of one of the services could adequately and
fairly reflect the point of view of the other two services. I shall not
develop on this argument because it is already well known to you.
However, I should like to point out that there may be some loopholes in
this general argument which should be well plugged in advance of use.
For example, it is conceivable that the service reply to this argument
might be that the directorship should consist of a director with two
deputies and a periodic rotation as between the services for these three
spots. This is admittedly a weak counter to your argument because it
overlooks entirely the essentiality of continuity—but it might
nevertheless be used by persons who are no respecters of
continuity.Here is a tricky one which I am a bit uncertain about myself and which
I would not suggest at all but for the fact that General
McNarney is the person with whom you will be
dealing. I am reliably and I believe accurately informed that
notwithstanding the dressing down which General
McNarney received at the hands of General Marshall in connection with
McNarney’s UN responsibilities, he is very
beholden to General Marshall for
his rapid advancement in rank during the war, for his elevation to the
position of Mediterranean Theater Commander and for many other things.
Moreover, he well knows General
Marshall’s great abilities of mind and is believed to
hold his judgment in some degree of veneration. General Marshall has constantly been
concerned, and he reiterated this concern to me only yesterday, about
the damage to the services which can result from the popular distrust of
too much brass in too many high places in the government. This is the
“military mind” line which has been so heavily played by certain
columnists and editorial writers and General Marshall’s views on this can best be summarized
as a conviction that it is best for the country and best for the
services themselves for the military—and most particularly those still
on active duty—to stick to their last and not allow themselves to become
too deeply and personally involved in other governmental affairs. I say
that this is a tricky argument because it is difficult for a non-service
person to make it to a service person—and accordingly, I leave it to
your own best judgment as to whether and if so how to employ it.In conclusion, I should like to take the liberty of suggesting to you
that the happy issue out of these present afflictions can be a matter of
great importance to yourself in the new position to which you are going.
You are no doubt aware of the fact that the Western Union and Atlantic
Pact setups and apparati in France will include as a very significant
part thereof a mechanism for the coordination of clandestine efforts on
both the secret intelligence and secret operations sides. If at Paris
you should find yourself in a position of having to deal with
unenlightened and unsympathetic individuals on the American side in the
intelligence side of the show, it will render your overall job much more
difficult. As a concrete illustration of what I mean, the present chief
of this service had already designated General Pinkie
Wright as the top CIA representative upon the Western
Union Clandestine Committee, and this would have become effective but
for the fact that General Wright
was “rotated” to some relatively minor duty in Japan. If you are not
personally acquainted with Pinkie and desire
further information about him, I suggest that you speak to George Kennan or John
Davies. In a word, however, he is the Regular Army
top-sergeant type, the smallness of whose knowledge and comprehension of
foreign affairs and foreign personalities is matched only by his
certainty that he knows these and all the other answers.FGW
382. Memorandum for the President of Discussion at the 38th Meeting of the
National Security CouncilSource:
Harry S. Truman Library,
Papers of Harry S. Truman,
President’s Secretary’s Files, Subject File. Top Secret. Prepared on
April 21.Washington, April 20, 1949.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 1 and 2, construction of airfields
and stockpiling of aviation gasoline in Turkey and Japanese
reparations.]
3. Value to the President of the National Security Council
and the Central Intelligence Agency
The President said that the National Security Council was one of the best
devices available to him in helping him to make decisions on the basis of
coordinated papers. Before the establishment of the National Security
Council and the Central Intelligence Agency, there was a great vacuum in
obtaining coordinated advice and information on which to base decisions.
Without the National Security Council the President would have to confer
individually with everyone at the meeting on the questions which had just
been discussed. He said he was anxious to see the National Security Council
continue to operate as it had been operating. He added that when he assumed
office during the war there had been no coordinated intelligence either; he
received reports from various agencies and had to try to coordinate these
reports himself. The coordination was now accomplished by the Central
Intelligence Agency.
Secretary Johnson said he had noted a
good illustration of such coordination this morning in connection with the
problem of national organization for intelligence. General
McNarney had told him that the differences of views
on this matter would be reconciled before the question came before the
Council again.
The National Security Council:The following paragraph constitutes NSC Action No. 207. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, Record of Actions, Box 55)
Noted the oral remarks by the President that the reports of the National
Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency have proved to be one
of the best means available to the President for obtaining coordinated
advice as a basis for reaching decisions.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 4 and 5, review of the world
situation and NSC status of projects.]
383. Memorandum From Secretary of Defense Johnson to the Secretaries of the Army (Royall), the Navy (Sullivan) and the Air Force (Symington)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49,
101.61/4–2749. Top Secret. The source text is the copy sent to the
Secretary of State. It was covered by a brief note from the Assistant
Director of the Executive Secretariat, forwarding it to the Counselor
and asking him to read and transmit it to the Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence.Washington, April 27, 1949.Reference is made to the ReportDocument 358. on the Central
Intelligence Agency and the National Organization for Intelligence
submitted to the National Security Council by the Survey Group known as
the “Dulles” Committee. Chapter V
of this Report deals with “crisis” intelligence estimates and the
coordination relationship of various intelligence agencies of the
government. In one particular “crisis” situation there was a delay of
twelve days before the President and top policymakers were provided with
an authoritative intelligence estimate.The
episode referred to, which is discussed briefly in the Dulles Report, concerns General
Clay’s message of March 4, 1948, and the
intelligence estimates given the President on March
16.It is believed that this delay was due in part to the fact that an
“Eyes Only” message did not come immediately to the attention of
appropriate intelligence agencies, and in part due to the lack of
established procedures for dealing with such matters. However, proper
coordination did ultimately result in the production of an estimate of
the situation.I have been informed that the members of the Intelligence Advisory
Committee have agreed that critical information coming to the attention
of any one of them will be referred immediately to the Director, Central
Intelligence Agency, in order that evaluation by the Committee may be
undertaken at once. I, therefore, desire that provision be made for the
immediate distribution of critical information to your respective
Intelligence Agencies for appropriate action.Copies of this communication are being forwarded to the Secretary of
State, the Attorney General, the Executive Secretary, National Security
Council, and the Director, Central Intelligence Agency.Louis JohnsonPrinted from a copy that
indicates Johnson signed the
original.
384. Report by Secretary of State Acheson and Secretary of Defense Johnson to the National Security
CouncilSource:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351, NSC 50. Top Secret. When the Dulles Report and agency comments
thereon were submitted to the NSC, the
Council decided at its 37th meeting (see footnote
4, Document 380) that the Secretaries of State and Defense
should recommend specific actions. To prepare these recommendations,
Johnson designated General
Joseph T. McNarney and Acheson appointed Carlisle H. Humelsine. According to
Darling, the report is largely
McNarney’s work, which explains why NSC 50 was commonly referred to as the
McNarney Report. (The Central
Intelligence Agency, p. 347) Filed with the source text was a
July 1 covering note from Souers to the members of the Council briefly summarizing
the background of the report and indicating it would be considered at
the next NSC meeting. See the
Supplement. A cover sheet attached to the source text indicates it was
approved on July 7 by the President. See the Supplement. The report, the
covering note and the title page, without a notation of Truman’s approval, are reproduced in
CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, pp.
295–313.Washington, July 1, 1949.
NSC 50
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL ON THE REPORT OF THE DULLES-JACKSON-CORREA
COMMITTEE PREPARED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
The Report on “The Central Intelligence Agency and National Organization for
Intelligence”Document
358. includes 57 individual conclusions and
recommendations which we have regrouped in order to facilitate Council
consideration. Although some of the conclusions do not require Council
action, we wish to bring them to the Council’s attention with our comments.
Other conclusions and recommendations call for concurrence or
non-concurrence by the Council and appropriate implementing action.
1. Legislative Provisions Governing CIA and its Position
Under the National Security Council.
a.Summary of the Report.
The Survey Group report concludes that: Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947 which sets up CIA
is sound and that no amendments are necessary at this time;CIA is properly placed under the National Security Council, but
that its Director should establish closer liaison with the two
members of the Council on whom the Agency chiefly depends, namely,
the Secretaries of State and Defense.
b.Comments.
We concur in these conclusions and recommendations which do not require
specific Council action or authorization. It should be noted, however, that the National Military
Establishment and CIA are presently studying the wartime status and
responsibilities of CIA and that recommendations may be presented at a later
date on this subject. It may be determined that certain functions and
responsibilities should be under the control of the military in time of
war.
c.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council concur in the Survey Group conclusions on
this subject, with the understanding that study may determine that certain
functions and responsibilities should be under the control of the military
in time of war.
2. The Coordination of Intelligence Activities.
a.Summary of the Report.
The Report concludes that: The responsibility of CIA with respect to the coordination of
intelligence activities has not been fully discharged;The Intelligence Advisory Committee is soundly conceived as an
advisory body, but should, under the forthright initiative and
leadership of the Director of Central Intelligence, participate more
actively in the continuing coordination of intelligence activities
and in the discussion and approval of intelligence estimates.
b.Comments.
We concur in the observations and conclusions of the Report on this general
subject. We believe that the objectives sought for can be achieved by the
recognition and implementation of these principles and by the organizational
and operational improvements recommended elsewhere in the Report.
In accordance with these principles and as partial implementation thereof, we
recommend certain amendments to National Security Council Intelligence
Directive No. 1, as indicated in Annex “A”, appended hereto. These
amendments would (1) define the status of the Director of Central
Intelligence as a member of the Intelligence Advisory Committee and (2)
clarify the procedure whereby dissents are included in coordinated
intelligence estimates.
c.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council (1) concur in the conclusions and
recommendations stated under para. 2 a above as a statement of principles to
be followed by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Intelligence
Advisory Committee; (2) amend National Security Council Intelligence
Directive No. 1 in accordance with the changes proposed in Annex “A”
appended hereto.
3. Membership of the Intelligence Advisory Committee.
a.Summary of Report.
The Report recommends that the Federal Bureau of Investigation be added to
the membership of the Intelligence Advisory Committee and that the Joint
Staff (JCS) and Atomic Energy Commission be
dropped from membership.
b.Comments.
We concur in the proposal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation be added
to the membership of the Intelligence Advisory Committee, but do not agree
that the Joint Staff (JCS) and Atomic Energy
Commission be dropped from membership. A sufficient number of problems arise
which are of joint concern to foreign intelligence and domestic security
intelligence to warrant the membership on the IAC of the FBI in order that
coordination and cooperation in the national interest may be achieved.
We also wish to point out that the Recommended Action under para. 2 c above
would, if approved, have the effect of clarifying the status of the Director
of Central Intelligence as a member of the Intelligence Advisory
Committee.
c.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council (1) invite the Attorney General to have
the Federal Bureau of Investigation become a member of the Intelligence
Advisory Committee; (2) if this invitation is accepted, amend National
Security Council Director No. 1 accordingly, as provided in Annex “A”
appended hereto.
4. Particular Intelligence Questions Requiring
Coordination or Attention.
a.Summary of the Report.
Throughout the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Survey Group Report,
attention is drawn to a number of particular intelligence questions
requiring special attention or coordination. These may be listed as follows: Scientific Intelligence.Domestic Intelligence and counter-intelligence insofar as they
relate to the national security.Provisions for prompt coordinated intelligence estimates in crisis
situations.The proper allocation of responsibility for political
summaries.The exploitation of intelligence from foreign nationality groups
and foreign individuals in the United States.The coordination of covert intelligence activities in occupied
areas.Coordination of the handling of defectors.Increased emphasis on the counter-espionage activities abroad of
the Central Intelligence Agency and closer liaison for
counter-espionage matters with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
b.Comments.
We concur in these conclusions and comments as interpreted above and point
out that recent progress has been made in some of these fields. For example,
that of scientific intelligence through the creation of the Office of
Scientific Intelligence, by an agreement on a procedure for providing prompt
coordinated national intelligence estimates in crisis situations, and by an
agreement under consideration by the IAC
agencies and the FBI with respect to the
exploitation of defectors and other aliens.
For the purpose of clarity and guidance:
Paragraph 4 a (2) is considered to refer to the coordination of foreign
intelligence and foreign counterintelligence with domestic intelligence and
domestic counterintelligence for the purpose of correlating and evaluating
intelligence relating to national security.
Paragraph 4 a (3) is considered to refer to provision for prompt coordinated
national intelligence estimates in crisis situations.
Paragraph 4 a (5) is considered to refer to the exploitation of foreign
nationality groups and foreign individuals in the United States for the
purposes of foreign intelligence.
We anticipate that the addition of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the
membership of the Intelligence Advisory Committee will contribute
particularly to the objectives under points (2), (3), (5) and (7) above.
With respect to paragraph 4 a (8) above, we believe the maintenance of close
liaison for these purposes is essential.
c.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council: Draw the particular attention of the Director of Central
Intelligence and Intelligence Advisory Committee to the need for
early and sustained action for more effective coordination in the
fields listed under para. 4 a above as discussed in the Survey Group
Report;Request the Director of Central Intelligence to submit to the
Council within a period of six months a report on progress in these
matters.Invite the Attorney General to have the Federal Bureau of
Investigation become a member of the Intelligence Advisory
Committee.If this invitation is accepted, amend National Security Council
Directive No. 1 accordingly, as provided in Annex “A” appended
hereto.Note that nothing contained in NSCID 1, as amended, is intended to affect or change
NSC 17/4, approved by the
President on March 23, 1949 and the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation is a
member of the Intelligence Advisory Committee for the purpose of
coordinating domestic intelligence and related matters with foreign
intelligence matters and his relations with the CIA shall be as
provided in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947.
5. National Intelligence Estimates.
a.Summary of the Report.
The report concludes that in CIA there has been a confusion between the
responsibility for producing coordinated national intelligence estimates and
the responsibility for miscellaneous research and reporting. It finds
further that the Council’s Intelligence Directives on this subject are
sound, but have not been effectively carried out. It recommends, aside from
organizational changes described in the following section, that CIA should
draw upon and review the specialized intelligence production of the agencies
in order to prepare coordinated national intelligence estimates and that
these estimates should be discussed and approved by the IAC, whose members should be collectively
responsible. Such estimates should be recognized as the most authoritative
available to policy makers.
b.Comments.
We concur in these conclusions except that we do not believe that the
Director and the IAC should be bound by the
concept of collective responsibility, because this would inevitably reduce
coordinated national intelligence to the lowest common denominator among the
agencies concerned. A procedure should be adopted which would permit the
Director and the IAC to fulfill their
respective responsibilities to the President and the NSC regardless of unanimous agreement, but providing for
concurrent submissions of dissent. The CIA, however, should interpret and
follow the NSC Intelligence Directives so as
to refrain as far as possible from competitive intelligence activities in
the production of research intelligence estimates.
c.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council concur in the conclusions and
recommendations stated above, as interpreted by our comments, as a statement
of principles to be observed by the Director of Central Intelligence and the
IAC.
6. Organization of the Central Intelligence Agency.
a.Summary of the Report.
The Survey Group Report proposes a number of major changes in the internal
organization of CIA with a view to supporting the objectives set forth in
the Report. These changes are the following: The operations of the Office of Special Operations, the Office of
Policy Coordination and the Contact Branch of the Office of
Operations should be
integrated under single overall direction in an operations division,
with its separate administration, within CIA.Out of the present Office of Reports and Estimates there should be
created (a) a small estimates division which would draw upon and
review the specialized intelligence product of the departmental
agencies in order to prepare coordinated national intelligence
estimates and (b) a research and reports division to accomplish
central research in, and coordinated production of, intelligence in
recognized fields of common interest.The Foreign Documents Branch of the present Office of Operations
should be included in the proposed research and reports
division.The Foreign Broadcast Information Branch should be included in the
proposed operations division.The Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff should be
reconstituted as a staff responsible only to the Director of Central
Intelligence, with the task of developing plans for the coordination
of intelligence activities. It would also perform the present tasks
of the Office of Collection and Dissemination with respect to the
coordination of collection requirements and requests and the
dissemination of intelligence.
b.Comments.
We concur in these recommendations with the exception that we do not agree
that the Foreign Broadcast Information Branch should be included in the
proposed operations division. This division should include those activities
(the present Office of Special Operations, Office of Policy Coordination and
Contact Branch of the Office of Operations) which conduct covert or
semi-covert field intelligence and related operations which are closely
interdependent and have similar administrative and security problems.
With regard to the recommendations regarding the Office of Reports and
Estimates, the Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff and the
Office of Collection and Dissemination, we concur in them and in the concept
of CIA upon which they are based. However, we recognize that there may be
other methods of organization which will accomplish the same objectives.
c.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council (1) approve the recommendations of the
Survey Group Report on the reorganization of CIA as listed in para. 6 a
above, subject to the exception and comments noted in para. 6 b; (2) direct
the Director of Central Intelligence to carry out these recommendations, as
approved by the Council, and report to the Council in ninety days on
progress toward their implementation.
7. The Security of Information and the Avoidance of
Publicity.
a.Summary of the Report.
The Report recommends that (1) the Director of Central Intelligence should,
in cases where the disclosure of secret information is sought from him and
he has doubt as to whether he should comply, refer the question to the
National Security Council; (2) in the interest of security, the Central
Intelligence Agency should increasingly emphasize its duties as the
coordinator of intelligence rather than its secret intelligence activities
in order to reverse the present unfortunate trend where it finds itself
advertised almost exclusively as a secret service organization.
b.Comments.
We concur in these recommendations with the reservation that, in principle,
all publicity is undesirable and that only where it is unavoidable should
the procedure set forth in subparagraph 7 a (2) above be followed.
c.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council (1) approve the recommendations of the
Survey Group Report on the security of information and the avoidance of
publicity, subject to the reservation noted in para. 7 b above; (2) instruct
the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare appropriate National
Security Council Intelligence Directives covering these points and submit
them for approval within a period of thirty days.
8. Chairmanship of the United States Communications
Intelligence Board.
a.Summary of the Report.
The report recommends that the Director of Central Intelligence should be
made permanent chairman of the United States Communications Intelligence
Board.
b.Comments.
We do not concur in this recommendation. This matter was considered when the
U.S. Communications Intelligence Board was set up and the present
arrangements decided on. These arrangements, which provide for a rotating
chairmanship, are operating satisfactorily and it seems undesirable to make
a change.
c.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council not concur in the recommendation contained
in the Report.
9. Operating Problems Relating to Clandestine
Activities.
a.Summary of the Report.
The Report sets forth certain recommendations regarding individual operating
problems of the clandestine activities of CIA. These are questions which,
according to the Report, require particular emphasis or have been neglected in the past. The principal
questions so indicated may be summarized as follows: [5 lines of source text not
declassified]Relations with departmental agencies should be brought closer and
the guidance which the Office of Special Operations receives from
intelligence consumers should be strengthened. This might be
achieved by including representatives of the Service agencies and
the State Department in appropriate sections of the Office of
Special Operations.The Director of Central Intelligence should assure himself that
the operating services of CIA receive adequate guidance on the
current and strategic intelligence and policy needs of the
Government.The operating services of CIA should have access to communications
intelligence to the full extent required for guidance in directing
their operations and for the more effective conduct of
counterespionage.
b.Comments.
We concur in these recommendations all of which point to significant
operating problems relating to clandestine activities which require
particular and constant emphasis.
c.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council (1) approve the recommendation of the
Report as listed in para. 9 a above; (2) direct the Director of Central
Intelligence to carry them out with the assistance of the other departments
and agencies concerned and report to the National Security Council on any
difficulties encountered.
10. The Question of Civilian or Military Personnel in Key
CIA Positions.
a.Summary of the Report.
The Report concludes that: The placing in key positions in CIA of a large percentage of
military personnel, many of them on relatively short tour of duty
assignment, tends to discourage competent civilian personnel from
looking to employment in the Agency as a career.Continuity of service is essential for the successful carrying out
of the duties of Director of Central Intelligence. The best hope for
insuring this continuity and the greatest assurance of independence
of action is for a civilian to be Director of Central Intelligence.
A serviceman selected for the post should resign from active
military duty.
b.Comments.
We do not wholly concur in these conclusions. It is most important that both
civilian and military personnel be represented in the key positions in the
Central Intelligence Agency although we do not believe it is desirable to
attempt to fix any precise ratio for the two. This is a matter to be worked out by the Director in
consultation with the Secretaries of State and Defense.
We agree that continuity of service is essential for the post of Director.
The most qualified person available should be selected for the post. In
order to insure continuity and independence of action, he should be either a
civilian, or if a service man or a foreign service officer, he should be
either retired or one whose service as Director will be his final tour of
active duty.
c.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council: Concur in the above comments as an expression of its views on this
question.Inform the President of these views insofar as they concern the
post of Director of Central Intelligence.Inform the Director of Central Intelligence of these views insofar
as they concern the staffing of other key positions in CIA.
11. General Appraisal of the Leadership and Policies of
the Central Intelligence Agency.
a.Summary of the Report.
The Report concludes that: The directing staff of CIA has not demonstrated an adequate
understanding of the mandate of the organization or the ability to
discharge that mandate effectively.Administrative organization and policies tend to impede the
carrying out of the essential intelligence functions of CIA under
the Act.
b.Comments.
We do not wholly concur in these conclusions. While we recognize the
existence of important defects in the organization and operation of CIA, we
believe that these conclusions are too sweeping. Complicating factors in
appraising CIA’s efficiency have been the shortness of time during which to
develop an effective organization and a lack of common understanding as to
the respective missions of CIA and the departmental intelligence agencies.
However, as indicated in the Report and concurred in by us, numerous and
important improvements are necessary and need to be carried out promptly and
effectively.
c.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council (1) note the Conclusions and
Recommendations of the Report on this subject; (2) approve the above
Comments thereon.
12. The Service Intelligence Agencies.
a.Comments.
The National Military Establishment concurs in the Conclusions and
Recommendations of Chapter 11 of the Report except that it does not agree
that the Service intelligence agencies should be staffed with personnel who
concentrate in intelligence over the major portion of their careers. It is
the policy of the Military Establishment to assign qualified personnel to
intelligence duties even though they have not had previous intelligence
experience. However, continued efforts are made to attract the highest type
personnel to intelligence duty.
b.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council note the above Comments by the National
Military Establishment.
13. The Department of State.
a.Comments.
The Department of State concurs in the Conclusions and Recommendations of
Chapter 12 of the Report and is undertaking to put them into effect as part
of general plans for reorganization within the Department.
b.Recommended Action.
That the National Security Council note the above Comments by the Department
of State.
Annex A
To maintain the relationship essential to coordination between the
Central Intelligence Agency and the intelligence organizations, an
Intelligence Advisory Committee consisting of the Director of Central Intelligence, who shall be Chairman
thereof, Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
the respective intelligence chiefs from the Departments of
State, Army, Navy, and Air Force, and from the Joint Staff (JCS), and the Atomic Energy Commission,
or their representatives, shall be established to advise the
Director of Central Intelligence. The Director of Central
Intelligence will invite the Chief, or his representative, of any
other intelligence Agency having functions related to the national
security to sit with the Intelligence Advisory Committee whenever
matters within the purview of his Agency are to be discussed.The Director of Central Intelligence shall disseminate National
Intelligence to the President, to members of the National Security
Council, to the
Intelligence Chiefs of the IAC
Agencies, and to such Governmental Departments and Agencies as the
National Security Council from time to time may designate.
Intelligence so disseminated shall be officially concurred in by the
Intelligence Agencies or shall carry an
agreed a statement of substantiallydissentdiffering opinions.
385. Memorandum for the President of Discussion at the 43d Meeting of the
National Security CouncilSource:
Truman Library, Papers of
Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files, Subject Files. Top Secret. Prepared on July 8.
According to the minutes of the meeting, the following members were
present: Acheson; Edward
H. Foley, Jr., Under Secretary of the Treasury;
Stephen Early, Under Secretary of Defense;
Gordon Gray, Secretary of the
Army; Francis P. Matthews,
Secretary of the Navy; W. Stuart
Symington, Secretary of the Air Force; and John
R. Steelman, Acting Chairman of the National Security
Resources Board. Also present were Hillenkoetter, Carlisle
Humelsine of the Department of State, and General
Joseph T. McNarney and John H.
Ohly, both of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Three members of the NSC Secretariat
attended: Souers, Lay, and Hugh D.
Farley. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG
273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC Minutes, 43rd Meeting)Washington, July 7, 1949.
The following notes contain a summary of the discussion at the 43rd meeting
of the National Security Council. Under Secretary Early attended the meeting
in the absence of Secretary Johnson. The Attorney
General, who had been invited to participate as a member for consideration
of the first item, informed the Executive Secretary prior to the meeting
that he fully approved NSC 50 and requested
the Executive Secretary to state his action at the meeting, since he would
not be able to attend.
1. The Central Intelligence Agency and
National Organization for Intelligence (NSC 50)Document 384.
Secretary Acheson explained the
background of the report and praised the able staff work which it
represented.
Mr. Souers reported that the
Attorney General wished to have his approval of the paper recorded in the
minutes.
In response to Secretary Acheson’s
request for any queries, Admiral
Hillenkoetter stated that there was a dilemma in the
recommendation for a separate
administration for an operations division, as recommended in paragraph 6 a
(1). He remarked that both the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress last
year had questioned duplication in the administration of the Central
Intelligence Agency. Consequently, last December CIA had changed to a single
administration for both operational and administrative affairs. Separate
administration for secret operations had not worked well, and he added that
OSS had combined them towards the end of
its activities. By changing to a single administration, CIA had saved [less than 1 line of source text not declassified]
jobs or [less than 1 line of source text not
declassified] and had stopped considerable fighting for space and
personnel.
General McNarney said that, due to the special nature of
the operations concerned and the bad effects of any publicity, he felt the
Council should approve the recommendation and that the Director should not
attempt to explain this in detail to the Congress, but should state that a
separate administration was ordered by the NSC in the interests of the security of the special operations.
Both the original survey group and the staff team which had prepared the
present paper had agreed that this would be the proper course of action.
Secretary Acheson said he did not know
enough of the merits of the issue to have a strong view one way or the
other, and suggested that the point be deferred for further study.
Mr. Souers inquired if it might not
be possible to steer an in-between course, using only certain people within
a single administration to handle the special operations.
Secretary Gray remarked that the
present language would be too inflexible to permit such a course.
Admiral Hillenkoetter asked for
guidance from the Council as to the proper proportion of military personnel
in CIA, in the light of the recommendations in paragraphs 9 and 10.
Mr. Souers pointed out that, if the
Council approved the paper, it would then be in order for the Director to
work out this matter in consultation with the Secretaries of State and
Defense. General McNarney agreed and added that a ratio
could not be fixed since the proportion of military and other personnel
would depend on circumstances.
Secretary Acheson also agreed with Mr.
Souer’s interpretation.
The National Security Council:The following paragraph and note constitute NSC Action No. 231. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, Record of Actions, Box 55)
Approved the recommendations by the Secretaries of State and Defense in
NSC 50, subject to further study and
recommendation to the Council by
representatives of the Secretaries of State and Defense as to the
desirability of a separate administration for the operations division
proposed in paragraph 6 a (1) thereof.
Note: The President subsequently informed of the
Council’s action on paragraph 10; the Attorney General invited to have
the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation assume membership on the
Intelligence Advisory Committee, pursuant to paragraph 3;Documents 387 and 388.NSCID No. 1, as amended, issued in
revised form as of July 7, 1949;Document 432. and the other approved
actions transmitted either to the Director of Central Intelligence, or
to the Director of Central Intelligence and the Intelligence Advisory
Committee, as appropriate.
[Here follows discussion of agenda items 2–4, future course of U.S. action
with respect to Austria, possible U.S. courses of action in the event the
Soviet Union reimposes the Berlin blockade, and NSC status of projects.]
386. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Souers) to
President TrumanSource: Truman Library, Papers of Harry S. Truman, President’s Secretary’s Files. Top
Secret.Washington, July 7, 1949.
The National Security Council, as agreed at its 43rd meeting on July 7, 1949,
wishes to inform you of its views with respect to the post of Director of
Central Intelligence, that continuity of service is essential for the post
of Director; that the most qualified person available should be selected for
the post; and that, in order to insure continuity and independence of
action, the Director should be either a civilian, or, if a service man or a
foreign service officer, he should be retired or one whose service as
Director will be his final tour of active duty.
Sidney W. Souers
387. Letter From the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council
(Souers) to
Attorney General ClarkSource: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, NSC Minutes, 43rd Meeting.
Secret. Copies were sent to Hillenkoetter and Hoover.Washington, July 7, 1949.
My Dear Mr. Attorney General: Pursuant to the
action of the National Security Council at its 43rd meeting on Thursday,
July 7,See Document
385. in which you participated as a member, you are
cordially invited to have the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation assume his membership on the Intelligence Advisory Committee
as of this date.
For your records, a copy of NSCID No.
1,Document
432. revised as of July 7, 1949, which states the
membership and functions of the Intelligence Advisory Committee, is
transmitted herewith.
Furthermore, in approving the attached revised NSCID No. 1, the Council noted that nothing contained therein
is intended to affect or change NSC 17/4,
“Internal Security”, approved by the President on March 23, 1949,Not printed. and that the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation is a member of the Intelligence Advisory
Committee for the purpose of coordinating domestic intelligence and related
matters with foreign intelligence matters, and that his relationships to the
Central Intelligence Agency shall be as provided in Section 102 of the
National Security Act of 1947.
Sincerely yours,
Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
388. Letter From Attorney General Clark to the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Souers)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, NSC Minutes, 43rd
Meeting.Washington, July 15, 1949.
My Dear Admiral: Reference is made to your letter
of July 7, 1949,Document
387. inviting me to have the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation assume his membership on the Intelligence Advisory
Committee as of that date. I am pleased to advise that the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation is ready to assume his membership on this
Committee immediately on the basis set forth in your letter.
It should be noted that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
is becoming a member of the Intelligence Advisory Committee for the purpose
of coordinating domestic intelligence and related matters with foreign
intelligence matters, and it is understood that nothing contained in NSCID No. 1, dated July 7, 1949, is intended
to affect or change NSC 17/4, “Internal
Security,” approved by the President on March 23, 1949. It is also
understood that the relationship of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
the Central Intelligence Agency shall be as provided in Section 102 of the
National Security Act of 1947.
Sincerely yours,
Tom Clark
389. Memorandum From General Joseph T.
McNarney to the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Souers)Source: National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, NSC 50. Top
Secret.Washington, July 22, 1949.
SUBJECT
Recommendation of Dulles Survey
Group Report that there be established an Operations Division, with its
separate administration, within CIA
At the last meeting of the National Security Council the “Comments and
Recommendations on the Report of the Dulles–Jackson–Correa Committee Prepared by the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense” were approved with a
substantial exception which was to be reconsidered by the representatives of
State and Defense. The exception involved the question of whether the
administrative services in support of the agreed-upon Operations Division
should be separate, as recommended, or derived as at present from a
centralized administrative office reporting directly to the Director,
CIA.
The representatives of the Secretaries of State and Defense have reexamined
this problem and have discussed it with Rear
Admiral Hillenkoetter and two of his Assistant Directors who
will be responsible for carrying out the recommendations. Based upon a
careful reconsideration of the recommendation, and with full weight being
given to the views presented by the Director of Central Intelligence and two
of his Assistant Directors, the representatives of the Secretaries of State
and Defense hereby confirm their recommendation that administrative support
of covert and overt operations of CIA should be separate. They thereby
reaffirm the recommendation of the Dulles–Jackson–Correa
Committee.
They consider particularly desirable separate administrative organizations
for the handling of such overt and covert functions as: personnel
administration including recruitment (except clerical type personnel for
headquarters) personnel security; fiscal, accounting and budgetary
functions, including the handling and control of confidential funds; travel
abroad; storage and warehousing for clandestine materials; contract
administration where the contracts involve clandestine matters; reproducing
and photo-copying; and other related administrative matters which require
close relationship and knowledge on the part of a minimum number of
administrating and operating officials to insure adequate flexibility and
security of operations.
They recommend, however, that certain administrative functions which can be
efficiently performed in a central administrative office without danger of
loss of flexibility or security to covert activities be kept concentrated in
such an office. Examples of such functions are: space allocations;
procurement of ordinary supplies (except special equipment for clandestine
use); legal services; transportation facilities in the United States; and
other closely related administrative functions which, with full regard to
special considerations of security and flexibility of operations, may be
economically and satisfactorily performed in a central office.
The representatives of the Secretaries of State and Defense believe that
there now is sufficient overstaffing in the administrative services of the
Central Intelligence Agency to permit the separation of the administrative
support of overt and covert activities without any substantial increase at present in the
allocation of personnel or funds for this purpose.
Joseph T. McNarneyPrinted from a copy that
indicates McNarney signed the original.
390. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary (Souers) to the National Security CouncilSource: Department of State, S/P-NSC Files: Lot 62 D 1, NSC Intelligence Directives. Top
Secret.Washington, July 25, 1949.
SUBJECT
The Central Intelligence Agency and National Organization for
Intelligence
REFERENCES
NSC Action No. 231See footnote 2, Document
385.NSC 50Document 384.
Pursuant to the action of the National Security Council at its last meeting
(Reference A) the enclosed report by representatives of the Secretaries of
State and Defense as to the desirability of a separate administration for
the operations division proposed in paragraph 6-a-(1) of NSC 50 is submitted herewith for consideration
by the Council.Document
389.
It is recommended that, if the Council accepts the enclosed report, the
Director of Central Intelligence be directed to carry out the provisions of
paragraph 6–a–(1) of NSC 50 with respect to
a separate administration within CIA for the operations division
substantially as indicated in the enclosure, and report on progress toward
their implementation together with the report called for on the previously
approved recommendations of paragraph 6 of NSC 50.
It is requested that the enclosure be handled with special
security precautions.
Sidney W. SouersPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
391. Letter From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Research
and Intelligence (Armstrong) to Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 80–01731R, Box 43, Folder 7. Top Secret. A further exchange
of letters and memoranda is ibid.Washington, July 29, 1949.
Dear Admiral
Hillenkoetter: Our representative on the Joint Ad
Hoc Committee which prepared ORE 46–49, “The
Possibility of Direct Soviet Military Action During 1949,” has advised me of
the desirability of continuing operation of this committee in such a way as
to form a pool for interdepartmental consideration of Soviet intentions for
war. Probably all the intelligence organizations find frequent need for
means by which, at any time, they may produce comprehensive, factual data as
a basis of estimates on this subject. Also, it seems to me, that a committee
engaged in studying Soviet intentions would be of great aid in handling most
of the “crisis type” requests that are likely to arise.
We have, of course, just discussed and agreed to the establishment of a
Jigsaw Committee to coordinate the intelligence approach to problems of
world communism. That Committee, however, although its work will contribute
in part to the analysis of Soviet intentions, has a distinctive
responsibility of its own which takes in many other matters such as the
development of Communist theory and Communist techniques, and the growth of
Communist activity of all sorts in local situations throughout the world. I
have in mind rather the need for continuing, current analysis closely
applied to indications of the likelihood of Soviet military action, analysis
which will integrate, for instance, OB information from all three Services
with political and economic indications.
I would like to suggest therefore that you consider establishing under CIA a
permanent interdepartmental committee (which might be called the Watch
Committee) to pool information on Soviet intentions for war. I attach a
draft proposal which sets forth in detail a possible manner of operation and
which might, together with this letter, form an item for discussion at the
IAC.
Sincerely yours,
W. Park Armstrong, Jr.
EnclosureSecret.
PROPOSED IAC AGREEMENT
SUBJECT
Permanent Committee on USSR IntentionsA permanent committee (hereinafter referred to as the Watch
Committee) is hereby established to coordinate intelligence
information on the short and long range warlike intentions of the
USSR and to produce periodic intelligence estimates on this subject
as it affects national security. The Watch Committee will work in
accordance with the established NSCID and DCI
directives.The Watch Committee shall act under the chairmanship of CIA and
shall comprise: Chairman—CIAVice Chairman—StateMember—ArmyMember—NavyMember—Air ForceMember—CIA/OSOAd hoc members as needed may be determined by the regular
members.Secretariat—CIAThe Watch Committee will, in the first instance, establish methods
of procedure.The Committee will meet at regular intervals, adjusting the
frequency of its meetings from time to time in relation to the need
for maintenance and revision of its work.The Committee will be responsible for: On a long range basis Bringing up to date in a comprehensive basic
estimate existing papers which relate to USSR
intentions for warDeveloping basic EEI for such estimatesProducing at appropriate intervals or upon request
revisions of the comprehensive estimateOn a short range basis Arranging periodic exchange amongst its members of
items of information pertinent to the EEIProducing from each such exchange an interim
estimate which will indicate the bearing of
available current information on the most recent
basic comprehensive estimate.
392. Letter From Secretary of State Acheson to Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File
1945–49, 101.61/8-149. Secret. Drafted by F.C.
Oechsner and W.T.
Stone. An attached note indicates that a similar letter
was being sent to the Secretary of Defense but no copy has been found.
See the draft memorandum from Stone to Acheson,
July 22, in the Supplement attached to an August 11 letter from
Acheson to Hillenkoetter. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State,
Decimal File 1945–49, 101.61/8–149)Washington, August 1, 1949.
My Dear Admiral
Hillenkoetter: Following conferences among
consultants of the National Military Establishment, the National Security
Resources Board and the Department of State, looking to the implementation
of NSC–43, I have proposed to the Secretary
of Defense that the planning and coordination work, and the full-time
staffs, provided for under NSC–4 and NSC–43 can be combined.NSC 4, December 9,
1947, entitled “Coordination of Foreign Information Measures,” and
NSC 43, March 9, 1949, entitled
“Planning for Wartime Conduct of Overt Psychological Warfare.” (National
Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of
State, Records of the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351)
I have suggested that the combined staffs consist of representatives of the
Departments of State, Army, Navy, Air Force and the Central Intelligence
Agency, this having proved an effective composition under NSC–4. In addition, I have requested that a
full-time representative of the Office of the Secretary of Defense be
detailed to the staff.
NSC–43 provides only for “liaison
representatives” of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National
Security Resources Board on the NSC–43
staff. Inasmuch as the Central Intelligence Agency representative on the
NSC–4 staff is, however, assigned on a
full-time basis, it would be appreciated if your Agency could continue to
provide full-time representation on the combined staff. Experience will show
whether further CIA personnel is required beyond the one representative
presently serving.
Sincerely yours,
Dean AchesonPrinted from a copy that
indicates Acheson signed the
original.
393. Letter From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Research
and Intelligence (Armstrong) to Director of Central Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 86-B00269R, Box 5. Secret. The enclosures were often
referred to as the “Four Papers” or the “Four Problems.” On August 5
Hillenkoetter sent them to
the members of the IAC with a covering
memorandum that noted that Armstrong had decided to drop a fifth problem designated
as “Guidance to CIA.” (Memorandum from Hillenkoetter August 5; ibid.) See the
Supplement.Washington, August 2, 1949.
Dear Admiral
Hillenkoetter: In accordance with the statement I
made in connection with consideration of NSC–50 at the last IAC meeting,
July 22, I enclose four papers on aspects on NSC–50 which the Department believes should be implemented at
the earliest feasible time. If you agree these papers could be placed on the
IAC Agenda.
Sincerely yours,
W. Park Armstrong, Jr.Printed from a copy that
indicates Armstrong signed
the original.
Enclosure I
COORDINATION OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
Problem: To Implement NSC 50 with Respect to they Coordination of
Intelligence Activities.
Discussion:
NSC 50 states that the
responsibility of CIA with respect to the coordination of
intelligence activities has not been fully discharged (para. 2a(1)).
It also calls for ICAPS to be
reconstituted as a staff responsible only to the DCI, with the task of developing plans
for the coordination of intelligence activities; to perform the
present task of the Office of Collection and Dissemination with
respect to the coordination of collection requirements and requests,
and the dissemination of intelligence (para. 6a(5)).ICAPS in the past has suffered
from the somewhat ambiguous nature of assignment of officers to it;
that is, whether they “represent” their agency in ICAPS activities, or are responsible only to the DCI. The Staff of the National Security
Council serves as an example for an ICAPS staff under the direction of the DCI to study and plan for the
coordination of intelligence activities. Officers should be assigned
from an agency or service to the staff, not in a “representative”
capacity, but rather to bring the knowledge and interest of the
several agencies together in a joint effort.In a similar fashion, the Standing Committee can serve as a staff
committee, with identical representation to IAC, acting in the same fashion as the Consultants do
to the NSC.Coordination of the intelligence activities among the several
agencies and under the leadership of the CIA has not been fully
effective, particularly with respect to the coordination in the
research effort, owing in part to the fact that CIA has not made
itself a center of information on intelligence to which the other
agencies can turn, has been passive rather than aggressive in
liaison, i.e., has relied upon receiving liaison officers from the
other agencies, and has not fully accepted its proper role of
passing on requests for research service to the agency best equipped
to handle it. CIA effort has gone too much to miscellaneous research
and reporting which, in the words of the Dulles Committee, “by no stretch of the imagination”
could be considered national intelligence.
Recommendation:
That ICAPS serve as a joint
staff under the direction of, and responsible to, the DCI, be composed of members contributed
by the several agencies on a fulltime basis, but not “representing”
the agency, and be headed by a chief who will also be the Executive
Secretary of the IAC.That matters of coordination be referred to ICAPS for study and recommendation by
the DCI, or through the DCI by the IAC, but that ICAPS
itself may submit to the DCI, or
through the DCI to the IAC, recommendations which it considers
appropriate for consideration.That the representation on the Standing Committee be the same as
that of the IAC, and that the
Standing Committee serve as a subordinate or staff committee to the
IAC to consider on an
interagency basis, problems referred to it by the IAC.That CIA fulfill its coordinating responsibility on research
programs primarily through the Estimates Division, whose primary
function should be such coordination, in accordance with the
following principles: CIA will constitute itself the center of information on
all U.S. foreign intelligence activities, including current
research intelligence projects;CIA will have free access to the plans and programs of the
several intelligence agencies, subject to overall
departmental regulation;CIA will recognize that it should have active liaison
responsibility to other agencies as well as receiving
liaison from those agencies;CIA will effect coordination as much by positive action in
stimulating appropriate intelligence effort as by negative
action in preventing undesirable duplications;CIA will recognize that requests for intelligence other
than national intelligence, as defined, shall be forwarded
for action to the agencies in accordance with established
allocations and existing programs;CIA will recognize that coordination also implies
assistance to the agencies in meeting their
responsibilities, including in some cases the temporary
assignments of personnel to the agencies.
Enclosure II
PRODUCTION OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Problem: To Implement NSC 50 with Respect to the Production of
National Intelligence.
Discussion:
NSC 50 calls for a small Estimates
Division to draw upon and review the specialized intelligence
production of the departmental agencies in order to prepare
coordinated national intelligence estimates (para. 5a). It also
calls upon the IAC to discuss and
approve national intelligence estimates with provision for
dissenting opinions (para. 2a). Finally, it calls for special
provisions to be made for prompt coordinated national intelligence
estimates in crisis situations (para. 4a(3)).The NSC action, as well as the
Dulles Committee Report,
reaffirms in definite terms the basis principles of the NSCID’s with respect to the
production of national intelligence. National intelligence is by
definition interdepartmental, and is distinguished by a substantive
overlap between more than one field of departmental interests as
allocated. It does not become national intelligence merely because
it is of national interest, or because it is in response to a
request by an interdepartmental body.The NSCID’s prescribe that
national intelligence be composed to the maximum extent possible of
departmental contributions of finished intelligence. This would
require that CIA estimates, to a greater extent then is now the
case, be discussed and planned at the earliest stage with
appropriate collaborating departments, and, subject to the review
responsibility of CIA, in the normal course be composed of texts
contributed by the
agencies. This would properly result in the discontinuance of
duplicative research and report writing by CIA, with presumably
economy of staff allocated to this function.The effectiveness of participation by IAC in the production of national estimates will depend
heavily upon the selection of matters appropriate for consideration.
Presumably the authority of the IAC
in such participation can be delegated to subordinate groups.
Nevertheless, the IAC must stand
ready to consult and pass on any questions of substance on which
there is not general agreement, or on which any member requests
consideration.The special procedures required in crisis situations will need to
be worked out in some detail for subsequent consideration by the
IAC. In any event, these
procedures should be based upon the same considerations of
departmental responsibility and consultation at all stages as apply
to all national intelligence estimates.
Recommendations:
That IAC agree with respect to the
production of national intelligence estimates: That national intelligence applies only to intelligence
which is interdepartmental in substance;That national intelligence should be developed with a
maximum use of departmental facilities and minimum
duplication of departmental intelligence activities;That except in crisis situations no step be taken in the
preparation of national estimates before consultation with
appropriate agencies.That the IAC discuss and approve
all national intelligence estimates on which there is substantial
disagreement among the agencies or upon the request of a
member.That ICAPS review and make
recommendations for any revision of procedures for the production of
coordinated national estimates in crisis situations, such procedures
to be, as far as possible, in accordance with the principles
outlined in existing NSCID’s,
NSC 50, and Recommendation 1
above.
Enclosure III
RESEARCH AND REPORTS
Problem: To Implement NSC 50 with Respect to the Responsibility
for Research and Reports.
Discussion:
1. The NSC 50 states that in CIA there
has been a confusion between national intelligence and miscellaneous
research and reporting, and that while NSCID’s on this subject are sound, they have not been
effectively carried out (para. 5a). It also states that out of the
present ORE there should be created (a)
a small Estimates Division which would draw upon and review the
specialized intelligence product of the interdepartmental agencies in
order to prepare coordinated national intelligence estimates, and (b) a
Research and Reports Division to accomplish research in and coordinate
production of intelligence in recognized fields of common interest.
Recommendation:That, aside from national intelligence, CIA will produce
intelligence reports only in fields of common concern, as
prescribed by the DCI on the
advice of the IAC.That, on a priority basis, ICAPS prepare for consideration in IAC recommendations on the
delineations of fields of common concern.
Enclosure IV
POLITICAL SUMMARIES
Problem: To Implement NSC 50 with Respect to Political
Summaries.
Discussion:
NSC 50 states that consideration
should be given to a proper allocation of responsibility for
political summaries (para. 4a (4)).The preparation of political summaries, daily and weekly, presents
a difficult problem involving the dissemination of information which
is in part intelligence and in part operational. It also involves
the responsibilities of
each agency to distribute information which pertains to its
responsibilities or stems from its sources.
Recommendation:
1. That ICAPS study and prepare
recommendations for consideration by the IAC on the proper allocation of responsibilities for
political summaries, both daily and weekly.
394. Letter From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to Secretary of
State AchesonSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 86-B00269R, Box 5. Top Secret.Washington, August 19, 1949.
My Dear Mr. Secretary: As you know, the National
Security Council in NSC 50Document 384. approved
the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense and yourself regarding
certain changes in the organization of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Among those changes was a directive to consolidate all “covert and
semi-covert field intelligence and related operations” in a single branch to
be called “The Operations Division.” To carry out this directive, the
attached organization plan with the attendant list of functions for its
components has been evolved.Not attached to the
source text. A copy is attached to an August 16 memorandum from
Hillenkoetter to Souers. (National Archives and
Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security
Council, NSC 10/2)
This proposed reorganization has received the full concurrence of all
interested parties in the Central Intelligence Agency (including the Offices
of Policy Coordination, Special Operations, and Operations).
In this proposed plan the functions of the various offices are preserved, and
their responsibilities are unchanged. However, to bring NSC 10/2 into consonance with the new directive
contained in NSC 50, the former paper will
necessarily have to be revised slightly, particularly, in that part relating
to the autonomous character of the Office of Policy Coordination within the
Central Intelligence Agency.
An advance copy of the attachments to this letter has been furnished to Mr.
George F. KennanReference is to an August 16 memorandum from Hillenkoetter to Kennan, et al. (Central Intelligence
Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R) See the Supplement. in order that
he may have an opportunity to go over it before you may desire to receive a
briefing from him.
I should like respectfully to request your concurrence or your comments on
this proposed plan in order that, if agreeable to you, I may present it to
the entire National Security Council, through the Executive Secretary, as a
report on the progress which the Central Intelligence Agency is making in
carrying out the decisions in NSC 50.
With kindest regards, believe me.
Sincerely,
R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.Rear Admiral, USN
395. Memorandum From Shane MacCarthy to
the Chief of the Intelligence Coordinating and Planning Staff, Central
Intelligence Agency (Childs)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86-B00269R, Box 5.
Secret.Washington, August 24, 1949.
SUBJECT
Clarification of Points in Mr. Armstrong’s Submittal
In accordance with your instruction, and in keeping with the statement of Mr.
Armstrong, I spent considerable
time today with Mr. Allan Evans, Director, Office of
Intelligence Research, Department of State, to seek further clarification on
parts of the four problems submitted by Mr. Armstrong to CIA under his memorandum of 2 August 1949.Document
393.
I–1. That ICAPS serve as a joint staff
under the direction of, and responsible to, the DCI, be composed of members contributed by the several agencies on a fulltime
basis, but not “representing” the agency, and be headed by a chief who
will also be the Executive Secretary of the IAC.
Evans sees no conflict between ICAPS acting as the Staff of the Director of Central
Intelligence and performing, as required, certain staff work for the IAC, of which the DCI is the Chairman. He did not visualize a permanent staff in
the sense of the National Security Council organization, and he was not
pressing for the choice of the title “Executive Secretary.” What State does
desire here is that adequate staff work be performed for the Intelligence
Advisory Committee.
I–3. That the representation on the Standing Committee be the same as
that of the IAC, and that the Standing
Committee serve as a subordinate or staff committee to the IAC to consider on an interagency basis,
problems referred to it by the IAC.
Evans contends that the representation on the Standing
Committee should be the same as the membership on the IAC. If any one agency, for example the Joint
Chiefs, does not desire representation on the Standing Committee, they may
make this decision themselves without disrupting the basic concept. ICAPS’ relationship to the Standing Committee
should change to the extent that the members of ICAPS as a whole would no longer be members of the Standing
Committee; that the Chief of ICAPS, in
chairing the Standing Committee, should represent CIA; and that the other
members of ICAPS should remain out of the
Standing Committee meetings, except as needed for specific purposes.
Further discussion of this whole problem about the relationship of ICAPS to the Standing Committee brought
certain modifications into the stability of Evans’
thinking process. He could see the benefit to be achieved by the other
members of ICAPS in listening to and
participating in the discussions at the IAC
meetings. However, he felt that CIA usually had too many of their members
coming to meetings, and that their presence was having a bad effect upon
agency representation.
I–4. That CIA fulfill its coordinating responsibility on research
programs primarily through the Estimates Division, whose primary
function should be such coordination, in accordance with the following
principles:
When I told Evans that NSC 50 allowed us to solve our problems in a manner which we
determined most appropriate, he still expressed the view that the “Estimates
Division” is the only way for CIA to conduct its coordinating responsibility
on intelligence research programs.
I–4a. CIA will constitute itself the center of information on all U.S.
foreign intelligence activities, including current research intelligence
projects;
The word “activities” was used in purposeful manner. They do not want CIA to be considered the center of all
foreign intelligence information. On the other hand, State does feel that CIA should know what all
intelligence agencies are doing, which is not making
of CIA a central reservoir on all foreign intelligence information. This is
the “central index” concept of having in one spot a knowledge of all agency
programs at all times. For example, quite some time ago the Atomic Energy
Commission wanted to know what agency or agencies were doing research on
electric power in Russia. CIA did not know, and eventually it was found out
that OIR was doing such a project.
I–4b. CIA will have free access to the plans and programs of the several
intelligence agencies, subject to overall departmental regulation;
The accessibility to “plans and programs” is modified by the words “subject
to overall departmental regulation.” It is true that this paragraph is
intended to liberalize the present viewpoint regarding inspection of
“intelligence matters” mentioned in NSCID
No. 1. The words “subject to overall departmental regulation” refer to the
agency personnel rather than to the people from CIA. The agency is to
determine what their own people may talk about and what they may not talk
about. Accordingly, the words “subject to overall departmental regulation”
involve policy as well as security.
I–4f. CIA will recognize that coordination also implies assistance to the
agencies in meeting their responsibilities, including in some cases the
temporary assignments of personnel to the agencies.
State did not mean to convey the concept that coordination always and
generally involves financial assistance to the agency being coordinated.
What State does infer is that the function of coordination does include
assistance of any type to avoid the establishing of functions on the
duplicated basis. As a specific example in support of this point of view,
Mr. Evans stated that on frequent occasions when
assignments are to be accomplished on an ad hoc basis, it may be ascertained
that the departmental organization is not adequately staffed or equipped to
accomplish the task. Under such circumstances, he contends that the tendency
is for us in CIA to conclude that the agency cannot perform the task, and
therefore we must set up a section or unit to do so. Such “sections” or
“units”, according to Mr. Evans, remain as permanent
adjuncts of the CIA organization. He reiterated that all such duplications
could be avoided if everything that needed to be done on an ad hoc basis,
recognizing that it fell within the allocated responsibility of the agency,
can be done if CIA will help the agency do so.
II–1a. That IAC agree with respect to the
production of national intelligence estimates:
That national intelligence applies only to intelligence which is
interdepartmental in substance;
Evans does not feel that the present definitions of the
NSCIDs need revising. In fact, he
emphasizes the view that this recommendation, together with sentence 2 of
paragraph 2 of the discussion under “Production of National Intelligence” is
merely stating what the directives already propound.
II-1b. That IAC agree with respect to the
production of national intelligence estimates:
That national intelligence should be developed with a maximum use
of departmental facilities and minimum duplication of
departmental intelligence activities;
Evans does not feel that DCI 3/1 needs revising. He does indicate that we do not live up
to it, and that we are always inclined to put production items into the
category of “urgent” and “exceptional.” I asked him if he did not agree with
the statement that CIA may under certain circumstances produce political
intelligence and that under 3/1 the Department of State had admitted such.
He became a little bit peeved at this question and was somewhat evasive and
circuitous in his answer. In a supercilious manner he stated:—To deny that
CIA may on occasions do political estimates is too narrow a viewpoint. When
they do so, according to Evans, it is a matter of
“common interest,” which words he used interchangeably with “common
concern.” He added that of course in such cases the political estimates
would be prepared by an individual like Mr. Montague. In other words, he assigned this happening to a
person rather than to a segment of our organization.
II-2. That the IAC discuss and approve
all national intelligence estimates on which there is substantial
disagreement among the agencies or upon the request of a member.
This refers to the members of IAC and not to
the agencies. The words “substantial disagreement” mean that when there is
an estimate with dissent under present procedures that amounts to a
“substantial disagreement” and as such should be discussed. The very fact
that the dissent is published makes it, in Mr. Evans’
viewpoint, “substantial.” He did say that every effort should be made to
eradicate the possibility of publishing an estimate with dissent, and he
feels that under present procedures this is being done. He holds the view
that the publishing of an estimate with dissent is a rather important
decision, especially for the dissenting agency, and that the collective
discussion at this stage by the IAC members
may lessen to a considerable degree the number of dissents. Furthermore, he
holds that this is the thinking process of the Dulles report and NSC
50.
III–1. That, aside from national intelligence, CIA will produce
intelligence reports only in fields of common concern, as prescribed by
the DCI on the advice of the IAC.
In discussing this recommendation, Evans referred back
to what he felt was the meaning of “national intelligence” in the
directives; namely that it was distinguished from departmental intelligence
“by a substantive overlap between more than one field of departmental
interest as allocated.” We spent much time discussing the limiting word
“only” in line 2 of this recommendation. And again, I asked him the question
as to whether State had not already concurred in the viewpoint that we may
produce what is definitely a departmental intelligence under certain
circumstances. The affirmative reply from Mr. Evans on
this question was again very weak, in which he indicated that no one will
deny the fact that under certain unusual circumstances CIA “as well as any
other agency” may do certain things which are not normally looked upon as
within the prerogative of the agency. He elaborated on this viewpoint by
stating on rare occasions his office may get a request from the Secretary
for something which is almost solely military in content, and that since his
office has the necessary information, they work up the answer without
referring the request to G–2. At this
juncture, I felt like saying that we should no longer receive accusations
from State about the fact that ORE was
duplicating OIR. But I felt that silence was
golden.
“Common concern” means of interest to two or more agencies, and as an
illustration of this he mentioned “transportation” and “communications.”
IV–1. That ICAPS study and prepare
recommendations for consideration by the IAC on the proper allocation of responsibility for
political summaries, both daily and weekly.
Evans said that he did not feel very strong about the
daily political summary. In fact he didn’t feel too strong about the whole
recommendation. However, he felt that the question involved pertained more
to the weekly summary than to the daily. I do not believe that anything will
be pressed by State on this recommendation.
Shane MacCarthyPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
396. Memorandum From the Chief of the Intelligence Coordinating and
Planning Staff, Central Intelligence Agency (Childs) to the Members of the
IAC Standing CommitteeSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 86-B00269R, Box 5. Secret.Washington, August 25, 1949.
SUBJECT
State’s Four Problems re NSC 50
REFERENCE
Circular memorandum 5 August 1949See the
source note, Document 393. to
IAC Members “Implementation of
NSC 50 (Dulles Report Recommendations)” enclosing copy of a
letter dated 2 August 1949Document 393. from Mr. Armstrong, submitting for IAC consideration Four Problems raised by
NSC 50.Decision at IAC meeting of August 19th
that the Standing Committee would give consideration to Mr. Armstrong’s Four Problems
1. In giving consideration to Mr. Armstrong’s four problems, CIA thought that a certain amount
of clarification was needed on the following recommendations:
2. In discussing these paragraphs with the State Department, it was
ascertained that:
“I–1. That ICAPS serve as a joint
staff under the direction of, and responsible to, the DCI, be composed of members contributed
by the several agencies on a fulltime basis, but not ‘representing’
the agency, and be headed by a chief who will also be the Executive
Secretary of the IAC.”
State desires that ICAPS
be the staff of the DCI and also of the
IAC (the latter a part-time job).
“I–3. That the representation on the Standing Committee be the same as
that of the IAC, and that the Standing
Committee serve as a subordinate or staff committee to the IAC to consider on an interagency basis,
problems referred to it by the IAC.”
ICAPS as a group would no
longer be a member of the Standing Committee. Only the Chief of ICAPS, as Chairman of the Standing Committee,
would represent CIA. The Standing Committee Members would continue to work
for their IAC members, but not on the ICAPS level in drafting papers.
CIA Comments on the above two recommendations:
The DCI is opposed to making the working
committee and staff (Standing Committee and ICAPS) too formal. ICAPS
apparently is to become not only the staff of the DCI, but also the staff of the IAC and the Standing Committee is to become a little IAC; i.e., an additional higher layer advisory
committee inserted to grant approval or disapproval to the papers prepared
by ICAPS in its capacity as a staff of the
real Advisory Committee. The DCI thinks this
layer of “consultants” is unnecessary for such working groups and they
should not be aggrandized and restricted by formal parliamentary procedures.
He thinks discussions in the ICAPS-Standing Committee group among themselves and with
specialists from the agencies, when necessary or desirable, are healthy and
should not be limited and restricted to only certain members, especially
when technical matters come up that are more familiar to the working
specialists then to the overall planners. Furthermore, the DCI thinks it most desirable that the IAC agencies participate from the beginning in
actually drawing up the proposals.
“I–4. That CIA fulfill its coordinating responsibility on research
programs primarily through the Estimates Division, whose primary
function should be such coordination, in accordance with the following
principles:”
State thinks there should be an “Estimates Division” and
that one of its prime functions should be coordinating intelligence research
programs. The establishment of such an “Estimates Division” in the Dulles Report is not obligatory in NSC 50 and is not one of the internal
organization changes which is contemplated by the DCI at present.
“I–4a. CIA will constitute itself the center of information on all U.S.
foreign intelligence activities, including current research intelligence
projects;”
This does not mean that CIA is to be a central reservoir of
foreign intelligence or foreign intelligence information, but rather is to
know what all intelligence agencies are doing; i.e., a “central index”
having knowledge of all agency programs.
“I–4b. CIA will have free access to the plans and programs of the several
intelligence agencies, subject to overall departmental regulation;”
This paragraph is intended to liberalize NSCID No. 1, which allows access only to
“intelligence materials;” but, on the other hand, its last qualifying clause
refers to the policies as well as the security of the various
departments.
“I–4f. CIA will recognize that coordination also implies assistance to
the agencies in meeting their responsibilities, including in some cases
the temporary assignment of personnel to the agencies.”
State still maintains that such assistance is a function of
coordination and cited as an example that, when it is not adequately staffed
or equipped to accomplish a task within its field of dominant interest, CIA
should provide assistance to State for this purpose rather than performing
the task in CIA. CIA maintains that such work in CIA would be complementing,
not duplicating, State’s work and that financial and personnel assistance to
outside agencies from CIA cannot be considered “coordination.” In the
matters of extra funds and personnel, there no longer is the “elasticity” in
CIA that there once was!
“II–1a. That national intelligence applies only to intelligence which is
interdepartmental in substance;”
State visualizes no change in the existing definitions of
national intelligence.
“II–1b. That national intelligence should be developed with a maximum use
of departmental facilities and minimum duplication of departmental
intelligence activities.”
State thinks CIA is not living up to DCI 3/1 and that CIA is always inclined to put its production
into the category of “urgent” or “exceptional.”
“II–2. That the IAC discuss and approve
all national intelligence estimates on which there is substantial
disagreement among the agencies or upon the request of a member.”
This refers to the members of the IAC, not to the IAC agencies;
i.e., the IAC members should discuss around
a table together any “substantial disagreements” which may lead to a
dissent, hoping that much collective discussion by the IAC members themselves before a paper is
finalized may lessen to a considerable degree the number of dissents.
“III–1. That, aside from national intelligence, CIA will produce
intelligence reports only in fields of common concern, as prescribed by
the DCI on the advice of the IAC.”
OIR in State feels that
ORE in CIA is duplicating its work and
wishes to confine CIA’s activity only to “national intelligence” and only to
“fields of common concern.” State thinks that “common concern” are items of
interest to two or more agencies and cited as an example “transportation”
and “communications.” The DCI, however, is
often called upon by the President, the NSC,
the JCS and others on a high level for
intelligence estimates which they need. He feels that he must comply with
such requests as expeditiously as possible.
“IV–1. That ICAPS study and prepare
recommendations for consideration by the IAC on the proper allocation of responsibility for
political summaries, both daily and weekly.”
State no longer seemed to feel strongly about the daily and
weekly publications mentioned herein.
3. It is requested, therefore, that we have a Standing Committee Meeting to
consider Mr. Armstrong’s Four
Problems on Tuesday afternoon, 30 August 1949, at 2:00 p.m. in the
Director’s Conference Room on the Ground Floor of the Administration
Building, 2430 E Street, N.W. The discussion at this meeting could be used
to formulate a memorandum showing wherein the other IAC agencies agree or disagree with State’s recommendations.
These data can subsequently be used as part of the reply due the Executive
Secretary of the NSC in answer to his
circular memorandum of July 7th.
Prescott ChildsPrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
397. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Special Operations
(Schow) to the Chief of the
Intelligence Coordinating and Planning Staff, Central Intelligence Agency
(Childs)Source: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 86-B00269R, Box 5. Top Secret.Washington, August 26, 1949.
SUBJECT
The NSC 50 Approval of the Dulles Report
Reference is made to your memorandum dated 22 August 19491 concerning the
above subject. Pursuant to your request, there are set out below appropriate
comments on the last three items mentioned under Section 4 of the circular
memorandum from the DCI dated 12 July
1949.Not found.
1. Coordination of Covert Intelligence Activities in
Occupied Areas.
With regard to this problem action has been taken recently directly with the
Intelligence Division GSUSA to effect a closer coordination of such activity which has resulted
in an appreciable improvement in the situation and a substantial increase of
coordination in both the Far Eastern and European Areas. The ultimate
solution to the problem presented depends, however, in my opinion, upon
appropriate agreement between, first, the IAC agencies and secondly, the National Security Council for an
exact allocation and coordination of all covert intelligence activities in
the areas involved. This agreement and the implementation thereof
necessitate requesting certain basic revisions in NSC Intelligence Directives, particularly in NSCID-2 and NSCID-5. It is recommended that at the proper time the IAC agencies propose to the NSC a revision of these two directives which
will centralize the responsibility for the coordination and procurement of
all covert intelligence in the hands of the DCI both in occupied areas and in all other areas outside of
the United States and its possessions. NSC
ID-5 should, in addition, on recommendation of the IAC Agencies be amended by the National Security Council to
more specifically limit the exceptions (contained therein) to the allocated
responsibility of the DCI for the conduct of
all Federal espionage and counterespionage outside the United States and its
possessions. Specific recommendations in this connection to be approved by
the IAC and presented to the NSC for issuance as amended directives are
presently being considered and will be proposed at the appropriate time by
this office.
2. Coordination of the Handling of Defectors.
As your reference memorandum indicates, the proposed coordination of the
handling of defectors depends to a large extent on the issuance as soon as
possible of the proposed NSCID on
defectors which is being circulated to the IAC Standing Committee for consideration. It is noted that this
proposed NSCID has been under
consideration and in the process of preparation by the interested agencies
for almost a year, during which time various unfortunate incidents involving
the uncoordinated handling of defectors have clearly demonstrated the
absolute necessity for coordination and control in this field. I feel I
should point out in addition that even the issuance by the NSC of the proposed NSCID on defectors as now written cannot be expected to provide
any immediate solution to the problem, inasmuch as before such a solution
can be reached it will be necessary for the IAC agencies and the DCI to
agree on and issue detailed implementing instructions and procedures which,
if the progress of the proposed NSCID is
any standard, may take a number of additional months to complete. [5–1/2 lines of source text not declassified]
3. Increased Emphasis on the
Counterespionage Activities Abroad of CIA and Closer Liaison on
Counterespionage Matters with the FBI.
With regard to the above problem this office has placed increased stress on
the counterespionage function and on counterespionage activity abroad on a continuing basis.
Attention is directed to the proposed order codifying and centralizing the
counterespionage functions and responsibilities of the Office of Special
Operations which has been recommended to the DCI for his approval and which he is presently considering.
Plans and procedures which have been drawn up for an increased emphasis on
counterespionage activity are included in the recommendation which has been
submitted concerning the merger of the covert offices and related functions
of CIA. To an extent, of course, the accomplishment of this increased
emphasis cannot be undertaken until there is some implementation of the
proposed integration of the covert offices and related functions. In
connection with counterespionage activity abroad, appropriate amendment of
NSCID-5 which, as noted above will be
recommended in due course, will permit greater clarity and coordination in
the counterespionage field as well as a more effective fulfillment of the
CIA counterespionage mission.
In connection with the question of closer liaison on counterespionage matters
with the FBI, I feel I should point out that
this liaison and the cooperation attendant thereon have increased
effectively for a considerable period of time and particularly in the past
two years. Obviously the development of the closest possible working
relationship in this regard is not only necessary but highly desirable.
Recommendations for a more orderly centralized control and effectuation of
the liaison with the FBI were recently made
to the Executive but the complete implementation of these recommendations is
again dependent upon the integration of the covert offices and related
functions of CIA. Every effort is being made, of course, not only pursuant
to the recommendations of NSC 50, but
particularly pursuant to the long standing instructions of the DCI, to develop the closest possible
counterespionage liaison with the FBI, and I
feel sure that the appropriate officials of the FBI are in agreement with me that this liaison relationship at
the present time is close, effective, and mutually advantageous.
Robert A. Schow
398. Memorandum From the Deputy Special Assistant (Howe) to the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research:
Lot 58 D 776, Office of Policy Coordination. Confidential.Washington, September 8, 1949.
I understand that a very stiff fight is now going on between
Schow and Wisner as to who will take over the direction of the
reorganized, combined OSO–OPC office. Hilly is
pushing for Schow, but Mr. Webb has entered the fray, quite firmly telling
Hilly that Schow is
unacceptable and telling Wisner that
he cannot resign as he was selected by the Department and is considered the
Department’s choice—at least for OPC. For
the moment the problem seems to be in abeyance, since Mr. Webb is tied up with the British talks.
The situation has the real makings of a jumble, because it is obviously
impossible to get a man big enough to be over Wisner and small enough to be under
Hilly. Furthermore, I do not believe we can hope
for a solution of the State Department insisting on Wisner, and Hilly
resigning on the issue.
My personal view is that it would probably be an excellent thing for
Wisner to take over the new job
and if possible retain Schow in OSO and get, as he is capable of it, an able man to replace him
in OPC.
Again I am a little disturbed that the Department seems to be taking a
position on a CIA matter without informing us—let alone consulting.
FH
399. Memorandum From the Assistant Director for Scientific Intelligence
(Machle) to Director of Central
Intelligence HillenkoetterSource: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 84-T00286R, Box 5,
Folder 1. Top Secret.Washington, September 29, 1949.
SUBJECT
Inability of OSI to Accomplish Its Mission
1. Both the Dulles and Eberstadt Committees expressed particular
concern with respect to the inadequacies of scientific and technical
intelligence and stressed the likelihood of their over-riding importance. As
stated by the Eberstadt
Committee:Not printed. (Ibid.)
“Failure properly to appraise the extent of scientific development in
enemy countries may have more immediate and catastrophic
consequences than failure in any other field of intelligence.”
2. Little has been accomplished toward correcting these inadequacies. They
are high lighted by the almost total failure of conventional intelligence in
estimating Soviet development of an atomic bomb. Important current
inadequacies are summarized below and are discussed in more detail in
Enclosure I:None of the enclosures is
printed.
a.Atomic Warfare (Tab I-A)
The USSR completed an atomic bomb in half the estimated time
required.The rate of Soviet production of atomic bombs must be determined
accurately. On the basis of present knowledge this is impossible.
Therefore, estimates of potential bomb stockpiles have been attempted on
the basis of estimates of total uranium ore available to the USSR. The
probability of error in estimates of domestic USSR supply of uranium ore
is large because they are predicated almost entirely on geologic
reasoning. Similar reasoning has been proved to be in error by a factor
of five in the case of estimates of Satellite uranium mining
operations.
b.Biological Warfare (Tab I-B)
The only defense against BW is timely and accurate intelligence on: Specific agents to be employed.The means for dissemination.Location and capacity of research and production
installations.
With respect to these considerations, nothing is known about
the BW agents under investigation in the USSR; only allusions as to means of
dissemination can be cited; and there is no positive information on research
and production installations.
c.Chemical Warfare (Tab I-C)
Almost no information is available on Soviet development of new CW agents,
particularly nerve gases; nor is reliable information available with respect
to CW preparations in general. Crude estimates are based almost entirely
upon German intelligence from World War II.
d.Electronics (Tab I-D)
Electronic systems, which include radar and communication equipment, are the
means of integrating operations of modern military organizations. Our
knowledge of Soviet developments in communications, navigation,
interception, fire control, and other electronic systems is extremely
limited or non-existent. Most estimates are based upon extrapolations of
knowledge of equipment obtained by the USSR through Lend-Lease or capture
from the Germans.
e.Aircraft (Tab I-E)
In general, knowledge of Soviet aircraft development is limited to
information available with respect to their exploitation of German
equipment. The one exception is the limited intelligence obtainable from
observation of new aircraft displayed at the May Day and Air Force shows. In
particular, information is lacking on night fighter aircraft,
rocket-propelled intercepters, long-range heavy bombers, supersonic research
aircraft, and jet and rocket engines.
f.Guided Missiles (Tab I-F)
Very limited information indicates that the Soviets are continuing the German
developments in guided missiles. However, there is no information as to the
extent of the effort or the progress being made.
g.Medical Intelligence
Medical Intelligence is vital in operations involving AM, BW, CW, RW and, in
fact, in any preparations for military operations. The Eber-stadt Committee
stated that “medical intelligence is virtually non-exist-ent.” There has
been no significant improvement since this statement was made.
h.Basic Scientific Research
In addition to the specific inadequacies of intelligence outlined in the
preceding paragraphs, there is a vast area of ignorance of basic scientific
research in USSR and Satellite countries. Knowledge of scientific progress
is essential to foresee the development of new weapons.
3. The inadequacies in present national scientific intelligence exist because
of conditions both inside and outside CIA.
Conditions Outside CIA
4. The conditions outside CIA which are preventing OSI from accomplishing its
mission are: Refusal of the Departments to recognize CIA as the central
coordinating agency in the national intelligence structure. This
refusal is evidenced by active non-cooperation which is summarized
and documented in Enclosure II.Lack of authority to effect coordination of intelligence
activities through emasculation of the authority of the National
Security Act by the NSCID’s. This
subject is covered admirably in the memorandum from General Counsel
to Executive, subject: “Legal Responsibilities of the Central
Intelligence Agency,” dated 27 September 1949.Not found.Domination of CIA by the departmental intelligence agencies
through the mechanism of the IAC.
5. These conditions can be corrected only if the Departments are forced to
recognize the intent of the National Security Act and the authority granted
CIA thereunder. This can be accomplished only through clear-cut
implementation of the National Security Act. Therefore, it is recommended
that the National Security Council be requested to: Reinstate the authority granted the Director of Central
Intelligence in the directive approved by the National Intelligence
Authority at its 9th meeting on 12 February 1947.See Document 185. The
language quoted was not embodied in an NIA Directive as such but was an “authority” or
“delegation” approved by the NIA
at the meeting and formally entered in the minutes. The NIA rescinded the authority at its
10th meeting on June 26, 1947; see Document
319. This directive provided that the Director
of Central Intelligence “shall operate … as an agent of the
Secretaries of State, War and the Navy … so that his decisions,
orders and directives shall be considered as emanating from
them.…”Readopt the definition of “strategic and national policy
intelligence” approved by the National Intelligence Authority at its
9th meeting, but amended to include “scientific” intelligence. (See
Tab D, Enclosure III.)Revise the NSCID’s in conformity
with the foregoing which should include the elimination of IAC as the “Board of Directors” of
CIA.
Attached hereto as Enclosure III is a suggested memorandum
to the National Security Council incorporating the above
recommendations.
Conditions Inside CIA
6. The underlying condition within CIA which is preventing OSI from
accomplishing its mission is the failure of the collecting offices to recognize that they exist only
to provide services for the producing offices and agencies. As a result,
collection, dissemination and library functions have become ends unto
themselves. This is evidenced by the statement of the AD/OSO that:
“[OSO]Brackets in the source text. must weigh the demands of
all customers and determine priorities for all operations in the
field.” (See Tab N, Enclosure IV.)
7. Because of this situation, OSO has failed
completely to discharge its responsibility for covert collection of
scientific and technical intelligence. The effect of this failure on
specific fields of scientific intelligence is illustrated by references to
OSO in Tabs A, B, G and N of Enclosure
I. A compilation of specific cases and an analysis of organizational and
operational deficiencies of OSO are
contained in Enclosure IV. These deficiencies may be summarized as follows: There is no effective planning of scientific and technical
intelligence operations in OSO nor
any mechanism for relating such planning to the needs for national
scientific intelligence.The position of the scientific staff of OSO as a purely advisory group makes impossible
effective implementation of plans for scientific and technical
intelligence operations.A fallacious concept of operational security dangerously limits
the dissemination of useful intelligence to OSI and prohibits
technical guidance of operations by informed and competent
analysts.
8. In order to provide the positive covert support required by OSI from
OSO, it is recommended that: OSO be directed to collect
scientific and technical information in conformity with the
importance of that information to the national security and to
conduct its operations in accordance with integrated priorities
determined jointly by OSI and ORN.In order to provide day to day guidance by OSI in the collection
of scientific and technical information, controlled direct liaison
be established between OSI and the Foreign Branches of OSO.The qualified staff members and the functions of TGS/OSO be transferred to OSI, in so far as
these functions relate to planning and coordinating technical and
scientific operations, processing requirements for technical and
scientific intelligence information, procuring technical advice for
OSO, and editing scientific and
technical intelligence for dissemination outside CIA.OSO be directed to obtain approval
by AD/OSI, or his specifically designated representative, of the
technical and scientific objectives of any covert operation prior to
its initiation.
9. With respect to OO and OCD, it is recommended that the policies and
functions of these offices be reviewed in order that their operations may
reflect more adequately the guidance of the producing offices and
agencies.
Willard MachlePrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
400. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)Source: Truman Library, Papers
of Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files. Top Secret. Transmitted to the NSC under an October 10 memorandum from
Souers. See the
Supplement.Washington, October 7, 1949.
SUBJECT
Progress Report to NSC on NSC 50, Section 6 “Organization of
CIA”Not found.
REFERENCE
Memorandum of 8 July 1949 from Executive Secretary of the NSCSee Document 385.Paragraph 2 of the above mentioned referenceMemo for the Director of Central Intelligence,
transmitting NSC Action No. 231.
[Footnote in the source text; see footnote 2,
Document 385.] and Section 6 of NSC 50 call for a report to the NSC in 90 days on progress toward
implementation of the recommendations on Organization in Section 6 of
NSC 50.I am now able to report on these recommendations as follows: A plan for integrating OSO,
OPC, and Contact Branch of
OO under single overall
direction in an Operations Division has already been drawn up
and submitted for review to the Departments of Defense and
State, prior to submission to the NSC. Due to the changes entailed in NSC 10/2, the State Department
has requested some time to study this matter before
implementation.With reference to the second factor in the organization about
creating a small Estimates Division and a Research and Reports
Division for recognized fields of common interest, it is
believed that other methods of organization will accomplish the
same concept and objectives. It is thought that good estimates
can be obtained only when closely tied in with research. Plans
for some reorganization within ORE are now being drawn up with this view in
mind.When the plans for a Combined Operations Division (paragraph
(1) above) are approved, the Foreign Documents Branch will be
relocated in an appropriate place in the Agency.As recommended in the NSC 50
report, the Foreign Broadcast Information Branch will not be
included in the proposed Operations Division.The Interdepartmental Coordinating and Planning Staff is a
joint staff responsible only to the Director of Central
Intelligence devoted to the interdepartmental coordination of
intelligence activities. I plan to strengthen it by giving it
more internal CIA duties to better enable it to plan and
coordinate intelligence activities on the policy level. The
Office of Collection and Dissemination, however, will remain an
independent “housekeeping” office performing many centralized
services for the various sections of CIA with regard to
collection and dissemination. It is thought to be neither
necessary nor desirable to combine such operations with policy
planning.R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
401. Letter From Secretary of Defense Johnson to Secretary of State AchesonSource: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.61/10–749. Top
Secret. A handwritten notation on the source text reads: “Reply drafted
S: W.J. Sheppard 10/18/49.” No copy of a reply has
been found.Washington, October 7, 1949.
My Dear Mr. Secretary: At our luncheon on September
23, 1949, we discussed the location and various aspects of certain special
activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. I expressed to you my very
great concern at the present situation, and we both agreed that on an
interim basis we should make special and direct arrangements to provide
policy guidance for these activities.
I am familiar with your arrangements in the State Department whereby Mr.
Kennan serves as your adviser on
these activities, and in accordance with our understanding I am designating
Brigadier General John Magruder,
U.S. Army (Retired), as my special adviser on these activities. He will be
particularly concerned with the subject contained in NSC 10/2, but in addition, and for the purpose of providing the
necessary integration of other interrelated matters, he will concern himself
on my behalf with NSC 4 and NSC 43 series. Your Department and mine under
this arrangement can then proceed to guide these activities in a direction
that we deem mutually desirable, and likewise to seek agreement respecting
an appropriate organizational setting for the activities comprised in NSC 10/2.
The designation of General Magruder
as my policy representative does not alter the previous arrangements for the
Joint Chiefs of Staff representation in NSC
10/2 and NSC 43 matters.
I am also informing the three Secretaries of the military departments, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Executive Secretary, National Security
Council, of my action.
Sincerely yours,
Louis Johnson
402. Memorandum From the Deputy to the Secretary of State’s Special
Assistant for Research and Intelligence (Howe) to the Special Assistant to the Secretary (Sheppard)Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research: Lot 58 D 776, Office of Policy Coordination. Top
Secret.Washington, October 17, 1949.
The agenda, as I understand it, for the meeting with Mr. Webb and Hilly
tomorrow afternoon, is concerned with the plans for cooperation with NAP countries. If this includes intelligence,
as I understand it does, as well as OPC
work, I think that both you and Mr. Webb should be aware that it is a new departure for these
meetings. They have in the past been confined to OPC work.
As I have also discussed with you, Park and I would welcome the broadening of the scope of
these meetings, so that they include the overall guidance through
discussions on OSO (intelligence) as well as
OPC. We feel this for two basic reasons: The organizational set up, both within CIA and within the
Department, and the personality situation within CIA, has led us,
over the past few months, to raising to Mr. Webb’s level and specifically at
these meetings, the general solution to CIA-State problems and the
discussion of plans. This would have equally beneficial results for
intelligence as for OPC.Probably more important is the fact that while the objectives of
intelligence and operations may be different and even conflicting,
the method and procedures are so much alike and so much in common
that the guidance and direction given to one should be with the full
knowledge of the other, at least at the top level. This is somewhat
achieved in the single person of Hilly. It is
not, however, achieved in the Department to date, except in the
person of Mr. Webb. Thus,
Messrs. Kennan and Joyce are not able to be kept as
fully informed on intelligence matters pertaining to CIA as they
must be to handle the operational liaison with CIA and conversely we
in R have not been able to handle as
efficiently as perhaps we might, the intelligence matters, for lack
of information on OPC.
I can think of examples, both substantive and procedural, which bear this
out. Our lack of knowledge of any efforts in Albania has, I think, limited
our usefulness, whereas we have been useful and will undoubtedly be more so
with respect to China as a result of these meetings. Procedurally we are not
able to deal in the full interest of the Department with the OSO cover policies when we are wholly
unfamiliar with the OPC cover policy.
In sum then, I would want you to be aware that the meeting tomorrow
apparently will deal with intelligence for the first time, rather than
simply OPC operations, and that R welcomes this innovation.
If you agree with the above, I suggest that you and Mr. Webb give consideration to asking Admiral Hillenkoetter to bring Colonel
Schow, Director of OSO, to the meeting tomorrow, as well as Mr. Wisner.
Fisher HowePrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature and typed initials below.
P.S. I think an excellent example of where intelligence and operations
must be carried on with the full knowledge of each other, namely in our
policies of cooperation and collaboration with the British. It is my
understanding that the cooperative arrangements with the British have
been worked out almost entirely under the auspices of the Department,
whereas no attempt has been made to give the intelligence effort of CIA
guidance on this matter. S/P and R are apparently unfamiliar with the
policies of the Department with respect to these two phases of a very
similar problem.
F.H.
403. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Intelligence Advisory CommitteeSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Records, Job 86-B00269R, Box 5. No classification marking. Addressed to
the Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence, Department of
State; the Director of Intelligence, Army General Staff; the Director of
Naval Intelligence; the Director of Air Force Intelligence; the Director
of Intelligence, Atomic Energy Commission; the Deputy Director, Joint
Intelligence Group, Joint Staff; and the Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation.Washington, November 1, 1949.
SUBJECT
State Department’s Four Problems
REFERENCE
Circular Memo to IAC, August 5,
1949See the source note, Document 393.Subsequent to the IAC meeting which
decided that the Standing Committee should give consideration to the
Four Problems presented by
Mr. Armstrong in connection with
the implementation of NSC 50 (Dulles Report Recommendations), two
meetings were held to discuss the recommendations in the four
papersSee the enclosures to Document 393. which were
submitted.All members of the Standing Committee, except the State Member, are in
agreement with the report. (Encl. A) The report preferred by the State
Member is also enclosed. (Encl. B)If the IAC Members wish to have the
Coordination, Operations and Policy Staff (formerly ICAPS) prepare a report on the Four
Problems as presented by State, I shall be glad to have this
done.R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
Enclosure ASecret.Washington, September 23, 1949.
REPORT ON STATE’S FOUR PROBLEMS, FROM ALLSTANDING COMMITTEE
MEMBERS EXCEPT STATE’S
Problem I—Coordination of Intelligence Activities
In general, all Standing Committee members are in agreement with
Mr. Armstrong’s
Recommendations I–1, 2, and 3 pertaining to ICAPS and the Standing
Committee.The Department of Defense members of the Standing Committee,
however, consider that the functions, responsibilities, and
membership of ICAPS, and the
Standing Committee should be as follows:
ICAPS
Should be composed of full-time members contributed by the
agencies represented on the IAC.Should be under the direction of and responsible to the Director
of Central Intelligence.Should have, as one of its primary responsibilities, the
accomplishment of staff work in connection with the development and
presentation of policies
and procedures for the production and coordination of intelligence
by the various agencies represented on the IAC. In matters of this sort the objective of ICAPS should be the production of an
unbiased, comprehensive presentation or report covering all aspects
of a subject. This it should be able to do because of the wide
variety in training, experience, and general background of its
members.Should function as a secretariat for the IAC and the Standing Committee of the IAC.Should perform such other functions as the Director of Central
Intelligence may direct.
The Standing Committee of the IAC
Should be composed of at least one representative from each IAC agency.Should review, on behalf of the IAC, such matters as may be referred to it for action
by the IAC or the IAC Secretariat (ICAPS). Normally all staff work on
such matters would be accomplished by ICAPS prior to submission of items to the SC/IAC or the IAC.Could then direct its action primarily toward the following
objectives: Presentation and discussion of revisions which SC/IAC members might consider
desirable, from the standpoint of the agencies they
represent.Thorough indoctrination of all SC/IAC members in all aspects of the matter under
consideration including the views of other SC/IAC members and hence the
probable recommendations they will make to their respective
Directors when the matter comes up for consideration by the
IAC itself. (There
should be no formal voting by the SC/IAC and it should be clearly understood that
the views expressed by SC/IAC members will not necessarily be the same on
any particular subject as those presented by their Directors
when action is taken at the IAC level.)The Department of Defense members of the Standing Committee
recommend that the IAC approve the
substance of the above paragraphs and recommend to the DCI that it be published in appropriate
form for the information and guidance of all concerned.Department of Defense members of the Standing Committee also
recommend that the remainder (I–4, II, III, and IV) of the
Department of State proposals be referred, as a first step, to
ICAPS for appropriate staff
action.Nevertheless the remainder of Mr. Armstrong’s four problems were discussed. The
Standing Committee agreed that the wording of Recommendation I-4 was
confusing and that it should be separated into two paragraphs to
read: “4. That CIA establish an Estimates Division in accordance
with the recommendations of the Dulles Report,” and that there be a new paragraph 5 reading: “5. That
CIA fulfill its coordinating responsibilities in respect to
intelligence production in accordance with the following
principles:—.”However, only State wishes to have established an Estimates
Division (new paragraph I–4), as the Department of Defense Agencies
dissented and proposed that the subject be referred to ICAPS for further study. The CIA
representative also dissented on the ground that the Director does
not desire to have a new, separate “Estimates Division.” AEC and the FBI abstained. The Department of Defense Agencies, in
regard to the new paragraph I–5 mentioned above, recommended that
the principles (a) to (f) in Mr. Armstrong’s recommendations be referred to ICAPS for further study. State and
AEC approved of all of these
principles and FBI abstained. The
CIA position at the meeting, with regard to paragraph (e), was that
the obligations of this agency would not permit it to adjust its
production in accordance with the departments’ “existing programs;”
nor could CIA agree that the assignment of personnel to IAC agencies from CIA, reference (f),
was a part of its coordinating responsibilities.
Problem II—Production of National Intelligence
The Department of Defense Agencies and the AEC accepted in principle State’s recommendations for
Problem II. The FBI abstained, and CIA
rejected the principles expressed in Recommendation 1 (a) and 1 (c).
Problem III—Research and Reports
It was agreed that Recommendation III-1 should have deleted the last
clause and be changed to read: “That, aside from National Intelligence,
CIA will produce intelligence reports only in fields of common concern,”
and that Recommendation III-2 should have added to it “for further
approval by the NSC.” With these changes
included, the State and Defense members agreed to the recommendations,
FBI abstaining. CIA maintained it
performs “services” of common concern (FBIB, etc.) but found
Recommendation 1, as written, too restrictive.
Problem IV—Political Summaries
The members of the Standing Committee agreed to this recommendation.
FBI abstained.
Recommendations by the Standing Committee
As the result of its considerations of Mr. Armstrong’s four papers, the
concensus of opinion of the Standing Committee was: That Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 of Paper I be accepted in
principle as elaborated by the Defense Department
members.That new Recommendations 4 and 5 (see paragraph 5 above)
of Paper I and all recommendations of Papers II, III, and IV
be referred to ICAPS for
appropriate action.
Enclosure BSecret.Washington, October 25, 1949.
REPORT ON STATE’S FOUR PROBLEMS FROM THESTATE MEMBER OF THE
STANDING COMMITTEE
It is our view that all four papers should be referred to COAPS for further study, inasmuch as the
points at issue have not been sufficiently clarified to permit IAC action. I would suggest that a report
to the IAC along the following lines be
substituted for the draft included in your memorandum.
The Standing Committee has met twice to consider the four papers
submitted with Mr. Armstrong’s letter of August 2, 1949. Although agreement
was reached on a number of the recommendations made in these papers,
it is believed that the divergent views on the remainder cannot be
clarified without further staff work.The Standing Committee therefore recommends: That the papers be referred to COAPS for preparation of a staff study which
will clearly indicate the areas of agreement and isolate and
define the issues and areas on which there is disagreement,
marshalling the arguments on each side;That the study be completed in time for action at the
November meeting of the IAC.
404. Memorandum From the Acting Executive Secretary (Lay) to the National Security CouncilSource: Truman
Library, Papers of Harry S.
Truman, President’s Secretary’s Files. Top Secret. A copy
was sent to Hillenkoetter.Washington, December 14, 1949.
SUBJECT
The Central Intelligence Agency and National Organization for
Intelligence
REFERENCES
Memo for NSC from Executive Secretary,
same subject, dated October 10, 1949, with enclosed Progress Report by
the Director of Central IntelligenceSee
Document 400 and the source note
thereto.NSC 50Document 384.NSC Actions Nos. 237 and 231Regarding NSC
Action No. 231, see footnote 2, Document
385. NSC Action No. 237 is
not printed. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273,
Records of the National Security Council, Record of Actions, Box
55)
The enclosed memorandum by the Under Secretary of State with respect to the
reference Progress Report by the Director of Central Intelligence on the
implementation of paragraph 6 of NSC 50 is
circulated herewith for the information of the National Security
Council.
In accord with the suggestion in the last paragraph of the enclosure the
Director of Central Intelligence is being requested to submit a further
report on the organization he plans to adopt in furtherance of paragraph 6
of NSC 50 when that has been determined,
including a review of other steps contemplated to achieve the objectives
outlined in paragraph 5 of NSC 50.
James S. Lay, Jr.
EnclosureTop Secret.Washington, December 13, 1949.
Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State
(Webb) to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)
SUBJECT
The Central Intelligence Agency and National Organization for
Intelligence, NSC 50 and Progress
Report on NSC 50, October 7,
1949
The receipt of the Progress Report of the CIA is acknowledged.Memo for NSC from
Executive Secretary, same subject, dated October 10, 1949. [Footnote
in the source text; see footnote 1
above.] Although it is noted that no action has been
requested by the Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of
State makes the following comment on the report, specifically with
reference to paragraph 2 (2).
In paragraph 6 of NSC 50, the Council
approved the recommendation of the Survey Group that out of the present
Office of Reports and Estimates of CIA “there should be created (a) a
small estimates division which would draw upon and review the
specialized intelligence product of the departmental agencies in order
to prepare coordinated national intelligence estimates and (b) a
research and reports division to accomplish central research in, and
coordinated production of, intelligence in recognized fields of common
interest.” The purpose of this organizational change was to facilitate
the accomplishment of the objectives set forth in paragraph 5 of NSC 50, dealing with the production of
national intelligence. The Council recognized, however, that there might
be other methods of organization which would accomplish the same
objectives.
The report indicates that the Director has elected to adopt an
alternative method of organization to accomplish the objectives outlined
in paragraph 5, but that the exact nature of this reorganization has not
been fully determined.
In view of the responsibility of the National Security Council for the
implementation of NSC 50, perhaps it
would be helpful to all concerned if the Director reported further on
the organization he plans to adopt in furtherance of paragraph 6 when
that has been determined. Such a report might extend to a review of
other steps contemplated to achieve the objectives outlined in paragraph
5.
James E. WebbPrinted from a copy that
indicates Webb signed the
original.
405. Central Intelligence Agency MemorandumSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/HC-80. Secret.Washington, December 21, 1949.
STATE’S FOUR PAPERS
(“COAPS” is substituted for
“ICAPS” throughout this paper after 1
October 1949)
Background Statement
On 2 August 1949, Mr. W. Park Armstrong,
Jr., Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for
Research and Intelligence, transmitted to the Director of Central
Intelligence four papersDocument 393. containing recommendations for
implementation “at the earliest feasible time,” which he wished to have
considered by the Intelligence Advisory Committee. The DCI submitted copies of these papers to the
IAC members by circular memorandum
dated 5 August 1949.See the source note,
Document 393.A preliminary examination of the State proposals was made within CIA
prior to the Intelligence Advisory Committee meeting of 19 August 1949
at which it was decided “to pass (the four papers) on to the Standing
Committee to see what can be worked out and refer them back to the
IAC members.”On 24 August 1949, the State Department member of ICAPS met with Mr. Allen
Evans to clarify certain aspects of the presentation made
by the State Department.See Document 395.On 30 August 1949 the IAC Standing
Committee met to consider the State Department proposals. The goal of
this meeting, which was not realized, was to evaluate the State
recommendations and express Standing Committee endorsement or lack of
endorsement on each one. Much discussion of substantially differing
viewpoints dissipated progress at this meeting.On 8 September 1949 the IAC Standing
Committee met again, to consider a draft of a report to the Intelligence
Advisory Committee on State Department’s Problem I.—Coordination. At the
outset of this meeting the Department of Defense members submitted for
the first time a prepared paper expressing their views on the Department
of State proposals. Basically the Defense paper supported many of the
State recommendations and asked that the entire series of problems be
examined and suggested solutions be offered by ICAPS.A report on these Four Problems was prepared as a result of these
discussions, and on 1 November 1949 the Director of Central Intelligence
sent to the IAC two reportsSee Document 403 and
enclosures.—one of which was concurred in by all of the
Standing Committee except the State member, who recommended in the
second separate short report that the proposals of the Department of
State be referred to COAPS “for
preparation of a staff study which will: “clearly indicate the areas of agreement and“isolate and define the issues and areas on which there is
disagreement.”A staff report by COAPS on the Four
Problems of State met with the endorsement of most of the IAC members in response to the DCI memorandum of 1 November 1949.
Paper I
PROBLEM I—COORDINATION OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
State Recommendation 1:
“That COAPS serve as a joint staff
under the direction of, and responsible to, the DCI, be composed of members contributed by the several
agencies on a fulltime basis, but not ‘representing’ the agency, and be
headed by a chief who will also be the Executive Secretary of the IAC.”
Discussion:
This recommendation describes the present situation as regards the Chief
of Coordination, Operations, and Policy Staff and the member from the
Department of State. The “joint staff” concept has not been clearly
established in the case of the members contributed by the military
departments. The words “Executive Secretary” should be changed, however,
to “Secretariat” to cover the staff work essential for promoting
efficiency at the IAC meetings and at
the same time to prevent conflict with the concept of single
responsibility in operations to the Director of Central
Intelligence.
Conclusion:
The functions of COAPS, as part of the
CIA organization, have been established and clearly enumerated by the
Director of Central Intelligence. These duties cover the viewpoints expressed by
the Department of State.
Recommendation:
That a memorandum from the DCI to the
IAC members indicate that COAPS, as his staff, will, among other
duties, accomplish the staff work on all problems being brought to the
attention of the Intelligence Advisory Committee.
State Recommendation 2:
“That matters of coordination be referred to COAPS for study and recommendation by the DCI, or through the DCI by the IAC, but that
COAPS itself may submit to the
DCI, or through the DCI to the IAC, recommendations which it considers appropriate for
consideration.”
Discussion:
This recommendation describes accurately a relationship whereby the
Coordination, Operations, and Policy Staff serves the DCI as a staff unit, recognizing that
problems may be referred to the unit for staff study and that COAPS may itself initiate action when
required.
Inherent in the wording of this recommendation, however, is the “Board of
Directors” philosophy—giving little or no recognition to the principle
of “forthright initiative and leadership” of the Director of Central
Intelligence in the coordination of intelligence activities. NSC 50 has confirmed that the IAC is to function as an advisory committee.
Conclusions:
Although COAPS works as a staff
unit of the DCI, the Intelligence
Advisory Committee agencies must recognize, if progress is to be
achieved, that COAPS is the only
permanently established unit of organization available for
staff analysis and formulation of appropriate
recommendations;that the DCI is not
looking to COAPS for only
favorable answers on any problems under examination and that
the agencies should not require similar partiality;that COAPS, composed of
individuals contributed by the participating agencies, can
and does achieve objectivity in its evaluation of
problems.COAPS should assume more
progressive initiative in exploring areas of difficulty in the
coordination process and in preparing adequately items for
Intelligence Advisory Committee consideration.
Recommendations:
That a memorandum be sent by the DCI to the IAC members
notifying them that COAPS will be
available to help appraise and recommend solutions to problems of
intelligence coordination.That COAPS assume responsibility
for preparation of the items which are to be placed on the agenda of
the Intelligence Advisory Committee meetings and in so doing COAPS be guided by the principle that
with adequate prior staff study it is not necessary that all such
items be first referred to the Standing Committee before
consideration by the Intelligence Advisory Committee itself.
State Recommendation 3:
“That the representation on the Standing Committee be the same as that of
the IAC, and that the Standing Committee
serve as a subordinate or staff committee to the IAC to consider on an interagency basis, problems referred
to it by the IAC.”
Discussion:
From a practical standpoint the Intelligence Advisory Committee Standing
Committee cannot serve the Intelligence Advisory Committee as a “staff
committee” since it has no permanent continuous working status. The main
advantage of the existence of the Intelligence Advisory Committee
Standing Committee is the element of time-saving to CIA in securing
departmental viewpoints in round-table discussions on interdepartmental
problems. Thus, in producing staff studies for the Intelligence Advisory
Committee, COAPS is enabled to get
agency reaction on these studies before putting them in final form for
IAC action. Hence, the Standing
Committee is the proving ground for testing the Staff Study, but in this
process the Standing Committee should not be considered a barrier or
layer between the Director of Central Intelligence and the Intelligence
Advisory Committee. Accordingly, formality of procedure, demanding
official actions such as motions and votes are nonessential in Standing
Committee meetings. The adoption of parliamentary procedures in such
meetings would serve no purpose since the Standing Committee,
representatives of an advisory committee, can formulate no binding
decisions.
Since meetings of any committee are non-productive unless some prior
analysis is made of the problems to be discussed, the only items which
the IAC should refer to the IAC Standing Committee “to consider on an
interagency basis” are those upon which some staff work is already
performed to clearly define the issue involved. This may have been done
by the IAC agency introducing a
particular problem. In most instances, however, problems requiring
consideration “on an interagency basis,” being beyond the pale of
interest of any one department fall within the coordinating
responsibility of the Director of Central Intelligence, and, as such,
should be referred to him for adequate and proper consideration. In such
“consideration” he will, of course, test his tentative findings with the
Intelligence Advisory Committee before arriving at a decision.
The wording in the recommendation limits the kind of problems, that the
Standing Committee may consider, to those “referred to it by the IAC.” This restriction serves no useful
purpose.
Recommendation:
That the Recommendation of the Department of State be accepted if changed
to read as follows:
“That the representation on the Standing Committee be the same as
that of the Intelligence Advisory Committee, and that the
Standing Committee consider all problems referred to it on an
interagency basis so as to speed up the attainment of
departmental views on interdepartmental issues.”
State Recommendation 4:
“That CIA fulfill its coordinating responsibility on research programs
primarily through the Estimates Division, whose primary function should
be such coordination, in accordance with the following principles:”
Discussion:
The primary function of any “Estimates Division” is to prepare
intelligence estimates. Efficient work in this field will bring about a
certain degree of coordination as a by-product. However, whether or not
CIA establishes an organizational unit to be known as the “Estimates
Division” is an internal decision to be made by the Director of Central
Intelligence.
“Research,” as such, is an undertaking very essential in producing an
intelligence estimate and “research program” at the most is a segment of
the total production function. CIA’s coordinating responsibility goes
far beyond the purview of just “research,” embracing also coordination
in many other fields; e.g., collection, dissemination.
How CIA carries on its coordinating responsibility is to be determined by
the Director of Central Intelligence, and hence these “principles” of
conduct are at the most suggestions for DCI to consider.
Conclusion:
Since the general subject being considered in State’s first “Problem” is
“Coordination of Intelligence Activities,” the lead paragraph of
Recommendation 4 should be reworded to express more accurately CIA’s
position.
Recommendations:
That it be recognized that the following principles are not
all-inclusive.That State Recommendation 4 be reworded to read:
“That CIA fulfill its coordinating responsibility in
accordance with the following primary principles;”
First Principle
State Recommendation 4a:
“CIA will constitute itself the center of information on all U.S. foreign
intelligence activities, including current research intelligence
projects;”
Discussion:
The word “activities” places a false limitation on the scope of CIA
functions. Knowledge of “all U.S. foreign intelligence” is sufficiently
general to include information on activities.
As a central producer of national intelligence and as a coordinator of
all intelligence in the federal structure, CIA should be the recognized
repository of all information pertaining to intelligence undertakings
planned, in progress, and completed in the IAC agencies.
To achieve this objective the IAC
agencies themselves must take the initiative in maintaining strong
world-wide collection facilities and in guaranteeing the free flow of
raw information, finished departmental products, and other pertinent
data to the Central Intelligence Agency.
Conclusion:
To comply with the mission of CIA, this statement of principle should be
reworded so as to be more inclusive of CIA’s total responsibility.
Recommendation:
That this statement of principle be accepted if reworded to read:
“CIA will constitute itself the center of information on all U.S.
foreign intelligence matters, including agency programs,
projects, reports, and activities of all types, and also on the
nature and scope of the basic supporting data.”
Second Principle
State Recommendation 4b:
“CIA will have free access to the plans and programs of the several
intelligence agencies, subject to overall departmental regulation;”
Discussion:
CIA’s authority to comprehend fully the agency intelligence activities
and functions is circumscribed seriously by the present wording of NSCID 1, wherein it is specified that
CIA may see only “intelligence materials” and these with the express
permission of the department.
The last phase of the principle, “subject to overall departmental
regulation,” could hamper progress if it were applied too generally.
There is no objection to its usage if meant to cover only the security regulations of each department and
agency.
Conclusions:
The general acceptance of this principle by all IAC agencies would strengthen and
facilitate the responsibility of CIA in the field of
interdepartmental coordination.The principle might well be clarified so that there will be no
misunderstanding regarding the kind of departmental regulations
which are meant to apply.
Recommendations:
That this principle be adopted by CIA for IAC application.That the IAC members instruct
their organizations in adequate detail regarding full recognition of
this principle at all levels throughout each agency.
Third Principle
State Recommendation 4c:
“CIA will recognize that it should have active liaison responsibility to
other agencies as well as receiving liaison from those agencies;”
Discussion:
The goal expressed by this recommendation is practical and worthwhile,
and is a responsibility concomitant with the “free access” thoughts
expressed in the last proposed principle. The “free flow” idea should be
a two-way endeavor applicable to persons as well as materials and
information. This interagency liaison should exist at policy levels as
well as at working levels.
Conclusion:
The efficiency of present liaison functions between the IAC agencies and CIA is a subject worthy of
proper examination.
Recommendations:
That CIA examine the condition of present liaison activities
between CIA and the IAC agencies,
andBased upon the findings of such examination, issue the necessary
operating instructions.
Fourth Principle
State Recommendation 4d:
“CIA will effect coordination as much by positive action in stimulating
appropriate intelligence effort as by negative action in preventing
undesirable duplications;”
Discussion:
This principle ties in with the “forthright initiative and leadership”
concept of the Dulles Report and
NSC 50. Its adoption by CIA and its
unqualified recognition and acceptance by the IAC agencies would strengthen the administrative role of
the Director of Central Intelligence in effecting coordination.
Conclusions:
The “positive action” approach is undoubtedly the more acceptable
method for stronger coordination efforts.To work properly, this principle must be accepted fully by the
Intelligence Advisory Committee agencies so as not to raise a
question of “interference” with departmental undertaking when the
DCI takes action in overall
planning to stimulate “appropriate intelligence” efforts in the
agencies.
Recommendation:
That this principle be adopted to guide CIA’s actions in all fields of
coordination, after receiving agency guarantees of full cooperation.
Fifth Principle
State Recommendation 4e:
“CIA will recognize that requests for intelligence other than national
intelligence, as defined, shall be forwarded for action to the agencies
in accordance with established allocations and existing programs;”
Discussion:
Requests coming to CIA are for intelligence relating to the national
security, and, as such, are not earmarked “national,” “departmental,” or
any other category. Neither does the requestor specify that the desired
intelligence estimate must be prepared initially by any IAC department or agency. Accordingly, even
though the request on CIA may ask for an intelligence product which is
very largely political, this does not mean that CIA’s responsibility to
the requestor is fully discharged by merely calling upon the Department
of State for the production of the estimate.
Usually a departmental intelligence estimate will not be allowed to go
beyond the limits of the department unless the findings agree with
policy. Hence all departmental intelligence products are framed in
departmental policy viewpoints, and, as such, lose their objectivity
when judged by intelligence standards.
Regardless of this deficiency, however, CIA utilizes departmental
intelligence products and seeks departmental concurrences in the task of
producing national intelligence estimates. The urgency of the request
will determine whether the work thereunder falls into the category of
“normal,” “urgent,” or “exceptional” as specified in DCI 3/1.
Conclusions:
“National Intelligence, as defined” being the basis for this
recommendation by the Department of State, we should give
consideration to improving the definition of National
Intelligence.The IAC agencies should realize: That CIA was so constituted, and so placed in the
Executive Structure to enable it to prepare national
intelligence estimates in a completely objective manner,
without necessity for reference to, or deference to,
established policy.Because of this important factor, CIA, in producing
national intelligence estimates, has per se production
responsibility even in the fields of dominant interest which
are allocated by directive to the departments.
Recommendations:
That NSC ID 3 be amended to
include a new definition of National Intelligence as indicated in
this report.That DCI 3/1 and DCI 3/2 then be scrutinized in the
light of an amended NSCID 3 for
proper emphasis and meaning.
Sixth Principle
State Recommendation 4f:
“CIA will recognize that coordination also implies assistance to the
agencies in meeting their responsibilities, including in some cases the
temporary assignments of personnel to the agencies.”
Discussion:
The suggested norm that “coordination also implies assistance” is an
unsound thought for general application. There may be, and have been
exceptional instances, when it was expedient to give the departments and
agencies some personnel or financial aid. The NIS program is an example of this type. However, it must be
recognized clearly that this help was not to be considered a precedent
for other undertakings, but was rather an exception to the normal
operating practices of CIA.
Conclusion:
This principle should be rejected as a substantially unsound
interpretation of the function of coordination.
Recommendations:
That CIA non-concur in this principle and,Whenever an IAC agency is given
financial or other assistance by CIA it should be understood clearly
that a particular purpose is to be served by
such act, and that CIA does not prepare, and could not properly
prepare, a budget to take care of anything except “contingency”
cases of this nature.
Paper II
Problem II—Production of National Intelligence
State Recommendation 1a:
“1. That IAC agree with respect to the
production of national intelligence estimates:
“a. That national intelligence applies only to intelligence which
is interdepartmental in substance;”
Discussion:
This recommendation expresses the State viewpoint on the fundamental
differences between State and CIA regarding the production of national
intelligence. CIA feels that national intelligence cannot be defined
exclusively in terms of being interdepartmental in substance, but that
the definition must embrace also the thought (based on the National
Security Act of 1947) that any intelligence (regardless of category)
“relating to the national security” is national intelligence, for which
the Director of Central Intelligence, as the sole objective producer of
intelligence in the federal government, not hemmed in by departmental
policy prejudices, must assume full production responsibility.
In examining the present definition of National Intelligence in NSCID 3 many are prone to overlook the
second and shorter definition of National Intelligence appearing in
paragraph 4 of NSCID 1, wherein it is
stated:
“The Director of Central Intelligence shall produce intelligence
relating to the national security, hereafter referred to as
national intelligence.”
Conclusions:
The viewpoint expressed in this recommendation is too narrow to
cover the essential components of National Intelligence, andThe Director of Central Intelligence should not concur in the
concept that this recommendation be placed before the IAC for agreement.
Recommendation:
1. That this State recommendation be rejected as inapplicable and
inappropriate as it fails to recognize the responsibilities imposed by
law.
State Recommendation 1b:
“1. That IAC agree with respect to the
production of national intelligence estimates:
“b. That national intelligence should be developed with a maximum
use of departmental facilities and minimum duplication of
departmental intelligence activities;”
Discussion:
This recommendation completely overlooks the fact that much of the
“duplication of departmental intelligence activities” exists between
departmental agencies themselves. Though “duplication,” as construed
generally, is a wasteful endeavor, the thought should never be used when
applied to intelligence production without being modified by the word
“undesirable.” Though each agency of the Intelligence Advisory
Committee, including the Central Intelligence Agency, has had allocated
to it by National Security Council Directive a field of dominant
interest, “it is recognized that the staff intelligence of each of the
departments must be broader in scope
(underscoring supplied) than any allocation of collection responsibility
or recognition of dominant interest might indicate.”
A second grave weakness in the recommendation is that the words “maximum
use of departmental facilities” convey the erroneous notion that each
department should prepare “its” section of a national intelligence
estimate, or that national intelligence is merely the combining or
stapling together of departmental intelligence products.
The principle that CIA should recognize the departmental facilities and
should look to them for assistance whenever possible is worthwhile as
long as this is done in a realistic manner.
Conclusions:This recommendation should not be accepted as written until
the IAC agencies understand and
accept uniformly the meaning of “National Intelligence.”The IAC agencies should
recognize that National Intelligence is not merely the editing
and joining of departmental products, neither is it just the blending
and merging of departmental viewpoints but rather is an overall
objective evaluation analysis which
transcends the competency, capacity, and policies of any
department of government.CIA should never subscribe to any recommendation or principle
which overlooks the reality that “duplication” in the
intelligence field, when within reasonable bounds, is more a
blessing than a curse because of the adage that “Two minds are
better than one.”
Recommendations:
That CIA not accept this recommendation until the basic problem of
definition of “National Intelligence” is solved.That even then this recommendation be rewritten before acceptance
so that: “Duplication” be modified to read “undesirable
duplication,” andThe “undesirable duplication” concept be understood to
apply among the IAC agencies
themselves as well as to the relationship between CIA and
the agencies.That the IAC agencies understand
clearly that any such recommendation as this lays a positive burden
on the agencies themselves to expedite an efficient and complete
“free flow” of departmental raw information and finished
departmental intelligence products to the Central Intelligence
Agency.
State Recommendation 1c:
“1. That IAC agree with respect to the
production of national intelligence estimates:
“c. That except in crisis situations no step be taken in the
preparation of national estimates before consultation with
appropriate agencies.”
Discussion:
This recommendation misplaces the emphasis of the basic fact that the
Central Intelligence Agency is the sole unit of
government charged with the production of National Intelligence. In
carrying out this function CIA cannot seek direct or indirect prior
permission or approval from any of the IAC agencies. CIA assumes full responsibility for the
content and format of all national intelligence estimates, and hence CIA
has to determine the mode to follow in the production of each such
estimate.
However, CIA acknowledges the benefit to be achieved by tapping agency
facilities. DCI 3/1 establishes clearly
what shall be done in “normal,” “urgent” and “exceptional” circumstances
to seek agency participation in the production of national intelligence
estimates. Agency participation even in crisis situations is now in the
process of being formalized.
Conclusions:
To follow this recommendation would put fetters on the operations
of the Central Intelligence Agency, by subordinating the function of
producing National Intelligence to the policies and procedures of
the departmental activities.In showing the proper spirit of cooperation with the Intelligence
Advisory Committee agencies, CIA has already gone further than the
exception called for in this recommendation by asking for
departmental comments even in “crisis situations.”To meet its deadline for furnishing a national intelligence
estimate to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others, the Central Intelligence
Agency cannot be dependent upon departmental promises of completion
which are subject to the determination of departmental policy
officials.
Recommendations:
That this State recommendation be rejected as being at variance
with the mission and objectives of the Central Intelligence
Agency.That after “National Intelligence” has been understood, the IAC agencies recognize fully their
position in the development of the national intelligence
products.
State Recommendation 2:
“That the IAC discuss and approve all
national intelligence estimates on which there is substantial
disagreement among the agencies or upon the request of a member.”
Discussion:
This recommendation has two major weaknesses: The IAC is looked upon as a
Board of Directors to assume ultimate responsibility for the
content of CIA’s products—i.e., National Intelligence estimates,
andThe recommendation is contrary to the conclusions of the
NSC with respect to the
Dulles Report. NSC 50 stated that the Director and
the IAC should not be bound by the concept of collective
responsibility because this would inevitably reduce coordinated
national intelligence to the lowest common denominator among the
agencies concerned.
Furthermore, there is no cogent reason why it should always be necessary
to discuss dissents at IAC Meetings. The
controlling factor for discussing national intelligence estimates at
IAC Meetings should be the
importance attached to the need for such discussion by any member of the
IAC, rather than the mere existence
of a difference of opinion as to the conclusions of the estimate.
We must recognize, however, that our present system on agency
concurrences does not achieve the same end as would be derived by simultaneous collective
discussion. Thus, some sympathetic consideration should be given to the
fact that collective discussion, rather than bringing out a weak “common
denominator” of thought, might, if adequately staffed, add to the
potency of the majority findings, might eliminate minority dissents
without weakening the major conclusions, or might evolve new and even
strengthened judgments on the premise under consideration.
Conclusions:
The recommended action is too broad and sweeping in calling for
Intelligence Advisory Committee discussion on “all national
intelligence estimates upon which there is substantial
disagreement….”IAC discussion should not be
discouraged, but should be premised on the need as desired by any
one member rather than on the existence of a substantial dissenting
opinion.
Recommendations:
That the State recommendation be reworded to read:
“That the IAC discuss
estimates upon the request of a member; provided that, in
the opinion of the requesting member, there is a substantive
and important fault in the estimate to be discussed.”
That the recommendation as reworded be accepted.
State Recommendation 3:
“That COAPS review and make
recommendations for any revision of procedures for the production of
coordinated national estimates in crisis situations, such procedures to
be, as far as possible, in accordance with the principles outlined in
existing NSCID’s, NSC 50 and Recommendation 1 above.
Discussion:
COAPS studied the need for a formal
procedure to govern in crisis situations, and drafted and sent to the
IAC agencies a proposed DCI on this subject. The Army and some
other members wished to have the Army’s phraseology as an amendment to
NSCID No. 1, so the agreed-upon
substance has been referred to the NSC
to determine the method of issuance.
Conclusion:
It is thought that the objective of the State recommendation has now been
reached.
Recommendation:
No further action is required until a reply is received from the NSC.
Paper III
Problem III—Research and Reports
State Recommendation 1:
“That, aside from national intelligence, CIA will produce intelligence
reports only in fields of common concern, as prescribed by the DCI on the advice of the IAC.”
Discussion:
This recommendation conflicts with the view contained in 4e of State
Paper I, which says that CIA will accomplish nothing beyond what is known as “National Intelligence.” If
“National Intelligence” is redefined in adequate fashion this State
recommendation would apparently cause no restrictive limitation on the
production responsibility of CIA. However, appearances are sometimes
deceptive and such would be the case in this instance. The Director of
Central Intelligence does not have authority to prescribe fields of
common concern, nor does the IAC. The
National Security Act is most specific in stating that CIA shall
“perform, for the benefit of existing intelligence agencies, such
additional services of common concern as the National
Security Council determines can be more efficiently
accomplished centrally;” and furthermore that CIA shall “perform such
other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the
national security as the National Security Council may
from time to time direct.” (Underscoring suppliedPrinted here in italics.) The recommendation
also restates the “Board of Directors’” philosophy that the Central
Intelligence Agency shall undertake what is prescribed by the
Intelligence Advisory Committee.
Conclusions:This State recommendation is too restrictive as the Director
of Central Intelligence must comply with requests from the
President, the National Security Council, and others.This State recommendation is erroneous in content by ascribing
a responsibility to the DCI and
the Intelligence Advisory Committee which belongs, by law, to
the National Security Council.
Recommendation:
1. That the State recommendation be rejected.
State Recommendation 2:
“That, on a priority basis, COAPS
prepare for consideration in IAC
recommendations on the delineations of fields of common concern.”
Discussion:
The “fields of common concern” are those areas of production which do not
fall wholly into the allocated responsibility of any one department or
agency. Thus under NSCID 3 “Economic,
Scientific, and Technological Intelligence” are assigned to “Each agency
in accordance with its respective needs.”
Since the issuance of NSCID 3, a
permanent interdepartmental Scientific Intelligence Committee has been
established after long delays under DCI
3/3 “to plan, support and coordinate the production of scientific
intelligence as it affects the national security.” By this action the
scientific and technological “fields of common concern” have not only
been delineated, but have also been put under coordination control.
Conclusions:
Best coordination in fields of common concern is not achieved by
mere “delineation” of the fields.Continuous problems of coordination exist in those fields.The precedent of establishing the Scientific Intelligence
Committee should carry much weight in considering problems in the
economic intelligence field.Because of vaster scope and more complexities in the economic
field there is even greater justification for establishing an
Economic Intelligence Committee.
Recommendations:
That the State recommendation be rejected as not affording a true
solution in the Economic Intelligence field.That there be established by the Director of Central Intelligence
a permanent interdepartmental committee, under the chairmanship of a
representative of CIA, to plan, support and coordinate the
production of economic intelligence as it affects the national
security and that such committee be known as “The Economic
Intelligence Committee.”
Paper IV
Problem IV—Political Summaries
State Recommendation 1:
“That COAPS study and prepare
recommendations for consideration by the IAC on the proper allocation of responsibility for
political summaries, both daily and weekly.”
Discussion:
As the intelligence facility of the National Security Council and the
President, the Central Intelligence Agency must continually and
systematically report all developments, political, economic, military,
and otherwise, which materially affect or have a bearing upon United
States national security and objectives abroad.
While CIA’s Daily and Weekly Summaries are based to a considerable degree
upon Department of State materials, the major cause for this situation
derives from the fact that the Department of State makes its highest
level intelligence and operational materials,
which have utility for intelligence purposes, available to the Central
Intelligence Agency whereas the Departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force
normally do not provide operational details. It is hoped that this
situation will be improved. Moreover, in periods of relative peace, the
bulk of intelligence is of a political and economic, rather than
military, nature.
The Central Intelligence Agency’s intelligence summaries are the only
ones designed primarily for the President and the National Security
Council. Each departmental intelligence agency is authorized to produce
such current publications as are required to meet its own departmental
needs.
Conclusion:
The CIA Daily Summary and Weekly Summary are not designed to be only
“political summaries.” They are issued as current intelligence under
Paragraph 1 of DCI 3/1.
Recommendation:
1. That the State recommendation be rejected.
406. Draft Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to the Under Secretary of State (Webb)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, National Intelligence Staff
Study. Secret.Washington, December 23, 1949.
SUBJECT
Production of National Intelligence
The enclosed staff studyThe staff study referred
to is the enclosure to the transmittal note from
Evans to Trueheart,
December 16. (Ibid.) See the Supplement. No evidence has been found to
indicate whether this memorandum and its intended enclosure were sent to
Webb at the time. In any
case, the study was put in final form in January 1950, although that
final version was not sent to Webb until May; see Document
420. presents an analysis of the nature of national
intelligence and the major problems connected with its production. It
represents a considered statement of the major unresolved questions which
prompted your memorandum of December 13 to Mr. Souers,See the enclosure to
Document 404. suggesting that CIA
make a further progress report on the matters discussed in paragraphs 5 and
6 of NSC 50. In view of that memorandum and
of Mr. Lay’s memorandum of December
14 to the National Security Council,Document 404. which reported that the
DCI is being asked to submit a further
report, I have felt it inappropriate to recommend further positive action at
this time.
My recommendations, therefore, as presented at pOmission in the source text. of the attachment, request your
approval of the study as an expression of the Department’s views on the
issues discussed. I am quite sure that the DCI’s further progress report will not show that there has been
any real resolution of those issues and I am prepared, if you approve this
study, to present a similar thesis at the appropriate time for possible
NSC action.
407. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)Source: Department of State, S/S-NSC
Files: Lot 63 D 351, NSC 50. Top Secret.
Souers transmitted
Hillenkoetter’s report to
the members of the NSC under cover of a
December 28 memorandum. (Ibid.) See the Supplement.Washington, December 27, 1949.
SUBJECT
Particular Intelligence Questions Requiring Coordination or
Attention
REFERENCE
Section 4c(2) of NSC 50Memorandum to Director, 8 July 1949 from Executive Secretary, NSCNot
found.Memorandum to Director, 14 December 1949 from Acting Executive
Secretary, NSCDocument
404.
The following report is submitted in accordance with Section 4 of NSC 50 which lists particular intelligence
questions requiring coordination or attention, and requests the Director of
Central Intelligence to submit to the Council within six months a report of
progress in these matters.
Scientific Intelligence. On 1 January 1949 an
Office of Scientific Intelligence was established as one of the major
offices in the Central Intelligence Agency. This office is being well
staffed and is now devoting its time to matters of scientific
intelligence in conjunction with other offices of the Government
interested in this subject. DCI
Directive 3/3, based on NSCID 3, was
issued with IAC concurrence on 28
October 1949 establishing an interdepartmental Scientific Intelligence
Committee to plan, support, and coordinate production of scientific
intelligence as it affects the National Security.Domestic Intelligence. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation is now a member of the Intelligence Advisory Committee so
that domestic intelligence and related matters will be coordinated with
foreign intelligence matters. The Office of Special Operations in the
Central Intelligence Agency is working closely with the Federal Bureau
of Investigation on matters where their respective interests are
related.Crisis Situations. On 2 February 1949, at a
regular meeting of the Intelligence Advisory Committee, it was agreed to
expedite the handling of intelligence matters when there were crisis
situations. To confirm this agreement in writing, it is hoped that a
directive on this subject may be issued this month, after agreement has
been reached on the method of issuing it. This was referred to the NSC on 19 December 1949Memo
for NSC from Executive Secretary,
subject, “Crisis Situations,” dated December 22, 1949. [Footnote in
the source text. The memorandum has not been found.] after an
IAC meeting, at which agreement on
the method was not reached.Political Summaries. As the intelligence
facility of the National Security Council and the President, the Central
Intelligence Agency must continually and systematically report all
developments, political, economic, military, and otherwise, which
materially affect or have a bearing upon United States national security
and objectives abroad. While CIA’s Daily and Weekly Summaries are based
to a considerable degree upon Department of State materials, the major
cause for this situation derives from the fact that the Department of
State makes its highest level intelligence and
operational materials, which have utility for intelligence
purposes, available to the Central Intelligence Agency whereas the
Departments of Army, Navy and Air Force normally do not provide
operational details. It is hoped that this situation will be improved.
Moreover, in periods of relative peace, the bulk of intelligence is of a
political and economic, rather than military, nature. The Central
Intelligence Agency’s intelligence summaries are the only ones designed
primarily for the President and the National Security Council. Each
departmental intelligence agency is authorized to produce such current
publications as are required to meet its own departmental needs.Exploitation of Foreign Nationality Groups and
Individuals. This work is being undertaken as follows: Foreign Radio Broadcasts Within the
U.S.: A recent survey shows that 131 radio stations in
the U.S. broadcast to Foreign Nationality Groups in 39
languages. Authorized transmitter power is so low that only 5%
of these stations, covering 10 languages, can be monitored with
present FBID facilities. The foreign intelligence potential of
these stations is considered of such little value that the
diversion of effort from foreign broadcasts is considered
uneconomical and unwarranted.Foreign Language Publications Within the
U.S.: Whereas the foreign intelligence potential of the
733 publications was considered negligible during the war years,
a continuing survey shows an increasing tendency to employ
foreign correspondents which enhances their intelligence
potential. At present six publications of this type receive
regular screening.Foreign Nationality Groups: These
Groups are being exploited in the large cities of the U.S. by
CIA’s 14 regional field offices for foreign intelligence
information and for assistance in identifying aliens of high
intelligence potential among the recently arrived DP’s and other
immigrants. Close coordination with the FBI is in effect.Individual Aliens: The exploitation of
these sources is performed under the provisions of NSCID No. 7 and carried out on
behalf of all of the IAC
agencies. After clearance with the covert offices of CIA and
FBI, the regional field
offices fulfill their joint intelligence information
requirements either by arrangement of interviews or by means of
responsive information reports.Covert Intelligence in Occupied Areas. Action
has been taken with the Intelligence Division, GSUSA, to effect a closer
coordination of such activity, which has resulted in appreciable
improvement in the situation and a substantial increase of coordination
in both the Far Eastern and European areas.Defectors. For over a year, this subject has been
under consideration by the interested agencies. After much discussion
and revision, a proposed NSCID was
compiled on “Exploitation of Defectors and Other Aliens Within the
United States” and circulated in December to the Intelligence Advisory
Committee agencies for the usual approval before submitting it to the
National Security Council. A corollary proposal on the “Exploitation of
Soviet and Satellite Defectors Outside the United States” was also
submitted to the Intelligence Advisory Committee agencies.Subsequently submitted for consideration by the
National Security Council; memo for NSC from Executive Secretary, subject, “Exploitation of
Soviet and Satellite Defectors Outside the United States,” dated
December 20, 1949. [Footnote in the source text. The memorandum has
not been found.] It is hoped that both proposals will soon be
approved by the IAC so that they may be
submitted to the NSC as proposed NSC IDs for early issuance.Until these over-all policy directives are established and put in
operation, there is functioning a Pro Tem Interdepartmental Working
Committee to handle problems on the important cases of defectors which
arise and which have accumulated to date. It is hoped that before long
the over-all directives will be approved and issued, so that the pro tem
work of this nature may be discontinued and this work placed on a firmer
and more regular basis. The chief difficulty with regard to this problem
is the ultimate disposal of defectors and the costs entailed therein.
[4 lines of the source text not
declassified]Counter-espionage Activities Abroad, and Closer
Liaison With the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Central
Intelligence Agency’s Office of Special Operations has placed increased
stress on its counter-espionage functions and on counter-espionage
activity abroad on a continuing basis.The Office of Special Operations’ liaison and cooperation attendant
thereon with the Federal Bureau of Investigation have increased
effectively over a considerable period of time. Obviously, the closest
possible working
relationship is not only highly desirable but also necessary to
developing the closest possible counter-espionage liaison with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Central Intelligence Agency feels
that this liaison relationship at the present time is close, effective,
and mutually advantageous. With regard to Sections 5 and 6 of NSC
50, mentioned in the memorandum of 14 December 1949 from the Acting
Executive Secretary of NSC, transmitting
a copy of the memorandum dated 13 December from the Under Secretary of
State, the following organizational realignment of the Office of Reports
and Estimates in CIA was approved some weeks ago and is to a large
extent now in operation, relating to Section 6a(2) of NSC 50, in addition to the plan already
compiled in compliance with Section 6a(1): An Estimates Production Board, under the chairmanship of the
Assistant Director for Reports and Estimates, has been
established, composed primarily of the Chiefs of the regional
and functional divisions of the Office of Reports and Estimates.
Among other duties it is responsible for recommending the scope
and terms of reference of national intelligence estimates;
participation in production and final substantive review of such
estimates prior to transmittal to the IAC for coordination; and advising the Assistant
Director for Reports and Estimates on the adoption of proposed
intelligence production programs to ensure that adequate
priorities are given at all times to the production of high
level estimates.Each regional division of the Office of Reports and Estimates
has been realigned to provide (1) an Estimate Staff, and (2)
three or more regional, analytical, and research branches. They
afford separate facilities for high level estimates, and other
reports and research studies required for production of
estimates but which are not available from the departmental
intelligence agencies. This realignment permits the retention of
centralized substantive and production controls under each
division chief and provides separate allocation of manpower for
each category of production. The Estimates Staff of each regional division produces
national intelligence estimates within its area in
accordance with DCI 3/1
procedures and is of sufficient size to ensure adequate
production in this category.The analytical and research branches retain their
present geographic responsibilities and are continuing
systematically to examine, identify and analyze the
significance of emergent trends within their areas of
responsibility in order to provide the regional
Estimates Staff with processed intelligence data. These
data are for use in the production of national
intelligence estimates, as well as reports and estimates
in those fields of common concern which are appropriate
to regional, as distinguished from purely functional,
treatment.A Central Research Group has been established consisting
initially of the Map Division, the National Intelligence Survey
Division (Basic Intelligence Group, redesignated), and the
General Division (formerly the General Division, Plans and
Policy Staff). At such time as it is determined to conduct
additional intelligence research in fields of common concern,
additional facilities for this purpose will be added to the
Central Research Group.Further organizational realignment of the Office of Reports and
Estimates may be required if changes are made within the IAC agencies.With specific reference to paragraph 5 of NSC 50, the Central Intelligence Agency has undertaken the
problem of intelligence production planning on a long-range and
interdepartmental basis. It is believed that such planning will afford
CIA and the IAC agencies a sound basis
upon which to reach agreement regarding what intelligence needs to be
produced and what departmental support can be provided to national
intelligence production.R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
408. Memorandum From Brigadier
General John Magruder to Secretary of Defense JohnsonSource: Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files,
HS/CSG–2434, Job 83–00764R, Box 3, Folder 8. Top Secret. Magruder was a consultant on
intelligence to the Secretary of Defense.Washington, December 22, 1949.
This study presents some background discussion and suggests several
alternative solutions for the organizational setting of Mr. Wisner’s OPC.
I recommend alternative 6 on page 5. Generals Burns and
McNarney concur.
While I do not know State Department’s final position, the alternative
recommended would furnish the basis of discussion which I think would lead
to a solution satisfactory to you and Mr. Webb.
I should be glad to explain any points which might be clarified.
John MagruderPrinted from a copy that
indicates Magruder signed
the original.
Enclosure
SUBJECT
Reorganization of Office of Policy Coordination (OPC)
The Problem
To establish an appropriate relationship between the agencies of CIA
responsible for clandestine collection of intelligence and conduct of
covert operations; and to fit them into the structure of CIA in a manner
to insure their coordinated control.
Assumptions
That suggested changes shall be possible without new
legislation.That responsibility for these operations be not susceptible to
public or direct attribution to the President or to individual
cabinet members.That authoritative controls exist to insure that in peace or war
covert operations shall be restricted to projects which are clearly
and directly in furtherance of national policy.That clear differentiation be made between: Covert operations of a political, economic and
psychological character, which by their nature remain truly
covert and which are employed abroad to influence
developments favorable to the United States, andOperations which, while initially covert, are by their
nature designed to create physical manifestations which
cease to be covert, such as, sabotage, support of
underground and guerilla movements and para-military
activities.
Discussion
The principles governing the functions and general composition of CIA as
reflected in the National Security Act of 1947 had been the subject of long debate. It was not
casual that to one directorate was given such widely different
responsibilities as the production of national
intelligence and the collection of foreign intelligence by
clandestine methods. When the need for instituting covert operations in
peacetime became apparent, again it was not casual that they should have
been assigned to CIA and placed alongside their related activities,
espionage and counter-espionage. To avoid the creation of a floating
agency operationally inappropriate to any department and which was so
directly dependent upon clandestine intelligence, it was natural to
incorporate covert operations in CIA.
Thus, CIA became a basket of widely differing eggs. But eggs they are,
nevertheless, and a basket they must have. This copious basket called
Central Intelligence is uniquely an American concept. The arrangement
has historic validity which includes our wartime experiences, our
intimate observation of foreign practices in wartime and, last and most
important, our governmental structure which dictates its being as it is.
The more you try to change the composition of CIA the more obstinately
do conditions force you back to the original concept of the CIA
carry-all.
While I do not advocate it, the only major organizational change in our
national intelligence system which logically suggests itself is the
separation of the central organization for producing national estimates
and studies from the clandestine organizations for collecting
intelligence. The functions of these two agencies are not analogous.
However, their separation would create another splinter agency with the
obvious disadvantages involved and, furthermore, would deprive the
clandestine organizations of a valuable smoke screen. While functionally
CIA could thus rationally be divided, no good purposes would thereby be
served.
On the other hand, the complete separation of the several activities in
the clandestine field, such as are truly covert, presents numerous
disadvantages.The first 4 words of this
sentence are crossed out by hand on the source text.
Clandestine intelligence and covert operations are characterized by both
functional affinity and operational inter-dependence. They must be at
least under the same general direction if ineffectiveness and even
dangerous confusions are to be avoided. It is almost impossible to
operate individuals, groups or chains of underground agents in the same
area without their uncovering each other—unless they are very skillfully
controlled by a central direction.
While separate direction of strictly covert operations in the same area
is hazardous, it is also true that attempts to operate merged activities
of widely differing character may be self-defeating. If it is difficult
to see how intricate methods of espionage and subtle manipulations of
political subversion can
succeed except under single direction, it is highly improbable that the
merger of all types of subversive activities can be employed in a given
area, even by a single head, without the physical operations ceasing to
be truly covert and blowing wide open the subtle covert apparatus.
These considerations therefore suggest the importance of differentiating
between two broad types of covert activities: those which by their
nature are truly covert and must remain so if they are to succeed; and a
category of so-called covert activities whose development designedly
leads to physical manifestations which cease to be covert. This
differentiation leads to a possible solution which would permit the
merger under a single direction of those covert activities which are
clearly related and unquestionably interdependent while retaining under
separate direction the more physical or para-military types of
operations which rarely remain covert.
With respect to the controls and organizational set-up employed by the
British, the information obtained from different official levels is
contradictory. It can only be assumed that the British cabinet ministers
are employing different terminology from our own in defining integration
or separation of covert activities or else have reference to different
types of covert activities. [3–1/2 lines of source
text not declassified]
Whatever may be the explanation, it will be evident that the United
States Government cannot follow British practice in all details of
organization if for no other reason than the constitutional difference
in the two governments. [3 lines of source text not
declassified] The British constitution permits flexibility of
action in these fields by the British Cabinet Members not permitted by
existing law in the US. It was only after the creation of the National
Security Council that national central direction, other than the
President himself, became available as a permanent body to control such
activities. This agency seems to be entirely appropriate to control all
covert activities of inter-departmental or extra-departmental character
unless control of specific types be assigned to a particular department
with the concurrence of other interested departments.
Assuming that all existing Central Intelligence Agency responsibilities,
including covert operations, are of inter-departmental character, it
would seem inappropriate to separate OPC
or any of its functions from the general direction of CIA. There remains
the decision as to the method of fixing the relationship within CIA
between OPC and OSO, the latter of which now is engaged exclusively in the
clandestine collection of intelligence.
In view of the initial assumptions and the foregoing general
considerations, there are outlined below the several alternative
solutions which could be implemented by NSC directive.
Alternatives
Leave OPC in status quo ante
publication of NSC–50. This
arrangement is discarded as being unsatisfactory to all who operate
under it, and to all investigators who have studied the
problem.While combining under an assistant director of CIA, OPC, OSO, Contact Branch and essential separate covert
services, retain the separation of OPC and OSO, with their
existing functions, each under a separate head. This arrangement
provides for the separation of OSO
and OPO while permitting some degree of coordination through an
assistant director in charge of both. With common control only at
the top, it still leaves parallel but non-integrated organizations
whose personnel will inevitably be forced into conflicting
activities and unavoidable friction. It perpetuates considerable
duplication of personnel and auxiliary services. The truly covert
political operations of OPC will be
vulnerable to disclosure by the administration at home and abroad of
widely differing types of operations within the same organization.
This alternative is discarded.Same as alternative 2, except that OPC and OSO be
integrated under one head but not merged to the extent of preventing
future possible separation. Discarded for reasons given above and
additionally because it introduces another echelon of
authority.Same as alternative 3, except that OPC and OSO be merged
under one head. Discarded as being the merger to which the Secretary
of Defense objects and as having the major disadvantages referred to
in previous alternatives. If assumption 2 should be disregarded, all covert operations
presently assigned to OPC could be
lifted from CIA and assigned: To Department of State—all truly covert operations of
political, economic and psychological character.To Department of Defense—all the more physical types of
operations, including sabotage; training, support, and
supply of underground resistance; para-military
activities.This plan is discarded as being at variance with American practice
of assigning these unorthodox activities as a direct departmental
responsibility. Furthermore, the operations would gradually lose all
character of security, flexibility and unorthodoxy in the
inescapable straitjacket of departmental bureaucracy. Combine under an assistant director of CIA the following
activities: OPC, OSO, Contact Branch, and essential
separate covert services. Transfer from OPC to OSO
responsibility for all truly covert political, economic and
psychological operations. OPC,
remaining under separate head, would retain responsibility for the
physical types of operations which only initially are covert, such
as: sabotage; the training, support and supply of resistance
movements; para-military activities. This plan avoids a merger of organizations and
thus reconciles the objections of the Secretary of Defense. It
separates the control over two non-homogeneous types of activities
now in OPC, but retains all the
essential functions in a logical organizational setting. Clandestine
intelligence collection and strictly covert political operations
could be conducted under most secure and coordinated conditions. If
limited covert operations of a physical character were required in
peacetime, they could be conducted under strictly security measures
and coordination of OSO. Under this
reorganization, OPC would continue
the planning and preparation for war of the types of operations of
primary interest to the Defense Department. The OPC could thus be transferred to the
JCS in wartime, while having its
development take place in the atmosphere of unorthodoxy in CIA. In
wartime, the covert agencies of CIA and those transferred to
military control, having had common background of security and
flexibility, could cooperate with a high degree of
understanding.
Recommendation—That the Secretary of Defense adopt
the plan briefly stated in alternative 6 and informally request the
concurrence of the Secretary of State. That if agreement be reached as
to adoption of this general plan, the Secretaries instruct their
respective consultants, in consultation with the Secretary, National
Security Council, to draft an implementing directive to the Director,
CIA, for consideration of the NSC.
John MagruderPrinted from a copy that
indicates Magruder
signed the original.
409. Memorandum From the Deputy Special Assistant (Howe) to the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research:
Lot 58 D 776, State–CIA Relationship 1949–1956. Secret.Washington, January 5, 1950.
SUBJECT
Crisis Estimates
In conversation with General
Magruder, he said that he took a very gloomy view of the paper
presently before the NSC on Crisis Estimates
and he read from a draft of
a briefing memo which he proposed to send to Secretary Johnson.Neither
found. The gist of his comment was that the proposed paragraph
for NSCID 1 was wholly inadequate to the
important problem of crisis estimates and that among other reasons because
it diffused the responsibility. He did recommend in the memo, however, that
the Secretary agree to the paragraph only on an interim basis, pending the
establishment of a group within CIA which could adequately produce national
intelligence estimates.
I pointed out to General Magruder the
following: That crisis estimates could only be as sound as the whole of the
national intelligence estimates procedure; that until we had made
the fundamental corrections in national intelligence procedures,
probably no useful purpose would be served by trying to adjust
crisis estimates.That his recommendation might well offer a risk on which
Hilly could throw his hat; namely that CIA
already has a facility for producing national estimates, therefore
everything is just fine.That the reason that the paragraph is going into the NSC at all is because the Military
wanted the lever placed upon top officers to supply critical
information to the intelligence arms and to CIA.That the Department had been indifferent on whether the matter was
taken up to the NSC and that we had
recommended the Under Secretary agree, believing that no useful
purpose would be served by trying to adjust crisis estimates until
national estimates had been corrected.
General Magruder seemed willing to
revise his recommendation to state simply that the Defense agreement was an
interim one pending “an adjustment of national intelligence procedures on
which crisis estimates must be based.” He did think, however, that the
record should be kept clear, that crisis estimates and national intelligence
estimates as a whole were still not satisfactory, so that an NSC agreement of crisis estimates would not
imply that the NSC was satisfied with the
procedures as a whole.
Fisher HowePrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature and initials.
P.S. Do you think that the fact that Johnson may raise some question on this matter at the
NSC meeting indicates that we should
prepare to brief the Secretary on it?
F.H.
410. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Deputy Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Howe) to the
Special Assistant to the Secretary (Sheppard)Source:
National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the
Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research:
Lot 58 D 776, National Intelligence Staff Study. Top
Secret.Washington, January 9, 1950.
SUBJECT
Status of Miscellaneous Projects
1. NSC 50 Progress
Report
I call your attention to Admiral
Souers’ NSC memorandum of
December 28,Not printed. (Ibid., Records of the
Executive Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 63
D 351) See the Supplement. distributing CIA’s further progress
report on implementation of NSC 50,Document 407.
which claims to answer the State Department’s request for further
amplification of organizational planning for national intelligence. I have
discussed this with General
Magruder.
2. National Intelligence
There are three current papers on this subject in various stages of
completion. The documentation is, in fact, going to sizeable proportions
which, for such a technical subject, I think is unavoidable: Hillenkoetter’s report on
“State’s Four Papers”Document 405. (you will remember
that we put into the IAC four papers
to implement NSC 50); this memo
dated December 30, 1949, I will make available to you. It is
tantamount to a unilateral rejection by CIA of the State
Department’s recommendations which were supposed to have gone to
OCAPS for staff work, not for rejection. However, they do indicate
more thoroughly than heretofore the basis (and illogic) of CIA’s
position on national intelligence.R Staff Paper:Dated January 3; see Tab A to Document 420. I enclose a
stencilled draft of this paper. We omitted recommendations, partly
in order to discuss this matter fully before finishing up and
because positive action depended to a large extent on CIA’s response
to the last NSC action asking for
further amplification on this subject. The staff paper, we believe,
is excellent: it indicates quite clearly the issues involved in
national intelligence and the reasons we feel so strongly that
national intelligence should be established according to these lines. I have informally
left a copy of this with General
Magruder. No other distribution has been made.General Magruder’s
draftNot found but probably an
earlier version of Tab B, Document
420. is not finished. He read parts of it to me
last week. If we straightened out the nomenclature, I think we would
find ourselves in almost complete agreement. Furthermore, his paper
is on the whole complementary to ours in that he proposes to lay
down a specific organization for CIA to fulfill its assignment on
national intelligence and to prescribe categorically what each
organizational unit is to do. This should be very helpful.
3. OPC–OSO Reorganization.
Almost nothing has been done further on this. I have, however, tried another
hand at drafting the nature of the problem and for whatever use, I attach it
hereto.Not found.
4. CIA Budget.
I did not speak to Magruder about
this and I therefore do not know the NME
views. This will need to be pursued this week.
5. Tuesday Meetings.
Park handled the meeting last week
and he has sent you a minuteNot found.
on what transpired. I believe the memo also indicates the appropriate
subject for next week which arose out of the meeting.
Fisher HowePrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
411. Memorandum for the RecordSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research: Lot 58 D 776, State–CIA Relationship 1949–1956. Confidential.
Drafted by Howe. Appended to the source text is a
handwritten “Note for file” by Sheppard dated
January 27 which reads as follows: “In conversation with
Howe and Barnes it was
decided: (1) State now has sufficient control over the content of the
daily summary. (2) In view of the CIA situation & the President’s
interest, (3) We should now do nothing to rock the boat.
W.S.S.”Washington, January 19, 1950.
SUBJECT
CIA Daily Staff Summary (Blue Book)
In the course of conversation on other matters, Bill
Sheppard, Jim Lay, and I discussed the
CIA daily top secret Intelligence Summary.
Lay pointed out among other things
that the whole project stems from a considered decision by the old NIA (Committee of the Secretary of State and
Service Departments, etc., in charge of Intelligence) whose decision it was,
following the desires of the President, that the CIA produce such a summary,
that the summary be both operational and intelligence. The NIA also specifically approved the distribution
list.
Lay also pointed out that regardless
of our views of the merits of the Staff Summary, every indication is that
the President likes it and wants it. Furthermore, there is no indication
that the President is aware of or disparages the fact that it is duplicative
of State Department cables and information summaries sent directly to him
from the Department.
Lay also said incidentally that
Dennison is the staff officer in the White House
who usually shows it to the President without comment and that the CIA
encloses the original cable with the staff summary of the cable.
In answer to a question, Lay
discounted the possibility that there was any thought the Staff Summary
would serve as a “check” upon the flow of information to the President; that
by having another source of information, the President could be assured that
he received everything. It was pointed out that such a view, if held, was
fallacious in any event because the Department controlled the information
going to CIA. Lay felt that the CIA
was not in the least aware that they may be jeopardizing their flow of State
cables by producing a summary which (a) contained large amounts of policy
which was the responsibility of the State Department (b) failed to include
military intelligence (c) distributed throughout the Government State
Department information over which the Department itself should have the
control.
Lay saw no reason why constructive
suggestions and recommendations might not be made to improve the Staff
Summary, but such should be formulated within the framework of the knowledge
that the President favors the Staff Summary.
Note:Lay was most cooperative and
friendly in discussing this project, and the information and views which
he gave should be treated confidentially. F.
H.)
412. Memorandum for the RecordSource: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of
the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research: Lot 58 D 776, State–CIA Relationship 1949–1956. Top Secret.
Drafted by Howe. The source text indicates that a
copy was sent to William J. Sheppard, one of the
special assistants to the Secretary.Washington, January 31, 1950.
SUBJECT
OSO–OPC Relationship
In conversation with Magruder and for
part of the time with Joyce and
Krentz, considerable discussion of the various
facets of the problem was taken up. It was finally decided that both
Magruder and
Howe would try a hand at a paper which could be
used as a modification of NSC 10/2, on the
basis of which further discussions on the precise details could go forward
not only between NME with State, but also
with Hilly and Wisner.
The general principle on which the redraft of 10/2 should be based was that
there would be one Assistant Director for Operations. Under the Assistant
Director for Operations there would be three divisions: The Contacts Branch.A “rough stuff” branch which would plan sabotage,
counter-sabotage, guerrilla activity and logistics for such
activity, but would not carry out any operations itself. If
operations of this nature were called for, they would be done under
the clandestine operations area offices.Clandestine Operations Branch. This would combine the functions of
espionage, counter-espionage, and those positive operations in the
political, economic and psychological field, short of “rough stuff,”
which require the
agent operation and covert techniques. This branch would in turn be
subdivided into area sections, each section having in its complement
both intelligence and operations people under a single area
operations head.
It was a matter of indifference whether staff arms for
plans, services, training and communications would be tied in at the
Assistant Director level, or under the Branch Head for Clandestine
Operations.
The really difficult point in drafting comes in expressing the degree and
nature of control which the Department or the NME will have over the Operations Section. Magruder even had some idea that there
should be sealed in the hands of the Executive Secretary, NSC, a secret protocol, pointing out that there
would be a degree of autonomy on the part of the Assistant Director,
Operations, which would permit him to be directly responsive to foreign
policy and military affairs. This problem too is tied in very closely with
the individuals who will be placed in controlling positions in CIA, but
Magruder says that he felt that
Johnson would accept a degree of
control by the Department and we both felt that it would be possible to
express this control in the revised NSC 10/2
which we would draft.
Fisher HowePrinted from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
413. Memorandum From the Acting Chairman of the National Security
Resources Board (Steelman) to the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council (Souers)Source: Truman Library, Papers
of Harry S. Truman, President’s
Secretary’s Files. Confidential.Washington, February 2, 1950.
SUBJECT
Appraisal of Foreign Economic Intelligence Requirements, Facilities
and Arrangements Related to the National Security
As resources mobilization planning progresses, it is increasingly evident to
the participating agencies that the full effectiveness of many segments of such planning
depends upon the ready availability of adequate, timely and correlated
foreign economic intelligence.
This has proved, for example, to be the case in such fields as peace-time
procurement and development for stockpiling; wartime procurement and
development; foreign manpower; war trade agreements; export and import
controls; economic assistance to potential allies and friendly neutrals, and
other foreign requirements; preclusive buying; proclaimed listing; the
control of foreign assets; economic capabilities and vulnerabilities of
potential allies, neutral and enemy nations.
From the experience of the agencies associated in mobilization planning in
recent months, it is now feasible to determine more clearly than previously
the foreign council intelligence requirements for further planning. Many of
the studies completed or under way also provide a better means than
previously available for testing the adequacy of current intelligence
efforts. In the light of these developments, more effective evaluation of
foreign economic intelligence for mobilization planning can now be made.
Another field where foreign economic intelligence is vital is that of the
formulation of current policies and programs relating to the national
security. Members of the National Security Council will readily appreciate
the value of constantly seeking to improve the foreign economic intelligence
relating to proposals considered by the council.
Intelligence activities with regard to mobilization planning and to current
security policies and programs are intricately interrelated and at many
points indistinguishable. Therefore, much can be said for covering both
fields in a single undertaking.
Accordingly, the time seems opportune to reappraise our foreign economic
intelligence requirements, facilities and arrangements as they relate to the
national security, including mobilization planning. Such an appraisal would
require central direction with appropriate interagency collaboration.
It is, therefore, proposed that the National Security Council direct the CIA,
in collaboration with the Government agencies concerned: To organize and conduct a study of: foreign economic intelligence requirements relating to the
national security, including requirements for mobilization
planning;facilities and arrangements currently employed for meeting
these requirements;the adequacy of such facilities and arrangements; and
where appropriate, means for their improvement.Based on the findings of this study, to prepare for Council
consideration and action a comprehensive plan for satisfying the
foreign economic intelligence requirements of the national security
and for a coordinated
interagency effort to this end based on a definite allocation of
responsibilities among the agencies concerned.
The staff of the NSRB has much information
which would be of help in this undertaking, and will be available to assist
in liaison and consultant capacities.
John SteelmanPrinted from a copy that
indicates Steelman signed the original.
414. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Director
of Intelligence of the Army General Staff (Irwin)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–208, Item 24. Top
Secret. Copies were sent to all IAC
members.Washington, February 15, 1950.
SUBJECT
Proposed Watch Committee
REFERENCE
Memorandum of 20 January 1950,Not
found. ID/CSUKA to DCI, File
CBGID–1 WW 319.26, information copies of which were sent to the other
members of the IAC by the ArmyAs requested in the above reference, I am giving consideration to the
several questions raised therein about the production of national
intelligence on Soviet intentions with a view towards having further
clarifying discussions on them in the near future.It seems to me that there are joined together in your proposal two
different functions which should be separate, as pointed out below.
There also appears to be a misconception of the duties of CIA and the
Intelligence Advisory Committee agencies in crisis situations. These
three points are listed below and discussed in the comments that follow:
The working level Check List network
has been established to provide timely warning, through the use
of certain indicators, of impending Soviet military action in
the near future—as described in my
detailed circular memorandum of December 7th clarified by my
letter to Mr. Armstrong
dated January 26th; after the members of the Intelligence
Advisory Committee had appointed their representatives requested
in my circular memorandum of September 26th.Not found.Rounded intelligence estimates of the
present Soviet position and future courses of action, i.e., long
range estimates for planning and policy making, are produced in
the day-to-day work by CIA’s Office of Reports and Estimates,
coordinated with the other intelligence agencies under NSCID 3 and DCI 3/1 and 3/2, and by the
periodic ad hoc interdepartmental committees under the
chairmanship of Mr. Van Slyck in CIA which
have prepared two or three estimates during the past year or so
and are now working on another.“Furnishing Intelligence Advisory Committee
with such crisis intelligence as required by
Intelligence Advisory Committee to discharge its responsibility,
as set forth in paragraph 6, NSCID 1.” The DCI
prepares national intelligence not only on crisis situations but
on other matters, and not only for the members of the
Intelligence Advisory Committee but also for the President and
the NSC et al. This is his
responsibility by law. The responsibility of the members of the
Intelligence Advisory Committee is to get intelligence support
from their respective agencies and to give it and their advice
to the Director of Central Intelligence, not just vice versa.
The only change from past procedures in the new paragraph 6 of
NSCID 1 is quicker action
and on a higher level than is customary.
Comments
In consideration of the problem of the production of intelligence on
Soviet intentions, I believe that a necessity exists to provide for
separate mechanisms (1) for the treatment of “indications of intentions”
and the short-range evaluations resulting from a consideration of these
indicators, and (2) for the longer-range composite “rounded intelligence
estimates” of the present Soviet position and probable future courses of
action, which require preparation against the broadest possible terms of
reference.With regard to the “Check List,” I am inclined
to agree that the presently constituted “Check List Group” could be more
formally established by action of the members of the Intelligence
Advisory Committee if they wish, and that the name “Check List Group”
could be changed to “Watch Committee.”It is my firm conviction, however, that this Committee should not be
diverted from the important task of focusing the attention of analysts,
in CIA and in the agencies of the Intelligence Advisory Committee
members, on certain indicators or actions contained in the Check List by
engaging in long-range strategic estimates of Soviet capabilities and
intentions.There have been numerous difficulties attendant upon the establishment
of effective operations of the “Check List Group,” some of which will be
overcome by the formalization of this Group as a “Watch Committee” but
the remainder of which can be overcome only by fullest interdepartmental
cooperation and support. It is urgently requested, therefore, that, in
this interim period, every effort be made to overcome internal and
external obstacles to the effective fulfillment of the “Check List
Group” mission. It is important that there be regular Check List
meetings and that priority be given within each Department to
consideration of Check List operations. With reference to your comments
in the introduction to paragraph 2 of your Tab A, Tab A herewith shows
the recent activities of the Check List Group.With regard to the rounded intelligence
estimates, I should think that most of the intelligence
agencies presumably are devoting most of their entire daily efforts to
this large subject—“to analyze intelligence information relating to
short and long range Soviet intentions to go to war and to produce
periodic intelligence estimates on this subject as it affects national
security.” I should think an additional committee for this purpose would
be unnecessary and that the same results could be accomplished by new
instructions through the existing machinery of the agencies concerned.
However, if the other intelligence agencies think that they can
contribute best through another interdepartmental committee, on Soviet
intentions, this could be arranged. It would produce the periodic
long-range comprehensive estimates of Soviet intentions and probable
future courses of action against a regional and global background, and
would insure that existing estimates on this subject would be
continuously maintained in current status, be published at appropriate
intervals, and be responsive to changes in the situation as revealed by
the activities of the “Check list” or “Watch Committee.”The Army statements in paragraph 2b of its Tab A “Comments” appear to
mean that the Army’s most capable analysts are not engaged in the
ordinary coordination procedures on the national intelligence estimates
produced under NSCID 3 and DCI 3/1, but would engage in activities of
a permanent committee producing well rounded estimates in lieu of the ad
hoc committees which have met two or three times in the past year or so.
The Army’s other statements in that paragraph 2b appear to be
inconsistent with Section 1e of NSCID
No. 3.Accordingly, I am preparing for circulation to the Intelligence
Advisory Committee agencies at an early date two draft interdepartmental
Operating Procedures proposing to formalize the “Watch Committee” and
the “Committee on Soviet Intentions” with their respective
responsibilities based on the different principles cited above. It is
thought best that these matters be discussed further on the working
level before they are referred to a meeting of the Intelligence Advisory
Committee.R.H. HillenkoetterRear Admiral, USN
Tab ATop Secret.
CHRONOLOGY OF CIA ACTIVITIES ON THE CHECK LIST
OPERATION
November 1948Proposal first circulated, for limited use.19 August 1949State inquired at IAC meeting
re a Watch Committee.22 August to 9 September 1949Preparation of draft memorandum issued by DCI 26 September 1949.12 September 1949Approval of draft memorandum by DCI.15 September to 26 September 1949Interviews with top members of IAC intelligence staffs to explain nature,
operations, limitations of Check List.26 September 1949DCI issues memorandum to IAG
members.30 September to 13 October 1949Check List Officers nominated by IAC agencies.14 October to 1 November 1949Internal procedures set up in CIA and Check List needs
discussed with CIA Offices (OSO,
OPC, OSI).7 November 1949Request sent to all IAC Check
List Officers for summaries of available information bearing on
Check List indicators falling logically under their purview.
This request had a deadline 18 November, shortly after which a
meeting was to be held.7 November to 15 November 1949Check List Officers nominated by CIA Offices.19 November to 29 November 1949Reports received from Army and Navy; memo from State and
Air—in answer to memo of Nov. 7.5 December 1949First Check List meeting; basic objectives and informal
allocations of primary responsibility discussed, among other
things; next meeting set for 11 January 1950.7 December 1949Memo to participating agencies.8 December to 13 December 1949Interviews with various Check List Officers to discuss
possibility of a “Christmas Flap”; all agreed little
likelihood.13 December 1949Memorandum prepared as consensus of Check List opinion that
“no flap” was expected—held for use in case an apparent “flap”
began during the holidays.14 December 1949 to 3 January 1950Holidays, one or more Check List Officers were gone during
this period.11 January 1950Meeting postponed due to non-receipt of scientific indicators
from OSI for inclusion in the Check List.17 January 1950Meeting again postponed because revised Check List including
OSI’s contributions not yet completed. At the time of both these
postponements all Check List Officers were contacted and some
saw a crisis brewing that would have required a meeting without
the new Check List.26 January 1950Clarifying letter to Mr. Armstrong.
415. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to the Under Secretary of State (Webb)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, State–CIA Relationship
1949–1956. Top Secret. Drafted by Howe. The date is
handwritten on the source text.Washington, February 16, 1950.
SUBJECT
Status Report on Problems Relating to CIA
I believe it would be helpful if I gave you a brief status of report on the
various problems which we have under discussion with or about CIA.
At the start I would like to point out that there are a number of areas of
CIA operation where the Department is quite satisfied and where no
substantial issues exist as between the Department and CIA. Notable in this
connection are the following: Office of Scientific Intelligence;Contacts Branch (exploitation of foreign intelligence from
domestic sources, U.S. business firms, etc.);Foreign Voice Broadcast Monitoring.
These come generally under what are known as “services of
common concern,” i.e., activities which can best be performed centrally. CIA
performance appears to be adequate.
The areas in which difficulties are arising and the present status of the
problems are as follows: OSO–OPC relationship (secret
intelligence vs. secret operations). You are aware that
this problem is complicated by an extremely difficult organizational
question and by a delicate element of personal relationships.
General Magruder has
drafted a memorandumDocument 408. intended to “smoke out”
Secretary Johnson’s attitude.
On the basis of this memorandum Secretary Johnson has concurred in his discussing the question
with the Department. The Department can probably agree with
General Magruder’s
memorandum in most sections, but finds a number of points on which
far more detailed clarification is required—elements in which there
may arise differences of view. Discussions are continuing between
the Department, NME, Hillenkoetter and Wisner, which we are hopeful will
result in a draft NSC directive for
your approval.Document 419.
National Intelligence Estimates. This
complicated and technical question has been before you only to a
limited extent in connection with NSC 50 (action on the Dulles Report) and related discussions with
Hillenkoetter. It
nevertheless is one of the most serious issues between the
Department and CIA and will almost surely have to be taken up in
the NSC in order to give proper
direction to CIA.
In essence the problem is this: The Department and the NME believe, as did the Dulles Committee, that CIA in
its research intelligence activity should utilize the resources
of the various departments and produce the best possible
integrated national intelligence estimates on the basis of
departmental contributions. CIA, on the other hand, has
interpreted its directive to “produce national intelligence
estimates” to mean that it must do all of the research on all
subjects which might be called for by the President, the NSC, or the individual departments,
and regardless of the resources of the several departmental
intelligence arms. CIA, through various papers and activities
has indicated that they do not accept the NSC interpretation of national
intelligence to be that intelligence which transcends the
competence of any one department, but instead has taken national
intelligence to mean anything which they find appropriate to
prepare. Consequently CIA’s research organization (ORE) has grown out of all
proportion, it constitutes a duplication of departmental,
particularly State, research intelligence activity, and—most
important—few true national intelligence estimates are
forthcoming.
We have prepared a staff paper covering the various facets of the
difficulty. We are now combining our ideas with those of
General Magruder.See Document
420. We propose very soon to raise the
problem to you with the recommendation that you devote
sufficient time to brief yourself on its complex nature and to
advise us on what you consider the proper course of action from
that point on. It might be necessary to submit the question to
the Security Council for definitive resolution.
Program for Cooperation between Department and
CIA on “Cover” (STOSO Agreement). A proposed agreement for
revision of arrangements for administering CIA people under Foreign
Service cover has been under review by the Department for a number
of months. The proposal is in the hands of Mr.
Rusk for consideration prior to discussion
with Mr. Peurifoy. A positive
recommendation should come to you shortly.CIA Budget. Following NSC approval of the submission of the
CIA budget, the Department, in collaboration with the NME, has drafted a number of comments
on the budget for the NSC, which you
have approved in draft.Document 417. This will now be
reviewed by Secretary Johnson
as a joint NME–State
statement.
416. Letter From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to Secretary of
Defense JohnsonSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–208, Item 23. Secret. Copies were sent to the
members of the Intelligence Advisory Committee.Washington, February 17, 1950.
Dear Mr. Secretary: The Intelligence Advisory
Committee at its meeting on 17 February 1950 has asked me to inform you of
its view concerning the importance of the Service Attaché to the national
intelligence structure. It is the opinion of the Committee that our Service
Attachés are the backbone of the military intelligence collection effort.
Their presence is particularly valuable in the countries behind the Iron
Curtain where intelligence collection means are difficult to apply.
The military information obtained from the Service Attachés in the Satellite
countries, while not so complete as desired, is a major contribution to the accomplishment of the
intelligence mission assigned by the National Security Council to the
agencies represented on the Intelligence Advisory Committee.
Very sincerely yours,
R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
417. Memorandum for the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council (Lay)Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Bureau of Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, State–CIA
Relationship 1949–1956. Top Secret. The date is the drafting date of a
brief covering note from Armstrong to Deputy Under Secretary
Rusk. This note, which also bears the
handwritten date of February 24, reads: “General
Burns approved this paper for the Department of
Defense, provided you ok’d it. For your information, Mr. Webb has already seen and approved
these comments in draft.” The covering note also indicates that the
memorandum was being cleared with Joyce and Humelsine. It is not clear whether this memorandum was
actually sent to Lay.Washington, February 23, 1950.
JOINT STATEMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF DEFENSE AND STATE ON CIA
BUDGET FOR FISCAL 1951
For the first time, members of the National Security Council have made
an examination of the CIA budget, and other than to note it in the
National Security Council meetings. For this reason it is appropriate to
comment upon the procedure and on the conditions under which the CIA
budget was reviewed, as well as on the budget itself. Both the
Department of State and of Defense wish to commend the Director of
Central Intelligence for his helpfulness and cooperation in making his
staff and records available to the representatives of the two
Departments in the budget presentation.The practice of having the CIA budget reviewed in some detail is an
important step forward in fostering sound relationships between the Central Intelligence Agency
and the Departments of State and Defense. It is frequently overlooked
that by virtue of their membership on the National Security Council, the
Secretaries of State and Defense have a responsibility for the progress
and direction of the CIA program. By having an opportunity to comment on
the programs each year at the time it is submitted, the Secretaries of
State and Defense not only are able to exercise their responsibilities
for CIA in a more direct and effective manner, but will develop a
confidence that the CIA program is being conceived and executed in
harmony with its assigned missions and the requirements and policies of
those Departments primarily affected.Since the budget review was conducted at a very late stage in the
annual program development, it did not accomplish as much as can be
expected in future years. This was recognized prior to undertaking the
review. Whatever experience could be gained this year, both in the
review process and in substantive comments, is a worthwhile addition. In
this connection it is important to note that the presentation of the
budget this year was directed primarily at the increase being requested,
without any analysis of previous budgetary allotments. Furthermore, it
is obvious that devoting only an hour or two to each office, with this
type of presentation, clearly has limitations.In consideration of the interests of the National Security Council, it
would appear that much could be gained by some procedure which would
allow the Departments of State and Defense to participate in some degree
on a continuing basis as the programs develop throughout the year. It is
felt that the CIA would gain much strength and much support from the
mutual confidence to be derived from a more detailed understanding of
its direction.
General Comments
The funds appropriated for the activities of Central Intelligence are
not large in terms of the total budget of the United States Government,
nor in terms of the contribution which intelligence and operations can
make to national security and the success of the United States foreign
and military policy. Nevertheless, the CIA budget does represent a very
significant element of the total government appropriation to
intelligence activity; in fact, CIA appropriations are greater than the
aggregate of the other US foreign intelligence organizations.The United States is relatively inexperienced in operating a national
intelligence system. Wise and vigorous action will be necessary if this
Government hopes to shorten appreciably the decades normally required
for the development of a sound national intelligence system. In a broad
review of this type, therefore, the primary question to be answered is
“What is the proper rate of growth?” In general, CIA should be supplied
with moderately increased funds over the next several years, limited primarily by the
effectiveness with which they can spend their funds.There are two points which are relevant to the question of
effectiveness. First, and of more importance, is the question of
objectives. The objectives of CIA are found in the National Security Act
of 1947 and in the directives of the National Security Council. This
latter category includes the National Security Intelligence Directives
(NSCIDs), the report titled “The
Central Intelligence Agency and National Organization for Intelligence”
(Dulles Report), and NSC 50. Thus, during the current review,
the specific objectives outlined in these directives were considered to
help in arriving at least at a tentative answer to the question as to
whether the funds appropriated were being spent in such a manner as to
fulfill the objectives of the agency in the most direct manner. The
conclusion is inescapable that CIA still continues to have serious
shortcomings. NSC 50 remains largely
unimplemented. It is recognized that the Department of State and of
Defense have requested that paragraph 6a(1) not be implemented until it
can be given further study. This, of course, should not operate to delay
the implementation of the other directives of the National Security
Council in NSC 50. It is further
recognized that there remain serious defects in the integration of the
federal intelligence system which derive from unresolved differences
with departmental agencies.A subsidiary question to the question of effectiveness is the
capability of the agency to spend the money in the period for which it
is requested. There are serious reservations on the part of the State
and Defense Departments about the capability of CIA to spend the
increase which has been requested for profitable projects, which are
clearly defined.The capability of CIA to recruit and train in 19 months 514 competent
people, as indicated by comparison of their present and proposed
authorized strength, is open to question. Even if it is possible, the
implications of this pressure to recruit rapidly should be noted, for
the pressure to fill large numbers of vacancies lowers measurably the
standards of recruitment.The more specific comments which follow apply to only three of the
offices of CIA. It is felt with respect to the remaining offices that no
comment was necessary and that, within the limits of judgment afforded
by the presentation and review, a generally satisfactory condition
appeared to exist.
Office of Policy Coordination
Of the total amount appropriated for this security for the current
fiscal year, only about 40% had been programmed by November 1. An
additional one-third had been earmarked for one project which came up
for consideration after
the beginning of the fiscal year. These figures would appear to indicate
that the firm demand for funds for this activity could be supplied
without difficulty within the funds appropriated—with the added
possibility that there might be unexpended funds at the end of this
fiscal year—and that the need for increased funds for fiscal 1951 is
wholly dependent on new projects undertaken. New projects are in turn
dependent on the possibilities for accommodation of this type of
activity to foreign policy as it evolves in fiscal 1951. An increase of
funds is requested for fiscal 1951 amounting roughly to 100%. Given the
present rate of development, it is doubtful that the need for new
projects will double over the next 18 months. The Departments of State
and Defense are entering no objection to the requested increase in
funds, but suggest that continuing review be given the progress and
developments of this Office during the next several months.The comment above on the tendency of unfilled vacancies to have an
adverse pressure on the quality of personnel recruited seems to have
particular application to this Office. Most of the total increase of
persons requested by CIA as a whole is for this activity. Here
particularly it would appear doubtful that so many people with the
desired qualifications, plus normal turnover, could be recruited and
cleared in eighteen months.
Office of Special Operations
Generally, the Departments of State and Defense feel that this Office
has requested a justifiable increase and that the emphasis by geographic
area resulting from the increase is proper.It is suggested that the Office inquire into the possibility of
effecting specific savings in the negotiation of properties abroad
through the application of the mutual defense concept of the North
Atlantic treaty.It is further suggested that the Office increase its efforts to
provide for cover arrangements other than through official United States
Government establishments abroad. This must be for the foreseeable
future a paramount assignment of this Office.
Office of Reports and Estimates
In the light of the National Security Act of 1947, NSC Intelligence Directives, the Dulles Report, and NSC 50, serious question arises over the
existence of such a large staff in this Office.Appropriate to this question is the discussion during the course of
the review, in which it was pointed out that the organization had grown
on an ad hoc basis since its establishment in the Central Intelligence
Group and that the organization was shaped by customer requests. It was
advanced that since CIA is the intelligence facility of the NSC, it is incumbent on ORE to furnish them the type of estimate
they need, irrespective of
NSCID No. 1. It was further stated
that if the National Security Council Staff requests an estimate, and
sets a deadline, and the Agency having responsibility for that
particular type of intelligence is unable to meet the deadline, then
ORE must have facilities on hand to
do the work in lieu of the Agency normally responsible. Among other
things this argumentation overlooks the fact that one of CIA’s important
responsibilities is the coordination of intelligence.It is apparent that there exists a fundamental divergence of view as
among the several agencies on the mission to be performed by ORE, on the relation of its work to that of
the other intelligence resources of the Government and therefore on the
size of staff required. There is an urgent need for clarification of
this function and responsibility, probably requiring revision or
amplification of existing NSCID’s.
Under certain interpretations of the present directives the conclusion
is inescapable that ORE is overstaffed.
It is suggested therefore, that urgent consideration be given this
problem.
418. Letter From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Director
of Air Force Intelligence (Cabell)Source:
Central Intelligence Agency Historical Files, HS/HC–208, Item 14.
Secret. Sent to all members of the Intelligence Advisory
Committee.Washington, March 6, 1950.
Dear General
Cabell: The receipt is acknowledged of your circular
memorandumNot found. dated 27
February 1950 about changing U.S. policy regarding the treatment of foreign
Military, Naval, and Air Attachés assigned to the U.S. by their
governments.
I agree with you that this policy should be reviewed in the light of world
conditions at present and that the U.S. might well establish strict
reciprocity in granting privileges to foreign attachés whose governments so
rigidly restrict the activities of our own attachés.
I should say, however, that this matter is of primary concern to the
Departments of Defense and State, but this Agency, of course, has a vital
interest in the collection capabilities of our attache organization. You
will recall that I wrote the Secretary of Defense at the request of the
Intelligence Advisory Committee
on 17 February 1950 to the effect that our Service Attachés are the backbone
of our military intelligence collection effort. Foreign governments may well
feel the same way about their own attachés. As I see it, however, the change
you suggest in our diplomatic policy is not within the competence of this
intelligence Agency or of the Intelligence Advisory Committee.
Since our Service Intelligence Officers, in charge of the foreign military,
naval, and air attachés assigned here, presumably cannot give highly
selective treatment to the various nationalities on duty here, they can make
their recommendations for changes in policy to the Secretary of Defense who
in turn can take up the diplomatic phases of this matter with the Secretary
of State. They are the President’s Cabinet Officers chiefly concerned in
this policy matter, whereas this Agency’s duties pertain to the coordination
of national intelligence.
However, if it might be considered helpful, this Agency, although having only
an indirect interest in the subject, is prepared to submit to the Secretary
of Defense and the Secretary of State a statement endorsing the imposing of
restrictions on Soviet and satellite attachés, comparable to those placed on
our own attachés abroad.
I am requesting my staff to discuss this matter further with your staff.
Sincerely,
R. H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
419. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to the Under Secretary of State (Webb)Source: Department of State, A/MS Files: Lot 54 D 291.
Top Secret. Drafted by Fisher Howe. The date has
been inserted by hand. The subsequent history of this proposal is
uncertain and it is not clear that the proposed directive was in fact
submitted to the National Security Council.Washington, March 6, 1950.
SUBJECT
National Security Council Directive on Covert Operations
Problem:
To revise the organization for the conduct of covert
operations.
Discussion:
NSC 10/2Document 292. created a new
Office of Policy Coordination (OPC)
within CIA, to plan and conduct covert operations under the direct
policy guidance of the Departments of State and Defense.NSC 50,Document 384. following the
recommendation of the Dulles
Committee Report, recommended that CIA combine in one office the Office
of Policy Coordination (OPC), the Office
of Special Operations (OSO), which is
responsible for espionage and counter-espionage, and the Contacts Branch
which is responsible for collection of foreign intelligence within the
United States.The attached proposed NSC directive to
implement NSC 50 and, therefore, revise
NSC 10/2 has been worked out by the
Department with General Magruder
of the NME, and has been approved by
Secretary Johnson. The Executive
Secretary, NSC, has been informally
consulted.The substance of the revision proposed by this directive is as
follows: Distinction is made in covert operations between: Those which are subtle and truly covert and remain so,
such as political and economic warfare and propaganda;
andThose which are “rough” and tend eventually to become
known, for example, sabotage, guerrilla and
para-military operations, etc.CIA is directed to combine under one Assistant Director of
CIA, espionage and counter-espionage, all covert operations and
the Contact Branch, but in so doing, to place subtle covert
operations in the same organizational unit with espionage and counter-espionage and
apart from the unit which will plan “rough” covert
operations.Furthermore, it is directed that the “rough” operations which
are approved in peacetime will be carried out by the unit
responsible for espionage and subtle operations, even though
planned by the unit responsible for planning “rough”
operations.The problem of appropriate organization within the State Department to
deal with the revised CIA organization will be the subject of a separate
paper.Not found.
Recommendation:
That you approve the attached proposed NSC
directive for submission to the NSC as a
joint State–NME proposal.
W. Park Armstrong, Jr.Printed from a copy that bears
this typed signature.
AttachmentNo classification
marking.
Memorandum for the Executive Secretary of the National
Security Council (Lay)
The Departments of State and Defense jointly submit the attached paper
for consideration by the National Security Council.
AttachmentTop Secret.
PROPOSED NSC 10/3
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ON COVERT
OPERATIONS
In NSC 10/2 the National Security
Council agreed: “The National Security Council, taking cognizance of the
vicious covert activities of the USSR, its satellite
countries and Communist groups to discredit and defeat the
aims and activities of the United States and other Western
powers, has determined that, in the interests of world peace
and US national security, the overt foreign activities of
the US Government must be supplemented by covert
operations.”“The Central Intelligence Agency is charged by the
National Security Council with conducting espionage and
counter-espionage operations abroad. It therefore seems
desirable, for operational reasons, not to create a new
agency for covert operations, but in time of peace to place
the responsibility for them within the structure of the
Central Intelligence Agency and correlate them with
espionage and counter-espionage operations under the overall
control of the Director of Central Intelligence.”In approving NSC 50, based on the
Dulles–Jackson–Correa Report, the NSC agreed that
“The operations of the Office of Special Operations, the
Office of Policy Coordination and the Contact Branch of the
Office of Operations should be integrated under single
over-all direction in an operations division, with its
separate administration, within CIA.”
Therefore, under the authority of Section 102(d)(4) and (5) of the
National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the National Security
Council hereby directs, in accordance with NSCID 5, in lieu of NSC
10/2, and in light of paragraph 6a(1) of NSC 50, that: As used in this directive, “covert operations” are
understood to be all activities which are conducted or
sponsored by this Government against hostile foreign states
or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or
groups, but which are so planned and executed that any U.S.
Government responsibility for them is not evident to
unauthorized persons, and that if uncovered, the U.S.
Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for
them. Specifically, such operations shall include any covert
activities related to: political manipulations; propaganda;
economic warfare; preventive direct action, including
sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures;
subversion against hostile states, including assistance to
underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee
liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist
elements in threatened countries of the free world. Such
operations shall not include armed conflict by recognized
military forces and cover and deception for military
operations; nor shall they include espionage and
counter-espionage as provided for in NSCID 5.It will be recognized that there are two broad types of
covert operations, namely: Those activities which by their nature are truly
covert and must remain so if they are to succeed,
e.g., political and economic warfare, and propaganda
operations, which types of activity have a close
affinity to espionage and counter-espionage;
andThose activities whose development designedly
leads to physical manifestations and therefore cease
to be covert, which include all other covert
operations.The following organizational changes will be affected
within CIA: A new office of operations with specialized
organic administrative services shall be created
within the Central Intelligence Agency to embrace
the functions now being performed by the Office of
Special Operations, the Office of Policy
Coordination, and the Contact Branch.A highly qualified person, nominated by the
Secretaries of State and Defense, and acceptable to
the Director of Central Intelligence, shall be
appointed as an Assistant Director, CIA, as head of
the new office of operations.The Assistant Director for the new office of
operations shall report to the Director of Central
Intelligence. For the purposes of security and of
flexibility of operations, and to the maximum degree
consistent with efficiency, the new office of
operations shall operate independently of other
components of the Central Intelligence
Agency.The new office of operations shall consist of three
operating units which shall perform the following functions: A unit which will perform the functions now
carried out by the Contact Branch as prescribed in
NSCID–7.A unit which will perform the functions now
carried out by the Office of Special Operations,
namely: espionage and counter-espionage as
prescribed in NSCID–5. Additionally, this unit shall
plan and conduct covert political and economic
warfare and propaganda operations in peace and war.
All covert operations authorized in peacetime shall
be conducted under the direction of this
unit.A unit which shall plan and conduct all other
covert operations enumerated in Paragraph A above.
However, such operations as may be authorized to be
undertaken in peacetime shall be conducted under the
direction of the unit specified in (ii)
above.Plans and preparations for the conduct of covert
operations in time of peace which require physical support
or assistance of the military services, and plans and
preparations for the conduct of covert operations in time of
war or national emergency, or when the President directs,
shall be coordinated with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Such
preparations and plans shall be drawn up with the assistance
of a representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and plans
for wartime covert operations shall be accepted by the
latter as being consistent with and complementary to
approval plans for wartime military operations. The
execution of covert operations in military theaters shall be
under the control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.The Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible
for ensuring that: Through designated representatives of the
Secretary of State and of the Secretary of Defense,
covert operations are planned and conducted in a
manner consistent with foreign and military policies
and with overt activities;Through appropriate channels, agencies of the U.S.
Government, both at home and abroad (including
diplomatic and military representatives in each
area), are informed of such operations as will
affect them.Covert operations pertaining to economic warfare
will be conducted under the guidance of the
Departments and agencies responsible for the
planning of economic warfare.
420. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for
Research and Intelligence (Armstrong) to the Under Secretary of State (Webb)Source: National Archives and Records Administration,
RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research: Lot 58 D 776, National Intelligence Problem.
Secret. Drafted by W.C. Trueheart.Washington, May 2, 1950.
SUBJECT
National Intelligence Estimates
As you are aware, it has long been apparent that existing mechanisms and
procedures for producing national intelligence estimates are inadequate.
Although this situation was pointed out with considerable clarity and force
by the Dulles–Jackson–Correa Committee report of January 1, 1949, later endorsed
generally by the National Security Council in NSC 50 of July 1, 1949, it has been equally apparent that no
effective steps will be taken to bring about improvement unless specific
instructions are issued by the NSC.
The problem is a difficult and complicated one and has been under intensive
study in R for more than six months. The
results of our initial investigation are embodied in a departmental staff
study dated January 3, 1950, attached as Tab A. I believe that you will find
this study useful as general background on the question, especially with
respect to the differences of view which have existed between CIA and the
other intelligence agencies, notably State.
While the departmental study was under way we began discussions with
General Magruder of the
Department of Defense, who was independently working on the problem, and
with the service intelligence chiefs. These discussions have led to a joint
staff study and proposed NSC directive dated
May 1, 1950, appended as Tab B, on which there is now State-Defense
agreement at the intelligence level. We have discussed our ideas with the
Intelligence advisers and are now in process of putting them before Messrs.
Kennan,
Nitze, and Rusk. Mr. Lay has also been kept informed of the
various drafts, though he has not of course been asked to take a
position.
We sincerely believe that the mechanisms and procedures set forth in the
proposed directive will make possible the production of national
intelligence of the high quality which the President and the National
Security Council have the right to expect.
Before the study is put before the NSC,
however, it will be necessary, or at least desirable, to show it to the
Director of Central Intelligence, and obtain his views. There are a number
of ways in which this might be done, but the Defense representatives agree
with us that the approach definitely should not be at the IAC level and in fact should follow a general
approval by you and Secretary Johnson
or Under Secretary Early. If you are in agreement with
the proposal, you and Mr. Early could appropriately lay
it before Admiral Hillenkoetter on
an informal basis.
It is very probable that your support and personal assistance will be
necessary in any further steps that are taken. We stand ready at any time to
give you further briefing and to discuss the various procedures we might use
to put it into effect.
Tab ASecret.Washington, January 3, 1950.
Department of State Staff Study on National
Intelligence
Problem
What is the nature of national intelligence and how can its production be
improved?
Facts
1. Responsibility for the production of national intelligence rests with
the Central Intelligence Agency. This responsibility derives, in the
first instance, from the National Security Act of 1947 which provides
(Section 102 (d) (3)) that the CIA shall “correlate and evaluate
intelligence relating to the national security, and provide for the
appropriate dissemination of such intelligence within the Government
using where appropriate existing agencies and facilities”. The Act
further provides that “the departments and other agencies of the
Government shall continue to collect, evaluate, correlate and
disseminate departmental intelligence”.
2. Pursuant to the National Security Act, the National Security Council
issued a series of intelligence directives (NSCID’s) for the guidance of CIA and the other intelligence
agencies. In these directives “intelligence relating to the national
security”—called “national intelligence”—is defined, and principles to
govern its production and dissemination are established. The definition
given is as follows:
“National intelligence is integrated departmental intelligence
that covers the broad aspects of national policy and national
security, is of concern to more than one Department or Agency,
and transcends the exclusive competence of a single Department
or Agency or the Military Establishment.” (NSCID–3)
The principle governing the production of national intelligence
is:
“In so far as practicable, [the CIA]These and following brackets are in the
source text. shall not duplicate the intelligence
activities and research of the various Departments and
Agencies but shall make use of existing intelligence
facilities and shall utilize departmental intelligence for
such production purposes.” (NSCID–3)
The principle governing dissemination of national intelligence is:
“Intelligence so disseminated [i.e. to the President, the
NSC, etc.] shall be
officially concurred in by the Intelligence Agencies or
shall carry a statement of substantially differing
opinions.” (NSCID–3)
3. The National Security Council, with the assistance of the Dulles–Jackson–Correa
Committee, recently re-examined, and specifically reaffirmed as sound,
these provisions of the National Security Act of 1947 and the NSCID’s relating to national intelligence
(NSC 50, section 1 c and 5 c). The
NSC concluded, however, that the
directives have not been effectively carried out, principally because
there has been within the CIA a confusion between responsibility for
producing national intelligence estimates and responsibility for miscellaneous
research and reporting (NSC 50; section
5 c).
4. In referring to the directives relating to the production of
departmental and national intelligence, the NSC agreed with the Dulles Committee that the CIA should interpret and
follow the NSC directives so as to
refrain as far as possible from competitive intelligence activities in
the production of research intelligence estimates (NSC 50; section 5 c).
5. The NSC also reaffirmed the principle
that the CIA should draw upon the specialized intelligence production of
the agencies in order to prepare coordinated national intelligence
estimates, and declared that a procedure should be adopted which would
permit the Director of Central Intelligence to take full advantage of
departmental opinion while retaining sole responsibility for the final
national intelligence product. (NSC 50;
section 5 c).
Discussion
An objective appraisal of the problem requires a fuller analysis of the
various factors which have contributed to its existence. Such an
analysis logically calls for consideration of possibly divergent views
as to the nature of national intelligence, as to the meaning of the
directives relating thereto, and to the utility of the directives in
practice. The discussion which follows, therefore, seeks: first to place
in focus the major unresolved issues in the broad field of national
intelligence production; second, to consider the concept of national
intelligence as it bears upon such issues; third, to interpret the
directives in terms of the theory of national intelligence; and fourth,
to test the theory against practical realities.
I. Focus of the Problem
A. General.
6. The confusion with respect to national intelligence, to which the
NSC referred, stemmed from differing
interpretations of the controlling directives and differing concepts of
national intelligence and of coordination (Dulles report, pp. 65, 69). Such differences still exist
and still seriously impede the national intelligence production effort.
Probably the differing interpretations and concepts of State and CIA
provide the most clear-cut expression of the issues involved.
B. CIA View.
7. CIA apparently believes that: Inasmuch as the Director is, by law, solely responsible for
producing national intelligence estimates, collaborative
preparation of such estimates is not necessary. At the option of
CIA, other agencies may be asked to assist in the preparation of
estimates, or the entire production process, from research
through drafting, may be carried out by CIA. This production
responsibility, therefore, not only forces him to reject any
thought of collective responsibility with the IAC, but also justifies him in
minimizing procedures for joint or collaborative preparation of
drafts.“Coordination” of national intelligence estimates can be
adequately accomplished by a procedure which gives the other
IAC agencies the opportunity
to express concurrence or dissent to finished drafts presented
to them by the CIA. By this token, CIA may itself write reports
on any topic, subject only to the concurrence procedure.The definition of “National Intelligence” cited in paragraph 2
above should be interpreted as follows: departmental intelligence is integrated if the departments participate to
the extent of expressing concurrence or dissent in the
CIA product;intelligence covers “the broad aspects of national
policy and national security,” and becomes national
intelligence if an important aspect of national policy
or security is concerned, whether or not it falls wholly
within the responsibility of some one department.intelligence “transcends the exclusive competence of a
single Department or Agency or the Military
Establishment,” whether or not such intelligence can be
produced by a single departmental agency, if it has been
specifically requested by the President or an
inter-departmental agency, or initiated by the CIA.It might here be pointed out
that unquestionably many of these and other requests
relate to a popular but erroneous impression that
CIA possesses information not held by the other
IAC agencies and
can therefore produce unique reports. In fact, all
CIA information is distributed to the appropriate
IAC agencies. The
latter have more information on their own fields
than does the CIA. [Footnote in the source
text.]A large staffAccording to the
Dulles report,
this staff numbered some 600 persons as of 1 January 1949.
[Footnote in the source text.] is needed to ensure
that the DCI has the facilities
to carry out his responsibility for producing national
intelligence, for without such a staff under his immediate
direction he cannot: meet emergency situations.protect himself from being dependent upon Departmental
priorities in the production of papers.analyze the mass of information necessary to detect
possible departmental bias and thus provide the
independent “check” required of him.accept the responsibility involved in expressing an
independent intelligence opinion sometimes at variance
with the opinion of one or more of the other IAC agencies.Such a staff may independently prepare intelligence papers and
conduct intelligence research operations parallel to those of
the other IAC agencies in all
phases of production.
C. State View.
8. State believes that the CIA views outlined in A above fail to meet the
intent of the NSC, have been largely
responsible for the continuing failure of the efforts to produce
adequate national intelligence, have produced an unwarranted duplication
of effort, and have tended to disrupt the entire intelligence production
effort. Specifically, State believes that in terms of current
definitions: The DCI’s responsibility for
“producing” national intelligence prohibits him from requesting the IAC collectively to share
responsibility for the final, independent judgment required by
law, but imposes upon him an absolute
obligation to seek the individual and collective opinion of the
departmental specialists in arriving at his judgment.
“Producing” does not mean that CIA does the entire work of
preparing reports from the basic raw information; rather it
means that CIA welds into a unified whole the oral or written
contributions of the Departments.“Coordination” of national intelligence is effective only
insofar as it enlists a common, working collaboration of the
responsible intelligence experts throughout the agencies in
presenting the most authoritative reports possible.
Responsibility for coordination, therefore, cannot mean that CIA
should assume responsibility for all projects which happen to be
referred to it. On the contrary, coordination implies, inter
alia, that CIA should serve as a clearing house for referring to
the appropriate IAC member any
projects which fall within that member’s field of
responsibility.National intelligence is “integrated” only when departmental intelligence
has explicitly participated in its preparation at every
stage;covers broad aspects of national policy and security
only when it involves topics of wide scope which require
an objective balancing and interrelating of factors over
which no one agency exercises exclusive
jurisdiction.transcends the competence of the agencies only if it
requires a fusion of functional specialties of more than
one agency.The quality of the central staff rather than the size is the
determining factor in accomplishing the national intelligence
mission; departmental staffs can provide the elements of
national intelligence; acuteness rather than exhaustive research
is required to check the results.Central duplication is wasteful and dangerous to the extent
that certain products of CIA are distributed outside regular
channels and thus add to the stream of intelligence
uncoordinated views that are sometimes divergent.
II. Concept of National Intelligence
General.9. The conflicts in this situation divide themselves into problems
of definition and of execution; all of these in turn depend in part
on the concept of national intelligence. Upon the resolution of
these problems hangs in considerable measure the future shape of
intelligence production in the United States. Background.10. The wartime experiment with “joint” intelligence
unquestionably provided experience which helped to shape the
theories under which the Central Intelligence Agency was
established. During the war, “joint” intelligence was produced
through a committee structure, with departmental representatives
drawing from their respective departments the intelligence opinion
required for joint intelligence problems. This pyramidal concept
proved sound except that its peak, a committee of equals, tended to
produce a watered-down product. The plan recommended after the war
for central intelligence retained the pyramid but replaced the
committee by a Director who was empowered to express an independent
view on national intelligence. It was provided that to the maximum
extent possible the Director’s view should represent a fusion of
expert departmental opinion, but to avoid the watering down that
would result from forced agreement the device of dissent, or written
statement of serious disagreement with the Director’s conclusion, at
once freed the Director from being bound by Departmental views and
allowed policy officials to know when such serious doubt existed. Analysis of Concept.11. This concept finds support in the Dulles report analysis (p. 70):
“In the original Central Intelligence Group it was conceived
that there would be a small organization of highly qualified
individuals which would limit itself strictly to national
intelligence problems and base its work primarily on the
specialized reports and estimates produced by the
departments rather than employ a large research and analysis
organization of its own.”
and at pp. 68–69:
“The concept of national intelligence underlying the statute
and the directives is that of an authoritative
interpretation and appraisal that will serve as a firm guide
to policy-makers and planners. A national intelligence
estimate should reflect the coordination of the best
intelligence opinion. It should be based on all available
information and be prepared with full knowledge of our own
plans and in the light of our policy requirements. The
estimate should be compiled and assembled centrally by an
agency whose objectivity and disinterestedness are not open
to question. Its ultimate approval should rest upon the
collective responsibility of the highest officials in the
various intelligence agencies.”
III. Embodiment of the Concept in Definitions
Collaborative Preparation.12. It seems clear from the foregoing that the assignment to the
Director of Central Intelligence of responsibility for the
production of national intelligence did not imply an obligation on
his part to prepare estimate entirely from his own resources. To be
sure, the NSC rejected the Dulles report’s extreme suggestion
of collective responsibility, but this by no means implied an
opposite extreme. Indeed, the NSC
explicitly endorsed the Dulles report when it reaffirmed belief in
collective construction of reports. (NSC 50, section 5 c supra), a belief more sharply
stated at p. 68 of the Dulles
report:
“Although the Act and Intelligence Directives give the CIA
the independent right of producing national intelligence,
Directive No. 1 stipulates that such intelligence shall be
officially concurred in by the intelligence agencies or
shall carry statement of substantial dissent. As a practical
matter, such estimates can be written only with the
collaboration of experts in many fields of intelligence and
with the cooperation of several departments and agencies of
government.”
13. It seems fair to assume that the several recognitions of
“departmental intelligence” which appear in the Act and in the
Intelligence Directives were included with the conscious purpose
that such intelligence should play a part in the national
intelligence scheme. The NSC ID’s
further carefully allocate responsibility for national intelligence
to the CIA and for designated fields of “dominant interest” to each
departmental agency in such a way that the department fields among
them cover the major functional division of intelligence;Political, Cultural, Sociological
Intelligence—State; Military Intelligence—Army; Naval
Intelligence—Navy; Air Intelligence—Air; Economic, Scientific
and Technological Intelligence—Each agency in accordance with
its respective needs. [Footnote in the source text.] this
can only mean that each department was to furnish a part of the
whole and to operate, for economy’s sake if nothing more, on a
system of interreliance. CIA’s responsibility for coordination, in
the sense of leadership in a common effort, was thus intimately
related to its responsibility for national intelligence production.
The Dulles report speaks of
this relationship at p. 65.
The CIA is—“given the responsibility of
seeing to it that the United States has adequate central
machinery for the examination and interpretation of
intelligence so that the national security will not be
jeopardized by failure to coordinate the best intelligence
opinion in the country … This responsibility has not been
adequately discharged and remedial measures are necessary.
There is confusion as to the proper role of CIA in the
preparation of intelligence reports and estimates. This
confusion has
resulted from incorrect interpretation and lack of proper
implementation of the statute and the directives. The
reasons for this go to the heart of the national
intelligence problem …”—Dulles report, p. 65.
Distinction Between Departmental and National
Intelligence.14. Unless the distinction between national and departmental
intelligence is vigorously maintained among the members of the
intelligence team there will obviously result a serious diminution
in the effectiveness of the entire structure, both in productivity
and type of product. The attached ORE Status Report of 1 December 1949 lists titles of
recent or impending CIA “national intelligence” reports. The
following titles, among others, confirm the state of confusion which
exists: Communism in ScandinaviaPolitical orientation of the West German StateThe Succession of Power in the USSRPostwar developments in Latin American civil
aviationRelation of Indonesia to the Economy of the
NetherlandsUK activities in IranGreat Britain and the German ProblemSoviet objectives in Latin AmericaThe Suppression of Communism in TurkeySoviet role in the UN15. It need hardly be argued, in terms of preceding concepts and
definitions, that such reports fail to fulfill the high mission
assigned the CIA in this field. It may, indeed, be pointed out that
under any reasonable interpretation of the allocations established
in NSCID 3, most, if not all, of
these topics fall largely within the field which is recognized as
the responsibility of the State Department—well outside the field
defined as national intelligence. The Dulles–Jackson–Correa interpretation of the pertinent directive
seems sufficient (Dulles
report, pp. 67, 68):
“The significant provision of Directive No. 3 for the CIA is
the definition of national intelligence, for which the
Agency is given exclusive responsibility … In effect the
directive interprets the vague provision of the National
Security Act on “intelligence relative to the national
security” to cover a particular type of intelligence
reasonably distinct from departmental intelligence and
conforming to admittedly broad but generally comprehensible
specification.”
National Intelligence “should deal with topics of wide scope
relevant to the determination of basic policy, such as the
assessment of a country’s war potential, its preparedness
for war, its strategic capabilities and intentions, its
vulnerability to various forms of direct attack or indirect
pressures. An intelligence estimate of such scope inevitably
‘transcends the exclusive competence of a single Department
or Agency or the Military Establishment.’ A major objective,
then, in establishing the CIA was to provide the
administrative machinery for the coordination of
intelligence opinion, for its assembly and review,
objectively and
impartially, and for its expression in the form of estimates
of national scope and importance.”
IV. Practicability of the National Intelligence
Plan
Operational Practices.16. If then the theory of the national intelligence production
plan is sound, is the plan practical in operation? The CIA evidently
believes not. As was noted above, the DCI’s interpretation of sole responsibility for
national intelligence has led to the establishment of a large staff
to assist in preparing such intelligence. The principle that maximum
use should be made of departmental facilities (NSCID 3) has been forced aside
through the fact of the staff’s existence and the operational
practices which the CIA considers essential to its position. The
result, as put by the Dulles
Report (p. 54) is that “the Central Intelligence Agency itself has
become a competitive producer of intelligence on subjects of its own
choosing which can by no stretch of the imagination be called
national intelligence.” Whether there is need for the practices
which led to this result warrants detailed discussion, and can be
clarified by answering a small number of questions:Problems in Execution.17. Is Cooperative Preparation Incompatible with
Sole Responsibility for Production?The responsibility for production of national intelligence was
centered in one official to guard against compromise or a possible
failure to unify in one place all available intelligence. It was not
so centered to relieve departmental experts from all but a review
function. On the contrary, it was designed to provide a common
meeting ground where the specialized departmental intelligence views
could be considered in relation to a broad, interdepartmental
problem, could be synthesized in the form of a single, authoritative
estimate, and put forth under the responsibility of the central
authority. Such an estimate had to be founded upon departmental
intelligence provided especially for the occasion to ensure that the
central balancing of possibly divergent views was a balancing of
elements tailored to the same problem. This concept of common effort
had also its practical side: Maximum utilization with minimum
duplication of the intelligence production resources of the
Government.18. Can the DCI
Rely upon a System of Cooperative Preparation for National
Intelligence Purposes?The DCI is empowered to secure
from the departments all available intelligence and to request
special intelligence studies (NSCID 3). He is also empowered to secure from the
Departments all intelligence information which he requires. The
tools therefore are at hand for him to carry out his missions of
coordination and production. The materials available enable him to
plan the national intelligence program, to spot weaknesses in
departmental intelligence programs, to be alert to crisis situations, and to
initiate or respond to novel projects of high national importance.
There remain, even so, possible difficulties which must be examined
further: Can the DCI receive prompt and adequate service on
a national intelligence request which conflicts in an
agency with other work in progress? To be sure,
without a considerable increase in departmental intelligence
staffs, the DCI cannot
expect to receive prompt and adequate service on the variety
of miscellaneous reports currently being produced as
“national intelligence.” However, with respect to problems
of such scope and importance as to warrant a national
intelligence estimate, it will generally be found that the
relevant agencies already have work in progress on the
subject. It is then simply a matter of adjusting a current
agency project to the national intelligence problem rather
than of initiating a totally new project. The difficulty can
in part also be resolved through effective programming which
would give participants notice of forthcoming burdens and
permit adjustments of their schedules. Should these
principles fail, the DCI’s
relationship with the IAC
and NSC ensures any
necessary attention to a well considered project of national
intelligence. There remains, however, one possible obstacle:
agency limitations in personnel and equipment. To meet an
emergency of this sort the NSCIDs contemplate that the DCI shall support the
departments in the interest of the over-all Governmental
intelligence structure (NSCID 1) and either assist the agency in
securing from usual sources the necessary reinforcement or
himself supply the reinforcement to the agency.Is collaborative composition
incompatible with the speed required in crisis
situations? Collaborative composition does not
necessarily imply time-consuming composition. It implies
rather a flexible means of obtaining the fullest feasible
application of pertinent viewpoints to a given problem.
Normally a national intelligence crisis estimate (cf.
Estimate of Russian intentions, March 1946) is a brief
expression of conclusions evolved from a maximum pooling of
evidence and ideas with a minimum of composition.
Collaborative composition may thus on one occasion involve a
careful, laborious process of group drafting; on another,
individual drafting from agency submissions for group
consideration; on another, individual drafting on the basis
of group discussion. Topic and deadline in each case could
determine the method.Can the DCI detect possible departmental bias and
thus provide the independent “check” required of
him? An abiding fear of any intelligence officer is
the fear that operational pressures may force intelligence
to lend unjustified support to a given policy or that
personal feelings may develop prejudice. The danger is
inherent in any intelligence plan. Obviously if State,
wedded to a particular policy, presents facts distorted by
faulty preconceptions, the resulting intelligence report
will be defective. Unquestionably, such a danger is an
important reason why the DCI has final
responsibility for the national intelligence position.
Detection of bias, however, is as readily accomplished
through collective as through central preparation. The
caliber of the CIA staff is largely determinative in either
event, but that staff, under a collective theory, has
greater assistance from other knowledgeable agencies, whose
cross-views may bring out hidden faults. In reality the
problem of bias is a purely practical one; to achieve the
perfect solution, one would require a skyscraper of staffs
of equal size, each checking the findings of the one on the
floor beneath; in actual practice, on the relatively high
level of interpretation at which such bias becomes a
problem, it is not extensive files but intelligent and
inquiring minds that constitute an effective
safeguard.Could the DCI continue to exercise the sometimes
independent judgment required of his position?
Independence of judgment obviously does not deny a theory of
collaborative preparation. As was indicated earlier, the
fixing of responsibility for national intelligence in a
single body was designed to overcome the dangers of
compromise inherent in a joint decision; collaborative
preparation, on the other hand, is the method of obtaining
all relevant views in order that the final judgment may be
based upon the best available intelligence in the various
related fields. The more full the examination of all factors
which condition a single problem, the sounder normally
should be the conclusions derived therefrom. Reliance upon a
single staff as a means for arriving at independent
conclusions, checked only by review, would seem less wise
than a hearing in the first instance, of the best thoughts
of the specialty staffs of the departments.Could a small high-level staff provide
the DCI with the support
he requires in fulfilling his responsibility for
producing national intelligence? Both the NSC and the Dulles Report agreed that a
small staff would and should be sufficient for this purpose.
(NSC 50 section 6 c.)
They added that central research should be confined to
recognized fields of common interest. In those two thoughts
are clear recognition that the duplicatory role of CIA is
wasteful, that national intelligence is a special type
requiring expertise rather than numbers to produce, and that
intelligence research outside of the departments is useful
only in fields where departmental intelligence research is
totally lacking or is being carried out wastefully in more
than one department. If, as has been suggested above, the
national intelligence plan is free from serious practical as
well as theoretical defects, it is difficult to understand
by what theories a large staff is justified. It is doubtful
that the US Government is prepared to support the ideal
mentioned earlier, a series of departmental and independent
groups each duplicating the work of the other in order to
test its accuracy. At some point, there has to be acceptance
of the principle of delegated responsibility.19. Do Departmental Personnel Ceilings Warrant
CIA Retention of a Parallel Intelligence Research Staff to
Absorb Overflow Departmental Work?The national intelligence production plan, indicated above,
envisages the entire intelligence structure as a pyramid; the base,
four strong intelligence agencies to whom are delegated
responsibilities functionally related to the work of the departments
they serve; the apex, the central authority deriving its main
strength from the base and, through its national intelligence staff,
seeking out and arranging the essential union of departmental ideas
which might otherwise never unite. The apex is only as strong as the
foundation. When it placed in one central authority responsibility
for the structure, the NSC
remembered peace-time departmental temptations. It imposed upon the
DCI the task of keeping
intelligence strong. Retention of parallel intelligence research in
CIA not only would tend to destroy the symmetry of the pyramid but
in fact would ignore a prime CIA responsibility—to
ensure as sound as possible an investment of intelligence
resources. Inability in any Department fully to perform its
intelligence mission should be of concern to the DCI in terms of strengthening the weak
spots, or, under his coordinating responsibility, in terms of
recommendation to the NSC. Parallel
reporting absorbs additional Departmental effort in concurrence or
dissents and thus puts impossible strains on the weaker
links.
Conclusions
The production of national intelligence remains at an ineffective
level largely because of a continuing misunderstanding on the part
of the DCI as to the legal
connotations of his responsibility for producing national
intelligence. This misunderstanding has caused the CIA to seek to
establish a national intelligence staff which can provide, from its
own resources, all the materials required for national intelligence
purposes. As a result there has occurred distortion in the meaning
of national intelligence which, in turn, has caused regrettable
wastage, through duplication, of intelligence resources. This, in
turn, has brought on confusion as to the concept of US intelligence
production and has created interdepartmental friction which could
have serious consequences.The clarity of the directives relating to national intelligence
and the recent NSC comments thereon
suggest that some part of the present CIA implementation of those
directives may stem from doubt as to the practicability of the plan
which they outline. In fact, however, the plan is sound, both in
theory and in practice. Its success depends upon a common
realization of its team aspects and the role which each member must
play. The CIA must itself understand and must itself establish
within the IAC a real feeling of the
joint mission which national intelligence represents. The DCI must likewise appreciate more
keenly his broad responsibility for strengthening the entire
intelligence structure.The small staff recommended by the Dulles Staff, working in close collaboration with
present departmental facilities, can provide the DCI the support necessary to fulfill
his national intelligence production mission. Problems will remain,
priorities and the like, but none sufficiently serious that they
cannot be solved through the forthright leadership of the DCI.
Tab BSecret. Darling
reports that General
Magruder was the main drafter of this study (The Central Intelligence Agency, p. 393).
This view is supported by Howe’s comments in
Document 410, which apparently refer
to an earlier draft. It was also known as the Webb Study.Washington, May 1, 1950.
Joint Department of State–Department of Defense Staff
Study
PRODUCTION OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Problem
1. To provide for the more effective production of national intelligence
and to provide for continuous surveillance of current intelligence.
Facts Bearing on the Problem
2. Responsibility for the production of national intelligence rests with
the Central Intelligence Agency. This responsibility derives, in the
first instance, from the National Security Act of 1947 which provides
(Section 102(d)(3)) that the CIA shall “correlate and evaluate
intelligence relating to the national security, and provide for the
appropriate dissemination of such intelligence within the Government
using where appropriate existing agencies and facilities”.
3. Pursuant to the National Security Act, the National Security Council
issued a series of intelligence directives (NSCID’s) for the guidance of CIA and the other intelligence
agencies. In these directives, “intelligence relating to the national
security”—called “national intelligence”—is defined, and principles to
govern its production and dissemination are established.
4. The National Security Council, with the assistance of the Dulles–Jackson–Correa
Committee, recently re-examined, and specifically reaffirmed as sound, those provisions
of the National Security Act of 1947 and the NSCID’s relating to national intelligence (NSC 50, section 1c and 5c). The NSC concluded, however, that the directives
have not been effectively carried out, principally because there has
been within the CIA a confusion between responsibility for producing
national estimates and responsibility for miscellaneous research and
reporting (NSC 50, section 5c).
5. The NSC also reaffirmed the principle
that the CIA should draw upon the specialized intelligence production of
the agencies in order to prepare coordinated national intelligence
estimates, and declared that a procedure should be adopted which would
permit the Director of Central Intelligence to take full advantage of
departmental opinion while retaining sole responsibility for the final
national intelligence product. (NSC 50,
section 5c).
Discussion
6. Experience since the issuance of NSC
50 has indicated that the quality of national intelligence estimates has
not substantially improved and that unwarranted duplication of effort as
between the various agencies has continued. This condition results in
large measure from Continuing disagreement between CIA, on the one hand, and the
departmental agencies, on the other, as to the meaning of
national intelligence;Inadequacies of existing mechanisms and procedures for
production of national intelligence;Continuing confusion within CIA between its responsibility for
producing national intelligence and its responsibility for
miscellaneous research and reporting.
7. The definition of national intelligence given in NSCID–3 needs further and more precise
interpretation. It has not proved adequate as a guide to operating
officials, and it has been subject to varying interpretations. To
resolve this ambiguity, the meaning of the term “national intelligence”
should be restated by the National Security Council, both in terms of
content and in terms of end use.
8. Revision of the definition, however, will not in itself insure the
production of authoritative national intelligence estimates reflecting
the coordination of the best intelligence opinion in the Government.
This can be accomplished only through the revision of existing
mechanisms and procedures, which are inadequate. They should be revised
to insure that national intelligence estimates reflect in every instance
an integration of the best intelligence opinion of the Government. Such
an integration can be fully achieved only through a cooperative process
of preparation in which departmental contributions, oral and written,
are synthesized and
departmental intelligence opinion and advice, explicitly brought to bear
at all stages of production.
9. Continuing confusion within CIA between its responsibility for
national intelligence estimates and its responsibility for miscellaneous
research and reporting can only be cured by an organizational separation
of the staffs carrying out the two functions. A special group should be
created in CIA to handle its national intelligence functions and, in
addition, the surveillance and dissemination of current intelligence
required by executives responsible for the formulation and execution of
national policy. A separate office should be responsible for carrying
out such research and reporting functions of common concern as may be
prescribed by the NSC under the
provisions of Section 102(d)(4) of the National Security Act of
1947.
Conclusions
10. The National Security Council should define national intelligence in
terms of both content and end use so as to provide a clear guide for
operating officials.
11. Existing mechanisms and procedures for the production of national
intelligence estimates should be revised so as to insure that such
estimates represent in every instance an integration of the best
intelligence opinion in the Government.
12. The staff within CIA responsible for carrying out the Agency’s
national intelligence functions should be organizationally separate from
the staff responsible for research and reporting activities of common
concern.
Recommendations
That the National Security Council Approve and issue the attached directive implementing the
conclusions of this paper.Direct that the strength of the National Intelligence Group,
described in paragraph 5 of the directive, shall not exceed 100
officer and/or professional personnel, of whom not more than 20
may be detailed by departmental agencies. One half of the
necessary personnel authorizations or spaces for officer and
professional personnel shall be charged against existing CIA
allotments.Note that after the accumulation of operating experience, the
Director of Central Intelligence, with the advice and assistance
of the IAC, will recommend to
the NSC such modifications in
the strength and composition of the National Intelligence Group
as may be necessary.Note that the Director of Central Intelligence, with the
advice and assistance of the IAC, will submit revisions of existing NSCID’s and DCID’s required to bring those
directives into conformity with the attached directive.
AttachmentSecret.
NSC DIRECTIVE
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs (d) and (c) of Section 102 of
the National Security Act of 1947 and in furtherance of paragraphs 5 and
6.a(2) of NSC 50, the National Security
Council hereby authorizes and directs the following readjustment of the
functions and organization of the Intelligence Advisory Committee and of
the Central Intelligence Agency, in order specifically to insure more
effective production of national intelligence estimates and studies, and
to provide continuous surveillance of current intelligence:
General
1. National intelligence is that intelligence required in the formulation
of policy at the national (i.e. supra-departmental) level. As stated in
NSCID–3, such intelligence
inevitably “covers the broad aspects of national policy and national
security”, and normally it “transcends the exclusive competence of a
single department or agency or the military establishment”. Regardless
of its content, however, intelligence used in the formulation of
national policy must have an interdepartmental basis, i.e., it must
embody departmental intelligence resources and be subjected to adequate
safeguards against bias. Strictly political or strictly military
intelligence estimates, for example, should be considered as national
intelligence in those cases where such estimates are required in the
formulation of policy at the national level.
Because national intelligence serves as a basis for the formulation of
policy at the national level, it is essential that it represent in every
instance an integration of the best intelligence opinion of the
departments. Such an integration can be fully achieved only through a
cooperative process of preparation in which departmental contributions,
oral or written, are synthesized and departmental intelligence views are
explicitly brought to bear at all stages of production. Intelligence
which has not been so produced should not be disseminated as national
intelligence.
Intelligence Advisory Committee
2. Composition
In order to facilitate the effective functioning of the IAC, the Director of Central Intelligence,
the intelligence chiefs of the Departments of State, Army, Navy and Air
Force and the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall each designate a
qualified individual who shall be on full time duty at IAC headquarters and who will be
representative of his agency in matters covered by this directive not
requiring the action of the head of his agency. The Director of the
Joint Intelligence Group and the Director of Intelligence of the Atomic
Energy Commission may designate such representatives if they so desire.
The representative of the Director of Central Intelligence shall
concurrently be head of the National Intelligence Group (hereafter
described).
3. Mission
In addition to its existing functions, the mission of the IAC with respect to national
intelligence shall be To initiate timely national intelligence requirements to
cover future foreseeable needs for national estimates and
studies of a continuing, recurrent, or emergency nature,
such requirements to be recommended to the DCI for preparation by the
National Estimates Staff (hereafter described).To advise the DCI as to
the desirability and feasibility of national estimates and
studies which he may initiate.To review drafts of national estimates and studies
prepared by the National Estimates Staff and resubmit them
for modification or clear them expeditiously for
consideration by the DCI by
unanimous concurrence or with record of substantive dissent
by individual members. All issues under review on which
dissent is pending shall be considered by the assembled
IAC.To maintain contact through the Chairman, IAC, with the NSC staff and national planning
agencies of the Government in order to be cognizant at all
times of contemplated high level negotiations, plans or
projects which should be soundly based on national
intelligence estimates.To maintain close liaison with the Joint Intelligence
Committee in order to coordinate the projects for estimates
in the two committees and to insure the integration of
appropriate parts of national estimates with joint
estimates.In addition to the functions outlined above, it shall be the
mission of the IACBy keeping under continuing review all critical current
intelligence, to be prepared to draw nationally significant
conclusions therefrom, if an emergency threatens or prompt
executive action is indicated. Such conclusions shall be
recommended without delay to the DCI for immediate transmission to key executive
officials.To recommend to the DCI
the nature and specifications of periodic current
intelligence summaries and reports, centrally prepared and
appropriately edited, required by executive officials
responsible for national policy.To recommend to the DCI
the preparation of special intelligence products in
recognized fields of common interest.To be responsible for the conduct of all discussions with
foreign intelligence agencies respecting the formulation of
combined national intelligence estimates and the
preparation, in collaboration with foreign intelligence
agencies, of such combined estimates.
4. Location
The permanent headquarters for deliberations of the IAC shall be conveniently located with
respect to the National Intelligence Group (hereafter described) and its
facilities. The housing and facilities for both the IAC and the National Intelligence Group
shall be provided by the CIA.
National Intelligence Group (NIG)
5. Composition
The National Intelligence Group shall be established as an organic part
of CIA. It shall consist of a National Estimates Staff and Current
Intelligence Staff. A part of the professional and all clerical
personnel of the Group shall be provided by CIA. A proportion of the
professional personnel shall be provided by detail from departmental
agencies for duty with CIA; each individual so detailed shall be
acceptable to the DCI and responsible to
him. The DCI shall provide the necessary
personnel authorizations as well as reimbursement for civilian personnel
assigned. He shall also provide spaces for assigned military personnel
which will be additional to the personnel authorizations of their
respective service intelligence agencies.
National Estimates Staff (NES)
6. Mission
The National Estimates Staff shall: Break down intelligence requisitions initiated by the IAC into component requisitions
upon the several departmental agencies and CIA for their
appropriate contributions of intelligence material, giving clear
specifications as to the nature and scope of material required
and deadline dates for completion.By evaluation, analysis and synthesis of intelligence
contributed in appropriate form and content by the several
departmental intelligence agencies and offices of CIA, prepare
drafts of national estimates and studies.Present draft estimates and studies for consideration of the
members of IAC prior to formal
review by that body. Representatives of the National Estimates
Staff normally shall be present when the drafts are considered by the IAC and shall be authorized to
furnish orally additional reasoning or factual knowledge in
support of statements or conclusions incorporated in the
drafts.From critical information received from the Current
Intelligence Staff or any other source indicating the need for
timely executive action on any scale, prepare crisis estimates
for prompt submission to the DCI
and the IAC.Periodically report to the DCI
and the IAC on the adequacy and
completeness of available information required in the
preparation of national estimates.Collaborate with the Current Intelligence Staff in order to
insure that estimates and studies reflect the most recent,
evaluated, current information, and contra-wise, that the
reasoning of current intelligence publications is not
inconsistent with well-confirmed long-range intelligence.
Current Intelligence Staff (CIS)
7. Mission
The Current Intelligence Staff shall be organized and staffed to effect The prompt and systematic receipt, surveillance, and
appropriate situation room display of all radio, wire and
otherwise rapidly-dispatched current information received in all
agencies and departments of the Government which may be of
significance in the preparation of current intelligence required
by executives responsible for the formulation or implementation
of national policy.The conduct of a 24-hour watch on incoming information with
provisions for immediate alert of the DCI, NIG and the
members of the IAC upon the
indication of critical or emergency situations which might
require the preparation of crisis estimates or timely executive
action on any scale.The identification and preparation of “hot” information
obtained by offices within CIA or from other sources for
dissemination by the DCI if in
his opinion it is of sufficient importance and urgency to be
furnished without delay to the President, the members of the
National Security Council and the IAC.The preparation and dissemination, under the sole
responsibility of the DCI and
with speed appropriate to the apparent significance of the
information, of periodic current intelligence summaries
patterned to the needs of the executives responsible for the
formulation of implementation of national policy. To the extent
practicable, the material in such summaries which is of
predominant interest to a member agency shall be coordinated
with that agency.The operation of an intelligence situation room designed to
serve the needs of the above-mentioned executive officials and
their principal assistants, the IAC and the National Estimates Staff.
Missions of Departmental Agencies and Central Intelligence
Agency(with respect to national intelligence)
8. Departmental Agencies
The several departmental agencies of the IAC shall Furnish upon requisition of the National Estimates Staff,
within the deadline dates prescribed, appropriate intelligence
in form and content as required by the NES to provide for the
national intelligence projects initiated by the IAC.Be prepared to make oral presentations in the NES in support
of their respective intelligence contributions at their own
request or when requested by the NES.Furnish to the CIS in the most expeditious manner possible all
radio, wire and rapidly-dispatched current information of
possible significance to the current intelligence mission of the
CIA. In this category of information should be included the
intelligence content or implications of operational
messages.In the event that intelligence studies in subjects of primary
interest are prepared departmentally which have the
characteristics of national intelligence and are intended for
dissemination above departmental level, they shall be subjected
to the reviewing procedures of the NES and the IAC in order to obtain the
imprimatur of “national intelligence”.In the choice of personnel to be detailed for duty with the
National Intelligence Group, nominate individuals of highest
professional qualifications.
9. Central Intelligence Agency
All offices of CIA having intelligence resources shall contribute
to the requirements of the NES and the CIS in accordance with the
same principles as Federal agencies outside of CIA.Intelligence offices of CIA, other than the National Intelligence
Group, shall be restricted to the production of intelligence
prescribed in paragraphs (4) and (5) of Section 102d of the National
Security Act of 1947.Intelligence studies prepared under Paragraph 9.b., above, if of a
character to be employed as national intelligence, must have passed
through the reviewing procedures of the NES and the IAC before being designated “national
intelligence”.
10. Responsibility of Director, Central Intelligence
Agency and Heads of other Federal Intelligence Agencies
By virtue of the mission assigned in the National Security Act of
1947 to the DCI to produce
intelligence related to the national security (defined by the
National Security Council as “national intelligence”) employing as
far as practicable the resource of existing agencies, and his
mission to coordinate intelligence activities to this end, the
DCI is primarily responsible for
the implementation of this Directive. His available means are the
coordinated and integrated resources of departmental intelligence
agencies of the Government and of CIA itself. The DCI is responsible for mobilizing these
resources in the production of national intelligence and for the
final approval and dissemination of national intelligence estimates
and studies.The other members of the IAC are
responsible in no less degree than the DCI, however, in their obligation to support with their
full resources the mechanism set up in this Directive to accomplish
national intelligence objectives. They are individually responsible
for making available the talent and resources of their respective
agencies in all phases of the production of national
intelligence.“National intelligence” hereafter is limited to intelligence
estimates and studies which have passed through the NES and the
reviewing procedures of the IAC and
have been disseminated under the final responsibility of the DCI; provided, however, that such
national intelligence shall not be disseminated without a statement
indicating concurrence of the members of the Intelligence Advisory
Committee or, when there is a non-concurrence, a statement of
substantially differing opinion. In the event any IAC member fails to act in the
preparation of, or indicate his approval or dissent with respect to,
a national estimate or study, the DCI may proceed with its dissemination in accordance
with his responsibility.
AttachmentSecret. This was not an
enclosure to Armstrong’s
memorandum to Webb, which is
dated 2 days earlier, but was attached to the source text. It may
have been the text or set of notes for a follow-on oral
briefing.
BRIEFING FOR MR. WEBB ON NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE(May 4, 1950)
Introductory
The “national intelligence problem” can be very simply defined: It is the
problem of finding a way of insuring that the President, the NSC and other officials concerned with national policy
have the benefit of the full intelligence
resources of the Government. The problem of national intelligence is
thus by no means the total intelligence problem;
it does not, for example, directly involve the multifarious problems of
collection of information nor a number of other knotty problems in the
intelligence production field. But it is in a very real sense the
capstone of the intelligence business. No matter how good our collection
may be, unless we have a sound mechanism for producing national
intelligence, a mechanism that is not only adequate but respected by the producers and users of
intelligence alike, the intelligence program of the Government has
largely failed.
Now, tapping the full intelligence resources of the Government, and by
this I mean intelligence talent as well as intelligence information,
necessarily involves an interdepartmental process and interdepartmental
cooperation. And this is something relatively new in the intelligence
field.
History
Prior to World War II, the U.S. did not have any mechanism for the
interdepartmental evaluation of intelligence and the production of
interdepartmental estimates. (In some measure, the lack was responsible
for Pearl Harbor, and doubtless the Congress had this disaster very much
in mind at the time it passed legislation creating the CIA.)
Joint intelligence estimates had their beginning during the war in
connection with planning by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Evidently such
interdepartmental planning had to be based on interdepartmental
intelligence estimates. Such estimates were put out by a Joint
Intelligence Committee composed of the intelligence chiefs of the three
services and representatives from State, OSS, and OWI. This body
functioned satisfactorily and its estimates undoubtedly had an important
influence on the planning and conduct of the war. It still exists today,
minus the civilian element, as an adjunct of the Joint Chiefs.
The JIC arrangement had one major flaw,
or potential flaw: As a committee of equals, it tended to produce
watered-down estimates which were the lowest common denominator of the
views of the members. This difficulty was avoided in the National
Security Act of 1947 and in subsequent NSC directives which created the Central Intelligence
Agency with a Director empowered to express an independent view.
To assist the Director in discharging this responsibility, it was
originally expected that the CIA would have a small organization of
highly qualified individuals which would limit itself strictly to
national intelligence problems and base its work primarily on the
specialized reports and estimates produced by the departments rather
than employ a large research and analysis organization of its own.
(Parenthetically, I may say
that this is the concept which we still think is the correct one and
which we seek to establish now.)
In practice, however, CIA followed the opposite course: It developed over
the course of time a very large research organization of its own which
not only sought to produce national estimates from the ground up but
also—through sheer weight of numbers and zeal to write—began to produce
reports on all manner of subjects which, as the Dulles Committee put it, could by no
stretch of the imagination be called national intelligence. Gradually
the process of producing a national intelligence estimate came to be
something like this. CIA conceives a topic on which it decides to
produce a “national estimate”, or the topic may be given to it by higher
authority. CIA then proceeds, normally from its own resources, to
produce a draft estimate, which is then circulated to the other agencies
for concurrence, comment or dissent. This process does not insure, in
fact in our view it discourages, full participation by the other
agencies in the estimate. The recipient of a CIA national intelligence
estimate, concurred in by State, Army, Navy, and Air, can only be sure
that what he has before him is not violently opposed by the other
agencies. He can be reasonably sure that it does not represent the best
intelligence estimate of which the Government’s intelligence system is
capable. Finally, he can be positive that the system which produced it
is the most wasteful that could be devised, since it involves, in
theory, the duplication in CIA of the research and analysis facilities
of each of the other agencies.
To correct this situation we are proposing the following: To cut the national intelligence function clearly out of the
CIA Office of Reports and Estimates and to establish a separate
staff within CIA to take care of it. The ORE would henceforth be limited to those research
and reporting functions of common concern which can best be
performed centrally.To limit this staff, to be called the National Intelligence
Group, to a maximum of 100 professional personnel. This we
believe is a generous staff but not so large that it would be
tempted to produce national estimates from its own
resources.To require the NIG to break
down requests for estimates forwarded to it, into requisitions
for intelligence on the appropriate departments. Such
departmental contributions, oral and written, to be synthesized
by the NIG into draft
estimates.To give to the IAC added
responsibilities in the production of national intelligence,
notably The formulation and recommendation to the DCI of the subjects on
which national intelligence estimates are needed.The detailed review of the draft estimates prepared by
the NIG prior to
recommending them to the DCI for dissemination.
421. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Hillenkoetter to the Assistant
Chief of Staff for Military Intelligence, War Department General Staff
(BissellSource: Central Intelligence Agency
Historical Files, HS/HC–210, Item 16. Confidential. Also sent to the
Director of Naval Intelligence and the Director of Intelligence, U.S.
Air Force. A copy was sent to the Special Assistant for Research and
Intelligence, Department of State.)
Washington, May 8, 1950.
SUBJECT
Free Flow of Operational Information to CIA
REFERENCE
Circular Memorandum to Standing Committee dated 24 April 1950Not found.For a considerable time this Agency has felt concern over the fact
that it does not have access to a great deal of information of essential
value for intelligence purposes, which is contained in communications of
the Military Departments. On the other hand, the Department of State
bends every effort to supply to this Agency all
pertinent material. The bulk of the material in question consists of
operational cables which are not normally sent to the intelligence
agencies of the Military Departments for action, but only for
information.With the purpose of exploring this problem and perhaps obtaining some
ideas as to its solution, a meeting was held at CIA on 4 May 1950.
Representatives of the Military Departments and of CIA attended. A State
Department representative was present as an observer.It was the consensus of opinion among the representatives of the
Military Departments that, if CIA would furnish each of the intelligence
agencies concerned with a statement of requirements, their efforts to
supply CIA with the needed material would be facilitated. Your
endorsement of this approach is requested.R.H. HillenkoetterPrinted from a copy that
indicates Hillenkoetter
signed the original.Rear Admiral, USN
National Security Council Intelligence Directives, 1947–1950
422. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 4Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 66 D 148, Dulles–Jackson–Correa Report, Annex 10. Confidential.Washington, December 12, 1947.
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102(d)(5) of the National Security Act
of 1947 and for the purpose of providing intelligence support for the
preparation of studies required by the National Security Council in the
fulfillment of its duties, it is directed that: The Director of Central Intelligence, in collaboration with the
other agencies concerned, shall prepare a comprehensive outline of
national intelligence objectives applicable to foreign countries and
areas to serve as a guide for the coordinated collection and
production of National Intelligence.The Director of Central Intelligence, in collaboration with the
other agencies concerned, and under the guidance of the NSC StaffFor this purpose, the NSC Staff
shall consist of the Executive Secretary and the Departmental
representatives designated by Council members to advise and
assist the Executive Secretary. Any cases of disagreement within
this group will be referred to the National Security Council for
decision. [Footnote in the source text.] shall select
from time to time and on a current basis sections and items of such
outline which have a priority interest. These selections will be
issued by the Director of Central Intelligence to supply the desired
priority guidance for the production of National Intelligence by the
Central Intelligence Agency and for the contributions to such
production by other agencies concerned.
423. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 5Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 66 D 95, NSCIDs. Top
Secret.Washington, December 12, 1947.
ESPIONAGE AND COUNTERESPIONAGE OPERATIONS
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102(d) of the National Security Act of
1947, the National Security Council hereby authorizes and directs that: The Director of Central Intelligence shall conduct all organized
Federal espionage operations outside the United States and its
possessions for the collection of foreign intelligence information
required to meet the needs of all Departments and Agencies
concerned, in connection with the national security, except for
certain agreed activities by other Departments and Agencies.The Director of Central Intelligence shall conduct all organized
Federal counter-espionage operations outside the United States and
its possessions and in occupied areas, provided that this authority
shall not be construed to preclude the counter-intelligence
activities of any army, navy or air command or installation and
certain agreed activities by Departments and Agencies necessary for
the security of such organizations.The Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for
coordinating covert and overt intelligence collection
activities.When casual agents are employed or otherwise utilized by an IAC Department or Agency in other than
an overt capacity, the Director of Central Intelligence shall
coordinate their activities with the organized covert
activities.The Director of Central Intelligence shall disseminate such
intelligence information to the various Departments and Agencies
which have an authorized interest therein.All other National Security Council Intelligence Directives or
implementing supplements shall be construed to apply solely to overt
intelligence activities unless otherwise specified.
424. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 6Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 66 D 148, Dulles–Jackson–Correa Report, Annex 12. Secret.Washington, December 12, 1947.
FOREIGN WIRELESS AND RADIO MONITORING
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102 of the National Security Act of
1947, and for the purposes enunciated in paragraphs (d) and (e) thereof, the
National Security Council hereby authorizes and directs that: The Director of Central Intelligence shall conduct all Federal
monitoring of foreign propaganda and press broadcasts required for
the collection of intelligence information to meet the needs of all
Departments and Agencies in connection with the National
Security.The Director of Central Intelligence shall disseminate such
intelligence information to the various Departments and Agencies
which have an authorized interest therein.
425. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 2Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 66 D 148, Dulles–Jackson–Correa Report, Annex 8. Confidential.Washington, January 13, 1948.
COORDINATION OF COLLECTION ACTIVITIES ABROAD
The following over-all policies and objectives are established by the
National Security Council for the interdepartmental coordination of foreign
intelligence collection activities, so that measures may be taken promptly
to effect sound and efficient utilization of the various departmental
collecting and reporting facilities abroad:
1. There shall be an allocation within certain broad categories of agency
responsibility for collection abroad, as follows:
PoliticalDepartment of StateCulturalDepartment of StateSociologicalDepartment of StateMilitaryDepartment of the ArmyNavalDepartment of the NavyAirDepartment of the Air ForceEconomic}Each agency in accordance with its respective
needsScientificTechnological
2. All available intelligence information, no matter by whom collected,
shall, wherever possible, be transmitted immediately to the field
representative of the agency most concerned. However, the collector may also
send copies to or otherwise inform his own agency.
3. The senior US representative in each foreign area where the United States
maintains a foreign post shall, within the spirit of the principles
enunciated herein, be responsible for the coordination of all normal
collection activities in his area.
4. The collecting and reporting facilities of each of the agencies shall be
utilized so as to avoid unproductive duplication and uncoordinated overlap
and to insure within budgetary limitations that full flow of intelligence
information which is the major need of all departments and agencies for the
accomplishment of their respective missions.
5. Full utilization shall be made of the individual initiative and favorable
contacts of agency representatives.
6. No interpretation of these established over-all policies and objectives
shall negate the basic principle that all departmental representatives
abroad are individually responsible for the collection and for the
appropriate transmission to their departments of all intelligence
information pertinent to their departmental missions.
7. There shall be free and unrestricted interdepartmental exchange of
intelligence information to meet the recognized secondary needs of each
department and agency for intelligence usually obtained or prepared by other
departments or agencies.
426. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 3Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 66 D 148, Dulles–Jackson–Correa Report, Annex 9. Secret.Washington, January 13, 1948.
COORDINATION OF INTELLIGENCE PRODUCTION
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102 of the National Security Act of
1947, and for the purposes enunciated in paragraphs (d) and (e) thereof, the
National Security Council hereby authorizes and directs that the following
over-all policies and objectives are established for the coordination of the
production of intelligence:
1. In order that all facilities of the Government may be utilized to their
capacity and the responsibilities of each agency may be clearly defined in
accordance with its mission, dominant interest, and capabilities, the whole
field of intelligence production is divided into the following categories,
and responsibilities are allocated as indicated: Basic IntelligenceBasic intelligence is that factual intelligence which
results from the collation of encyclopedic information of a
more or less permanent or static nature and general interest
which, as a result of evaluation and interpretation, is
determined to be the best available.An outline of all basic intelligence required by the
Government shall be prepared by the CIA in collaboration
with the appropriate agencies. This outline shall be broken
down into chapters, sections, and sub-sections which shall
be allocated as production and maintenance responsibilities
to CIA and those agencies of the Government which are best
qualified by reason of their intelligence requirements,
production capabilities, and dominant interest to assume the
production and maintenance responsibility.When completed, this outline and tentative allocations of
production and maintenance responsibilities shall be
submitted for NSC approval
and issued as an implementation of this Directive. It is
expected that as the result of constant consultation with
the agencies by the Director of Central Intelligence, both
the outline and the allocations will be revised from time to
time to insure the production of the basic intelligence
required by the agencies and the fullest possible use of
current agency capabilities. Changes in the outline or
allocations shall be effected by agreement between the
Director of Central Intelligence and the agencies
concerned.This basic intelligence shall be compiled and continuously
maintained in National Intelligence Surveys to cover foreign
countries, areas, or broad special subjects as appropriate.
The National Intelligence Surveys will be disseminated in
such form as shall be determined by the Director of Central
Intelligence and the agencies concerned.The Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible
for coordinating production and maintenance and for
accomplishing the editing, publication, and dissemination of
these National Intelligence Surveys and shall make such
requests on the agencies as are necessary for their proper
development and maintenance.Departments or agencies to be called on for contributions
to this undertaking may include agencies other than those
represented permanently in the IAC.Current IntelligenceCurrent intelligence is that spot information or
intelligence of all types and forms of immediate interest
and value to operating or policy staffs, which is used by
them usually without the delays incident to complete
evaluation or interpretation.The CIA and the several agencies shall produce and
disseminate such current intelligence as may be necessary to
meet their own internal requirements or external
responsibilities.Interagency dissemination of current intelligence shall be
based on interagency agreement including NSC Intelligence Directive No.
1 and the principle of informing all who need to
know.Staff IntelligenceStaff intelligence is that intelligence prepared by any
department or agency through the correlation and
interpretation of all intelligence materials available to it
in order to meet its specific requirements and
responsibilities.Each intelligence agency has the ultimate responsibility
for the preparation of such staff intelligence as its own
department shall require. It is recognized that the staff
intelligence of each of the departments must be broader in
scope than any allocation of collection responsibility or
recognition of dominant interest might indicate. In fact,
the full foreign intelligence picture is of interest in
varying degrees at different times to each of the
departments.Any intelligence agency, either through the Director of
Central Intelligence or directly, may call upon other
appropriate agencies for intelligence which does not fall
within its own field of dominant interest. Such requests
shall be made upon the agencies in accordance with their
production capabilities and dominant interest.As a part of the coordination program, the Director of
Central Intelligence will seek the assistance of the IAC intelligence agencies in
minimizing
the necessity for any agency to develop intelligence in
fields outside its dominant interests.The CIA and the agencies shall, for purposes of
coordination, exchange information on projects and plans for
the production of staff intelligence.It shall be normal practice that staff intelligence of one
agency is available to the other intelligence agencies
permanently represented on the IAC.Departmental IntelligenceDepartmental intelligence is that intelligence including
basic, current, and staff intelligence needed by a
Department or independent Agency of the Federal Government,
and the subordinate units thereof, to execute its mission
and to discharge its lawful responsibilities.National IntelligenceNational intelligence is integrated departmental
intelligence that covers the broad aspects of national
policy and national security, is of concern to more than one
Department or Agency, and transcends the exclusive
competence of a single Department or Agency or the Military
Establishment.The Director of Central Intelligence shall produce and
disseminate national intelligence.The Director of Central Intelligence shall plan and
develop the production of national intelligence in
coordination with the IAC
Agencies in order that he may obtain from them within the
limits of their capabilities the departmental intelligence
which will assist him in the production of national
intelligence.The Director of Central Intelligence shall, by agreement
with the pertinent Agency or Agencies, request and receive
such special estimates, reports, and periodic briefs or
summaries prepared by the individual Departments or Agencies
in their fields of dominant interest or in accordance with
their production capabilities as may be necessary in the
production of intelligence reports or estimates undertaken
mutually.
2. The research facilities required by any agency to process its own current
and staff intelligence shall be adequate to satisfy its individual needs
after taking full cognizance of the facilities of the other agencies. Each
agency shall endeavor to maintain adequate research facilities, not only to
accomplish the intelligence production tasks allocated to it directly under
the foregoing provisions but also to provide such additional intelligence
reports or estimates within its field of dominant interest as may be
necessary to satisfy the requirements of the other agencies under such
allocations.
3. For the purposes of intelligence production, the following division of
interests, subject to refinement through a continuous program of coordination by the Director of
Central Intelligence, shall serve as a general delineation of dominant
interests:
Political, Cultural, Sociological IntelligenceDepartment of StateMilitary IntelligenceDepartment of the ArmyNaval IntelligenceDepartment of the NavyAir IntelligenceDepartment of the Air ForceEconomic, Scientific, and Technological IntelligenceEach agency in accordance with its respective needs
427. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 7Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 66 D 95, Box 1799, NSC IDs. Secret.
Also reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under
Harry Truman, pp.
177–179.Washington, February 12, 1948.
DOMESTIC EXPLOITATION
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102 of the National Security Act of
1947, and for the purpose enunciated in paragraphs (d) and (e) thereof, the
National Security Council hereby authorizes and directs that: The Central Intelligence Agency shall be responsible for the
exploitation, on a highly selective basis, within the United States
of business concerns, other non-governmental organizations and
individuals as sources of foreign intelligence information.To implement this undertaking, the Central Intelligence Agency
shall: Determine the foreign intelligence potential of sources so
that the best available may be selected expeditiously for
exploitation upon the receipt of collection requests from
the intelligence agencies. For this purpose, CIA will
maintain a central index of non-governmental sources in the
United States.Establish uniform procedures and standards for security
clearance of all contacts in this field, and arrange such
clearances.Establish uniform procedures to insure that the interests
of organizations and individuals contacted will not be
jeopardized.Collect through the establishment of field offices within
the United States, foreign intelligence information required
in the interests of the national security or by the
individual intelligence agencies.Arrange for direct contact between intelligence agency
representatives and non-governmental sources within the
United States whenever conditions require such action or
upon the request of a member agency to secure technical or
other foreign intelligence information.Obtain the agreement of responsible policymaking officials
of American organizations having a foreign intelligence
potential before establishing and maintaining contacts
within that organization.Inform the intelligence agencies of the prospective
departure from or return to the United States of selected
American citizens having a high foreign intelligence
potential, so that the agencies may furnish requirements or
provide specialists for briefing or interrogation.Disseminate to the appropriate agencies all foreign
intelligence information obtained through this program.
Reports produced by the agencies shall be identified as
such, unless the originating agency stipulates to the
contrary.Further to implement this undertaking, the intelligence agencies
shall: Assign to duty in the Central Intelligence Agency field
offices, if they so desire and within their capabilities,
representatives to serve their interests under the direction
of the CIA managers. Member agencies may, at their
discretion, establish active working liaison between their
Regional Offices and CIA Field Offices.Send directly to the Central Intelligence Agency for
collection all their requests for foreign intelligence
information to be obtained from non-governmental sources
within the United States.Transmit to the Central Intelligence Agency for
appropriate dissemination full information and reports
resulting from approved direct contacts by agency
representatives with non-governmental sources, identifying
such sources by CIA code number.Obtain, to the maximum extent possible, from their
departments and agencies the foreign intelligence
information which the departments and agencies have received
as a by-product of the normal relationship with business
concerns and other non-governmental organizations and
individuals in the United States in connection with
non-intelligence activities, and transmit to the maximum
extent possible, the information to the Central Intelligence
Agency for editing for source security and for appropriate
dissemination.Obtain, in so far as is practicable and within existing
security regulations, from their departments and agencies
information concerning business concerns and other
non-governmental organizations and individuals in the United
States having foreign intelligence potential, which the
department or agency possesses or subsequently acquires, and
make the information available to the Central Intelligence
Agency.Nominate representatives to serve on a committee, under
the chairmanship of the Central Intelligence Agency, to meet
periodically to consider mutual problems and interests in
connection with this program.Further to implement this undertaking, the National Security
Resources Board and the components of the Military Establishment,
other than the components represented on the IAC, shall furnish directly to the CIA, to the maximum
extent possible, all foreign intelligence information which is
received as a by-product of their normal relationship with business
concerns and other non-governmental organizations and individuals in
the United States, in connection with non-intelligence
activities.Nothing in this program shall be interpreted to affect the
established relationship of the Departments and Agencies with
business concerns, other non-governmental organizations, and
individuals in the United States for purposes other than the
procurement of foreign intelligence information. Nor shall it affect
the normal interchange of documents between libraries of the
departments and other libraries, or the development of research
projects with individuals or non-governmental institutions.
428. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 8Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 66 D 148, Dulles–Jackson–Correa Report, Annex 14. Secret.Washington, May 25, 1948.
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA ON FOREIGN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL
PERSONALITIES
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102 of the National Security Act of
1947 and for the purpose enunciated in paragraph d(4) thereof, the primary responsibility for
the maintenance of Biographical Data on Foreign Scientific and Technological
Personalities is assigned to the Central Intelligence Agency.
To implement this undertaking, the following procedures are
established: Departmental intelligence agencies shall continue to collect,
analyze, and abstract biographical data on foreign scientific
and technological personalities in accordance with their
needs.Departmental intelligence agencies shall forward to the
Central Intelligence Agency, in the manner most satisfactory to
the Department concerned, all biographical data originating
within their respective Departments, or complete documentary
references thereto, on foreign scientific and technological
personalities.The Central Intelligence Agency shall codify and index all
such data received, including such data as may be received from
all sources, and shall incorporate the actual material received
in its files.All biographical data on foreign scientific and technological
personalities maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency
shall be readily available to the participating Departments and
Agencies.
429. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 10Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 66 D 195, NSCIDs.
Secret.Washington, January 18, 1949.
COLLECTION OF FOREIGN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL DATA
Since previous directives made no specific provision for supplying
“scientific” and “technological” information other than that required by
each IAC agency for its own use, it is,
accordingly, determined that, in furtherance of the cooperative policies
and procedures enunciated in NSCID No.
2 and any supplements thereto, and pursuant to the provisions of Section
102(d) of the National Security Act of 1947 and for the purpose of providing the U.S. Government
and its agencies with the scientific and technological information
required from foreign areas in the interests of national security: The Department of State shall have primary responsibility for
the collection abroad for all government agencies of information
in the basic sciences. The Department of State will also collect
information in such additional scientific and technical fields
as is necessary to meet the requirements of government agencies
other than the National Military Establishment and, when
requested, requirements of the National Military Establishment.
The Departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force will collect
scientific and technological information including basic
research when necessary to meet the requirements of the National
Military Establishment, utilizing whenever practicable the
facilities of the Department of State for collection in the
basic sciences. Close collaboration and consultation will be
maintained between all scientific representatives at U.S.
missions abroad so that all scientific requirements can be
satisfied with minimum duplication and maximum utilization of
personnel. The scientific representatives of the Department of
State shall be available to serve as scientific consultants to
the military representatives.The Director of Central Intelligence, in collaboration with
pertinent agencies, shall determine those countries which have
informational potential in fields of basic and applied sciences,
as related to the national security.For the purpose of inducing exchanges with foreign countries,
the National Military Establishment shall provide the Department
of State with available unclassified information pertaining to
the basic sciences.In order to provide for the collection of the data which is
the responsibility of the Department of State, the Department of
State shall take appropriate measures to obtain the necessary
funds from the Congress or from the agencies served, other than
the National Military Establishment, and will appoint, as
practicable, specially qualified scientific and technical
personnel to selected United States Missions for this collection
responsibility.In order to provide for the collection of the data which is
the responsibility of the National Military Establishment, the
Departments of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force shall take
appropriate measures to obtain the necessary funds from the
Congress and will assign as practicable, specially qualified
scientific and technical personnel to the staffs of their
respective attachés at such United States Missions as may be
required for this collection responsibility.The Department of State shall call upon agencies of the
government which require scientific or technological information
for advice and
assistance as may be necessary in connection with the
requirements of this directive.
430. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 11Source: Truman Library, Papers of Harry S. Truman, President’s Secretary’s Files, Subject
File, Current Policies of the Government of the United States of America
Relating to the National Security. Top Secret.Washington, January 6, 1950.
SECURITY OF INFORMATION ON INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODS
Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 101 (b)(2) and 102 (d)(3) of the
National Security Act of 1947, as amended, providing that the National
Security Council shall consider policy on matters of common interest to the
departments and agencies of the Government concerned with national security
and shall make recommendations to the President in connection therewith, and
that the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for
protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure,
the National Security Council hereby authorizes and directs that: The departments and agencies of the Government engaged in
intelligence activities shall take steps to prevent unauthorized
disclosure of information on United States intelligence sources and
methods. Each agency will determine its own channel for
authorization to release any such information. The delimiting phrase
“intelligence sources and methods” includes information ostensibly
overt which requires security protection because of its specific
means of procurement or specific place of procurement, revelation of
which would endanger intelligence sources and methods, but the
phrase does not include intelligence as such, the dissemination of
which is already covered by appropriate departmental and agency
security regulations.The Director of Central Intelligence shall coordinate policies
concerning the protection of intelligence sources and methods,
within the limits established by Section 102 of the National
Security Act of 1947, except where provision has already been made
by the National Security Council.In protecting intelligence sources and methods, the Director of
Central Intelligence and the other intelligence directors shall be
guided by the principle that covert or sensitive information, either
unevaluated or as an intelligence product, shall go only to those
whose official duties require such knowledge.In order to protect intelligence sources and methods further, any
reference to the Central Intelligence Agency should emphasize its
duties as the coordinator of intelligence, rather than its secret
intelligence activities. No reference will be made to this agency
whatsoever unless it is unavoidable, of course.
431. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 12Source: Truman Library, Papers of Harry S. Truman, President’s Secretary’s Files, Subject
File, Current Policies of the Government of the United States of America
Relating to the National Security. Top Secret.Washington, January 6, 1950.
AVOIDANCE OF PUBLICITY CONCERNING THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OF
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 101 and 102 of the National Security
Act of 1947, as amended, and in accordance with Section 7 of NSC 50,Not
reproduced herein. [Footnote in the source text; Document 384.] the National Security Council hereby
authorizes and directs that the following policy be established, since any
publicity, factual or fictional, concerning intelligence is potentially
detrimental to the effectiveness of an intelligence activity and to the
national security: All departments and agencies represented by membership on the
Intelligence Advisory Committee shall take steps to prevent the
unauthorized disclosure for written or oral publication of any
information concerning intelligence or intelligence activities. The
head of each department or agency will determine his channel for
granting such authorization as may be necessary.The sense of the above directive shall be communicated to all
other executive departments and agencies as an expression of policy
of the National Security Council.See
communication which follows. [Footnote in the source text.
Attached to NSCID No. 12 (and
apparently approved at the same time) was a memorandum dated
January 6 signed by Souers and addressed “To the Heads of Executive
Departments and Establishments,” conveying the substance of the
directive. Not printed.]In cases where the disclosure of classified information is sought
from the Director of Central Intelligence, and he has doubt as to
whether he should comply, the question will be referred to the
National Security Council.
432. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 1Source: Truman Library, Papers of Harry S. Truman, President’s Secretary’s Files, Subject
File. Secret. This revision of NSCID 1
was approved by NSC Action No. 275 on
January 19 (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273,
Records of the National Security Council, Record of Actions, Box 55),
which added paragraph 6 (on intelligence in crisis situations) to the
existing NSCID 1, which had been
approved by the NSC on July 7, 1949; see
Document 385. In all other respects, the
1949 and 1950 versions are identical except for a renumbering of
paragraphs. The July 1949 text of NSCID 1 superseded the original NSCID 1, approved by the NSC on December 12, 1947; see Document
335. The December 12, 1947, text is reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, pp. 169–171. The
1949 revision, which resulted from NSC
approval of the NSC 50
(McNarney Report) recommendations on
implementation of the Dulles
Survey proposals, introduced three changes in the 1947 text. It formally
designated the Director of Central Intelligence as Chairman of the
Intelligence Advisory Committee and made the FBI a member of the IAC
(both provisions in paragraph 1). In the last sentence of paragraph 5,
the 1949 version altered the formulation on dissents in national
intelligence. (In the December 1947 text, this sentence read:
“Intelligence so disseminated shall be officially concurred in by the
Intelligence Agencies or shall carry an agreed statement of substantial
dissent.”)Washington, January 19, 1950.
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102 of the National Security Act of
1947, and for the purposes enunciated in paragraphs (d) and (e) thereof, the
National Security Council hereby authorizes and directs that: To maintain the relationship essential to coordination between the
Central Intelligence Agency and the intelligence organizations, an
Intelligence
Advisory Committee consisting of the Director of Central
Intelligence, who shall be Chairman thereof, the Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the respective intelligence chiefs from
the Departments of State, Army, Navy, and Air Force, and from the
Joint Staff (JCS), and the Atomic
Energy Commission, or their representatives, shall be established to
advise the Director of Central Intelligence. The Director of Central
Intelligence will invite the chief, or his representative, of any
other intelligence Agency having functions related to the national
security to sit with the Intelligence Advisory Committee whenever
matters within the purview of his Agency are to be discussed.To the extent authorized by Section 102 (e) of the National
Security Act of 1947, the Director of Central Intelligence, or
representatives designated by him, by arrangement with the head of
the department or agency concerned, shall make such surveys and
inspections of departmental intelligence material of the various
Federal Departments and Agencies relating to the national security
as he may deem necessary in connection with his duty to advise the
NSC and to make recommendations
for the coordination of intelligence activities.Coordination of intelligence activities should be designed
primarily to strengthen the over-all governmental intelligence
structure. Primary departmental requirements shall be recognized and
shall receive the cooperation and support of the Central
Intelligence Agency. The Director of Central Intelligence shall, in making
recommendations or giving advice to the National Security
Council pertaining to the intelligence activities of the
various Departments and Agencies, transmit therewith a
statement indicating the concurrence of non-concurrence of
the members of the Intelligence Advisory Committee; provided
that, when unanimity is not obtained among the Department
heads of the National Military Establishment, the Director
of Central Intelligence shall refer the problem to the
Secretary of Defense before presenting it to the National
Security Council.Recommendations of the Director of Central Intelligence
shall, when approved by the National Security Council, issue
as Council Directives to the Director of Central
Intelligence. The respective intelligence chiefs shall be
responsible for insuring that such orders or directives,
when applicable, are implemented within their intelligence
organizations.The Director of Central Intelligence shall act for the
National Security Council to insure full and proper
implementation of Council directives by issuing such
supplementary DCI directives
as may be required. Such implementing directives in which
the Intelligence Advisory Committee concurs unanimously
shall be issued by the Director of Central Intelligence, and
shall be implemented within the Departments and Agencies as
provided in paragraph b. Where disagreement arises between the
Director of Central Intelligence and one or more members of
the Intelligence Advisory Committee over such directives,
the proposed directive, together with statements of
non-concurrence, shall be forwarded to the NSC for decision as provided in
paragraph a.The Director of Central Intelligence shall produce intelligence
relating to the national security, hereafter referred to as national
intelligence. In so far as practicable, he shall not duplicate the
intelligence activities and research of the various Departments and
Agencies but shall make use of existing intelligence facilities and
shall utilize departmental intelligence for such production
purposes. For definitions see NSC ID
No. 3.The Director of Central Intelligence shall disseminate National
Intelligence to the President, to members of the National Security
Council, to the Intelligence Chiefs of the IAC Agencies, and to such Governmental Departments and
Agencies as the National Security Council from time to time may
designate. Intelligence so disseminated shall be officially
concurred in by the Intelligence Agencies or shall carry a statement
of substantially differing opinions.Whenever any member of the Intelligence Advisory Committee obtains
information that indicates an impending crisis situation, such as
the outbreak of hostilities involving the United States, or a
condition which affects the security of the United States to such an
extent that immediate action or decision on the part of the
President or the National Security Council seems to be required, he
shall immediately furnish the information to the other members of
the Intelligence Advisory Committee as well as to other officials or
agencies as may be indicated by the circumstances. The Director of
Central Intelligence shall immediately convene the Intelligence
Advisory Committee. After receiving the views of the Intelligence
Advisory Committee members, the Director of Central Intelligence
shall promptly prepare and disseminate the national intelligence
estimate in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 above.When Security Regulations of the originating Agency permit, the
Director of Central Intelligence shall disseminate to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and other Departments or Agencies
intelligence or intelligence information which he may possess when
he deems such dissemination appropriate to their functions relating
to the national security.The Director of Central Intelligence shall perform for the benefit
of the existing intelligence Agencies such services of common
concern to these Agencies as the National Security Council
determines can be more efficiently accomplished centrally.The intelligence organizations in each of the Departments and
Agencies shall maintain with the Central Intelligence Agency and
with each other, as appropriate to their respective
responsibilities, a continuing interchange of intelligence information and
intelligence available to them.The intelligence files in each intelligence organization,
including the CIA, shall be made available under security
regulations of the Department or Agency concerned to the others for
consultation.The intelligence organizations within the limits of their
capabilities shall provide, or procure, such intelligence as may be
requested by the Director of Central Intelligence or by one of the
other Departments or Agencies.The Director of Central Intelligence shall make arrangements with
the respective Departments and Agencies to assign to the Central
Intelligence Agency such experienced and qualified officers and
members as may be of advantage for advisory, operational, or other
purposes, in addition to such personnel as the Director of Central
Intelligence may directly employ. In each case, such departmental
personnel will be subject to the necessary personnel procedures of
each Department.
433. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 13
Washington, January 19, 1950.[Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the
Executive Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 66 D
95, Box 1799—NSCIDs. Top Secret. 3 pages
of source text not declassified.]
434. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 14
Washington, March 3, 1950.[Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of the
Executive Secretariat, NSC Files: Lot 66 D
95, Box 1799–NSC IDs. Top Secret. 4 pages of
source text not declassified.]
435. National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 9Source: National Archives and Records
Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Records of
the Executive Secretariat, NSC Files:
Lot 66 D 195, NSCIDs. Confidential.
This is the second version of this NSC
ID. The first was dated July 1, 1948. (Ibid.) See the Supplement. The
only substantive difference between the two texts is the addition of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to the list of agencies enumerated in
paragraph 2.Washington, March 10, 1950.
COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 101 and Section 102 of the National
Security Act of 1947, as amended, the National Security Council hereby
authorizes and directs that: There is hereby established under the National Security Council
the United States Communications Intelligence Board (hereinafter
referred to as the “Board”) to effect the authoritative coordination
of Communications Intelligence activities of the Government and to
advise the Director of Central Intelligence in those matters in the
field of Communications Intelligence for which he is
responsible.The Board will be composed of not to exceed two members from each
of the following departments or agencies: The Departments of State,
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and the Central Intelligence
Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Only those
departments or agencies designated by the President are authorized
to engage in Communications Intelligence activities.The Board members will be vested with authority to represent their
respective departments or agencies in the field of Communications
Intelligence and each member department or agency will be
represented at each meeting by at least one member, or alternate,
with the necessary powers to act.Decisions of the Board will be based on the principle of
unanimity, which shall be a prerequisite for matters within the
purview of the Board, except that the Chairman shall be elected by
majority vote. When decision cannot be reached, the Board will
promptly refer the matter for resolution to the National Security
Council; provided that, when unanimity is not obtained among the
military department heads of the Department of Defense, the Board
shall present the problem to the Secretary of Defense before
presenting it to the National Security Council.Decisions and policies promulgated by the Board within the scope
of its jurisdiction shall be applicable to all departments and
agencies represented on or subordinate to the National Security
Council and any others
designated by the President, and shall be implemented by those
departments and agencies of which action is required.The special nature of Communications Intelligence activities
requires that they be treated in all respects as being outside the
framework of other or general intelligence activities. Orders,
directives, policies, or recommendations of any authority of the
Executive Branch relating to the collection, production, security,
handling, dissemination, or utilization of intelligence, and/or
classified material, shall not be applicable to Communications
Intelligence activities, unless specifically so stated and issued by
competent departmental or agency authority represented on the
Board.The Board shall act for the National Security Council to insure
proper and full implementation of Council directives by issuing such
supplementary directives as may be required. Such implementing
directives in which the Board concurs unanimously shall be issued to
and implemented by the member departments and agencies. When
disagreement arises in the Board upon such directive, the proposed
directive, together with statement of non-concurrence, shall be
forwarded to the National Security Council for decision as provided
in paragraph 4.Other National Security Council Intelligence Directives to the
Director of Central Intelligence and related implementing directives
issued by the Director of Central Intelligence shall be construed as
non-applicable to Communications Intelligence activities under the
authority of paragraph 6 above, unless the National Security Council
has made its directive specifically applicable to Communications
Intelligence.The Board will perform such functions as may be required to
accomplish its objective set forth in paragraph 1 above, and in the
exercise of responsibilities and authority delegated to it by the
National Security Council in this directive.The Board shall leave the internal administration and operation of
Communications Intelligence activities to the member departments or
agencies.All currently effective decisions, policies, and operating
arrangements of the Board and its predecessors, the Army-Navy
Communications Intelligence Board, and the State–Army–Navy
Communications Intelligence Board, as previously constituted, which
are not in conflict with this directive, will remain in full force
and effect unless changed by subsequent decisions of the
Board.Definitions. For purposes of this directive
the following definitions apply: “Foreign communications” include
all telecommunications and related materials (except Foreign
Press and Propaganda Broadcasts) of the government and/or
their nationals or of any military, air, or naval force,
faction, party, department, agency, or bureau of a foreign
country, or of
any person or persons acting or purporting to act therefor;
they shall include all other telecommunications and related
material of, to, and from a foreign country which may
contain information of military, political, scientific or
economic value.“Communications Intelligence” is
intelligence produced by the study of foreign
communications. Intelligence based in whole or in part on
Communications Intelligence sources shall be considered
Communications Intelligence as pertains to the authority and
responsibility of the United States Communications
Intelligence Board.“Communications Intelligence
Activities” comprise all processes involved in the
collection, for intelligence purposes, of foreign
communications, the production of information from such
communications, the dissemination of that information, and
the control of the protection of that information and the
security of its sources.
Index
Acheson, Dean, 325, 567, 993Atomic energy intelligence, 394n, 396–399Central Intelligence Group: Budget, 428–429, 432, 536–537Hillenkoetter,
appointment as Director, 498Organization, 323, 325Dulles Report, 755–756, 947, 951,
959–960,
974–985FBI intelligence role, 34, 234, 248, 288National intelligence structure planning, 118, 124, 132, 153NIA meetings, 395–399, 427–429, 432Psychological and political warfare, 740, 999, 1018State Department intelligence operations, 181, 185–187, 189–193, 199,
219, 223nOct. 27, 1945 meeting, 182–183, 199nRussell plan, 184, 203n, 207, 221n, 226–227, 229Adams, Col. W.M., 467Advisory Committee on Intelligence (ACI)
(State Department), 225–226, 228Alexander, Robert, 607–608Allen, Leo E., 573Allen, George V., 661–665, 684Alling, Paul H., 305Alsop, Stuart, 279American Civil Liberties Union, 50Appleby, Paul H., 82, 88–89Armed forces (see alsoArmy, U.S. Department of the; Defense, U.S. Department of; Joint Chiefs of
Staff; Lovett Board proposal; Navy,
U.S. Department of the; War, U.S. Department
of), 1–2, 5–10, 119, 231, 1104Interdepartmental working committee, 111, 116–117, 135–136Unification (see alsoNational Security Act (1947)), 5, 69–70, 134, 311n, 520–521Armour, Norman, 314Armstrong, Hamilton Fish, 742Armstrong, W. Park, Jr., 384n, 592n, 607n, 608–609, 824, 843n, 1011, 1070nCIA–State Department relationship, 312–315, 798–799, 802–804, 867–868, 955, 961–962, 1067–1069Defectors/refugees, 893–895Dulles Report, 914, 921,
947–953,
994–999,
1027, 1044IAB meetings, 387, 760,
776, 790, 810–811, 813–816IAC meetings, 855–856, 858–864, 881–884, 886–887, 892–902Intelligence Survey Group, 877–880National intelligence production, 991–992, 1044, 1054,
1068–1069, 1080–1081IAC discussions, 856, 858–864, 899–902Scientific intelligence, 881–884, 886, 898National Security Act, 593–594National Security Council Intelligence Directives, 749, 800–801, 807–811, 813–816Army, U.S. Department of the (see alsoArmed forces; Intelligence
Advisory Board; Joint Chiefs of Staff,
1, 5–6, 9–10, 233Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (see alsoAtomic energy intelligence), 394–401, 415, 458, 780IAB/IAC membership, 401n, 511n, 747,
920, 950, 976Atomic energy intelligence, 394–395, 401–402, 458–460, 780, 1012Authority controversy and, 817–821NIA Directive No.9, 401n, 510–511NIA discussions, 395–400, 415, 487–488, 769Nuclear Energy Group establishment, 503–505Attwood, William, 219Authority controversy (see alsoBasic intelligence; Intelligence DirectivesunderNational Security Council; National intelligence production), 364–369, 747Atomic energy intelligence and, 817–821CIG24 Series, 499–501, 757–759, 793–794Collective responsibility doctrine, 365Dulles Report, 752, 920Forrestal solution, 749–750, 824IAB discussion, 783–785IAB procedures, 747–748, 757–759, 779–783, 786–788, 793–794, 797–798National Security Act and, 788NIA Directive No. 1, 317–318NIA Directive No. 5, 232–233, 391–392NIA Directive No. 11, 748, 797–798NIA discussions, 367, 489–492, 767–768State Department position, 493–494Vandenberg draft
directive (June 1946), 366, 373–384, 387–390Babbitt, Theodore, 804, 916, 922n, 931–935Baird, Maj. W.C., 760–761, 776, 790, 855, 881, 893Baker, E.R., 16–17Baldwin, Hanson, 875Barnes, Joe, 220Barnes, Robert G., 867–871Basic intelligence, 367, 369, 482, 514Dulles Report, 907–908IAB discussions, 419–424, 455–458, 791–792JANIS transfer, 419–420, 764, 796National Intelligence Surveys, 747,
770–771NSCID No.3, 1109–1110Beaulac, Willard L., 313Beckler, David Z., 818–821, 881, 893Benton, William, 197–198, 208, 248, 323, 395, 400McCormack proposal, 124, 132,
135Berle, Adolf A., 180Bissell Maj. Gen. Clayton, 54, 56n, 66n, 68–70,
99, 1104“Black” propaganda. SeePsychological and political warfare.Blakeney, Col. Charles C., 881, 893, 899Blandford, J.R., 600Block, Ralph, 624Blum, Robert, 691, 719, 721–722, 824Dulles Report, 902, 911–912, 914–915, 920–921Intelligence Survey Group, 750, 845–849, 851–855Boberg, Col. Roy, 257,
350–351Bogota riots (April 1948), 751–752, 847Bohlen, Charles E., 684,
745, 968Bolling, Maj. Gen. A.R., 855, 859, 861, 893–894Bonesteel, Maj. Gen. Charles, 348–349Booth, Merritt B., 455,
793, 810, 855, 864, 881, 892Braden, Spruille, 106–107, 128, 202n233, 323, 325FBI Latin America withdrawal, 248–249, 285, 288–289, 296,
303, 325McCormack proposal, 118–119, 124, 128–129, 132State Department intelligence operations, 182–183, 207n, 214–219, 224, 226Bridges, Styles, 686Briggs, Ellis O., 286n, 467, 505–507Brode, Wallace R., 818–819, 821, 832–833Bross, John, 913Brown, Clarence, 313,
847Brown, Irving, 716Brownell, Gen. George, 111, 116–117, 133, 139–140, 146–147, 155Bruce, David A., 99Bruce, David, K.E., 634,
695, 732n, 734, 745Budget, U.S. Bureau of the, 3, 118–119, 566FBI intelligence role, 34–38, 82–84National intelligence structure, planning, 3–4, 8, 89–97, 110, 126State Department intelligence operations, 3, 180–181, 183, 187–188, 194, 200–202, 220Buford, A.S., 405, 417, 434, 447, 455, 461, 467Burns, Gen., 1049Busbey, Fred E., 576Bush, Vannevar, 501, 817–818, 823, 832Butler, George H., 694, 955Byrnes, James F., 24, 195, 301Central Intelligence Group, 316, 432nOrganization, 323–328, 337–338Statutory basis, 518, 526–528, 530–532FBI Latin America withdrawal, 248–249, 287, 307–309, 325–326National intelligence production, 319,
324–328National intelligence structure planning, 8, 10–12, 15, 161, 166–170, 182JCS1181/5, 5,
40n,
53Lovett Board
proposal, 164–166McCormack proposal,
9–10, 124–128, 132–135, 137–139Three Secretaries’ meetings, 7,
10, 60, 63–65, 108–111, 139–141Truman
interdepartmental group directive, 3, 46, 73NIA meetings, 327–328, 526–528, 530–532State Department intelligence operations, 3, 181, 189, 196, 200, 214,
219, 222Russell plan, 183–185, 203, 207, 211–212, 221Cabell, Gen. Charles P., 810, 1074IAC meetings, 855, 857–858, 861,
864–865,
892, 895, 897–901Caffery, Jefferson, 735Carson, C.H., 379–384, 405–406Carter, J. Franklin, 193–194Cassady, Thomas G., 653–654, 666–668, 695, 715, 717, 719Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (see
alsoCentral Intelligence Group; Intelligence Advisory Committee; National
Security Act (1947 specific topics): Armed forces information access, 1104Budget, 940, 1070–1074Civilian director issue, 574–575, 594–596CIG/CIA position, 577–578, 603–606, 945–946, 958–959, 968–971Dulles Report, 753, 910, 966, 986McNarney Report, 756, 981–982, 986State Department position, 755, 948–949, 963Dulles Director invitation,
685Dulles Report comments,
754–755,
914–916,
922–946,
936–946,
956–959,
964, 968–971, 1012Enabling legislation, 522, 569–571, 576, 597–600, 602–603, 606–614FBI liaison, 1009–1010,
1047–1048General Orders, 724Hillenkoetter successor,
912, 954–955Intelligence Coordinating and Planning Staff (ICAPS): Dulles Report, 905, 915–917, 923–924, 931, 935–936, 949–950“Four Problems” papers, 994–995, 1000–1001, 1004–1006, 1021–1022, 1028–1030Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) (see alsoOperations Divisionbelow; Psychological and
political warfare), 724–725, 728,
730–734,
924–927,
999, 1072–1073Office of Reports and Estimates (ORE) (see alsoNational intelligence production), 804–806, 832–833, 1073–1074Dulles Report, 753, 906–908, 915–917, 922–924, 931–935, 1048–1049Kent report, 835–840Office of Special Operations (OSO)
(see alsoOperations Divisionbelow), 830–834, 928–930, 1073Directives, No. 18/5, 653, 655–661Establishment, 232–233, 282–283, 302–303Special Procedures Group (SPG), 651–653, 655–661, 666–668Operations Division, 621, 909, 1011,
1049–1054, 1057CIA position, 925–926, 929, 1016–1017McNarney Report 978–979, 988–990, 999–1000NSC discussion, 966, 984–986State Department position, 755, 950, 963, 1057, 1068, 1076–1080Petroleum reserve intelligence, 887–890Publicity, 871, 890–892, 980, 1118–1119Smith, appointment as
Director, 756Special Operations Office. SeeOffice of Special Operationsabove.Special Projects Office (see
alsoOffice of Policy Coordinationabove), 619–620, 691–716, 719–723CIA position, 621, 703–705NSC10/2, 616, 713–715NSC discussion, 694–698, 723NSC draft directives, 699–702, 704–708State Department position, 702–703, 709–710State Department relationship with, 312–315, 867–871, 915–917, 927, 955,
1019–1020Central Intelligence Group (CIG) (see alsoCentral Intelligence Agency; Intelligence Advisory Board; National
Intelligence Authority; National intelligence
production; National intelligence structure
planning; specific topics), 13Administrative Orders, No.3, 343–344Biographic intelligence, 369, 441–444Budget (see alsoStatutory basisbelow), 366, 427–432, 492–495, 520, 533–537, 775–776Central Planning Staff, 318–319Central Reports Staff, 319, 343–344Directives: No. 1, 231–232, 255–257No. 8, 418–419No. 12, 411No. 14, 393No. 15, 427No. 16, 444No. 18, 483–485Enemy document repositories, 465–466, 489,
766, 773, 792, 796Establishment, 178–179FBI Latin America withdrawal, 233–234Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service and, 352–353, 370–371Foreign industrial establishment coordination, 796Hillenkoetter appointment
as Director, 498–499, 569n, 746–747Joint Chiefs of Staff, relationship with, 369, 415, 425–426, 450–455, 770, 774–775Joint Research and Development Board and, 501–503, 770, 774Leahy role, 316–317, 324; 326–327National Intelligence Requirements, 367, 444, 447–450, 772NIA Directive No. 1, 317–318, 329–331NIA Directive No. 2, 318–319, 331–333Office of Reports and Estimates (ORE) (see alsoNational intelligence production), 480–483, 485–487, 503–505Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) (see alsoNational intelligence production; Office of Reports and Estimatesabove), 368, 430–431Documents, ORE–1; 368,
435, 805Office of Special Operations (OSO), 233, 282–283, 302–303Organization, 318, 320–321; 323–329, 337–338, 393, 413,
796Papers: CIG13, 419–424, 455–458CIG14, 424–425CIG15, 425–426CIG16, 436CIG17, 441–444CIG18, 434n, 461–464, 467–475CIG19, 444,
447–450CIG21, 465–466, 792CIG22, 796CIG24 Series, 499–501, 757–759, 793–794No. 12, 417–418No. 24, 499–501Personnel clearance, 350–351, 418–419Personnel procurement, 415–416, 776–779, 789Publicity, 768–769Situation reports, 771Souers final progress
report, 320, 358–364, 413, 518,
527State Department, relationship With, 305–306, 316, 339–342; 790–791Information access, 333–334, 432–433, 445–446Map Intelligence/JISPB transfer, 766, 775State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee and, 769–770Statutory basis (see alsoNational Security Act (1947)) 518–520, 523–526, 538–550, 566,
774Strategic Services Unit merger, 231–233, 250–254, 256–271U.S. business exploitation, 402–412, 417–418Vandenberg appointment as
CIA Director, 348–349, 354–355War plans, 424–425Chamberlin, Maj. Gen. Stephen J.,
424–426, 580n, 592n, 760–761, 824IAB meetings, 369, 418–419, 441–442, 451–454, 465–466, 790–791Authority controversy, 387–388, 781–782, 810, 812–817Basic intelligence, 419–422, 455–458Collection activities, 461–463, 467–471, 473–475National intelligence production, 434, 436–440, 795National Intelligence Requirements, 444, 447–449Personnel procurement, 776,
778U.S. business exploitation, 405, 407, 416NIA meetings, 767, 775Chappell, Lt. Col. Frank B.,
760Chatham, Thurmond, 954Cheston, Charles S., 235n, 574–575, 595, 774Childs, Prescott, 638, 810, 815, 1000, 1005–1008Dulles Report, 915–919, 935–936IAC meetings, 855–856, 881, 886,
890, 892–893, 901–902Chiles, Morton B., 55–56China, 895–897Chipman, Norris, 716Clark, Ralph L., 818–819Clark, Tom C., 31, 52, 966, 984, 987–988FBI jntelligence role, 24, 29, 33–34, 48–50, 82–84, 88–89Latin America withdrawal, 234,
289–291, 294–298, 300Clarke, Brig. Gen. Carter. W. (see
alsoLovett
Board), 173, 370, 955Clay, Gen. Lucius D., 735–736, 973nClayton, William L., 118, 208, 323, 326, 412Clifford, Clark M., 12, 157, 519, 525–526, 538, 550, 559, 566Clinch, Col. William J., 810, 855COAPS. SeeIntelligence Coordinating and Planning StaffunderCentral Intelligence Agency.Cohen, Ben, 219Colby, Walter E, 881–882, 884–887, 892Collection activities (see alsoAuthority controversy; Dulles Report), 367, 476–478, 483–485IAB discussions, 461–464, 467–475NIA Directive No.7, 475, 478–479NIA discussion, 772–774NSCID No. 2, 1009, 1107–1108State Department policies, 505–510Commerce, U.S. Department of, 110Committee on National Security Organization. SeeEberstadt
Committee.Congress, U.S., 64–65, 128, 311–312, 597–601, 775–776Acts of (see alsoNational Security Act (1947)): Independent Offices Appropriation Act (1945) (P.L. 358), 518–519, 524, 535Reorganization Act (1945), 108, 125, 518FBI Latin America
withdrawal, 248–249, 276–277Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, 817–819State Department intelligence operations, 182, 199Connelly, Matthew, 12,
107n, 170Cooper, Weldon, 17Correa, Maj. Mathias F. (see alsoIntelligence Survey Group), 681n, 716National intelligence structure planning, 39, 108, 111, 116–117, 139,
153, 155–156Council of National Defense, 64Covert operations. SeePsychological and political warfare.Coy, Wayne, 219–220Craig, Maj. Gen. H.A. (see alsoLovett
Board), 71, 147–152, 154–155Crane, Jacob L., 31Crowe, Richard H., 282Culbertson, Paul T., 323Cullen, Capt. Thomas, 257, 275, 322, 335, 495, 497Cunningham, Col. Harry F., 279, 335, 350, 370Cutter, Col. R. Ammi, 66n, 235nDarling, Arthur B., 11,
746, 749, 810nDavies, John P., 653–654, 690, 714n, 716Davis, Capt. Ransom K., 455, 512–513IAB meetings, 350, 421,
447, 776, 790, 810Authority controversy, 387,
785Collection activities, 461,
467, 472–474Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service, 369–370, 434National intelligence production, 760, 762–765, 793U.S. business exploitation, 405, 417DeBardaleben, Daniel, 307, 309, 928–930Defectors/refugees, 893–895, 929, 1009, 1047Defense, U.S. Department of (see alsoArmed forces; Joint Chiefs of
Staff), 737–741, 743–744, 973, 1070–1074Webb–Magruder Report, 1080–1103De Gaulle, Charles, 733DeHority, Lt. Col. C.M., 855, 861Denfeld, Adm. Louis E., 715Dennison, Capt. Robert L., 288, 396, 413, 427, 487, 526, 1058Devitt, Edward J., 601Dickey, Col. J.K., 455Doan, Capt. H.C., 810,
881Donovan, Maj. Gen. William J., 31–32, 126–127, 571, 774Donovan Plan, 1–2, 19, 24–25, 27–28, 31–32, 58, 173, 230OSS liquidation, 2, 17–19, 26, 32–33, 47, 51–52Psychological and political warfare, 632, 695Statement of Principles, 2, 18–21Douglass, Kingman, 99,
282, 339–340, 350, 370, 405Dove, M. Gertrude, 283Doyle, James E., 15–16Dulin, R.E., 653Dulles, Allen W. (see alsoDulles
Report; Intelligence Survey Group), 111, 314, 774, 876, 912–915, 920National Security Act, 561–564, 594–595Psychological and political warfare, 618–619, 681n, 684–685, 691, 695Dulles, John Foster, 709Dulles Report (Jan. 1949), 186, 621, 752–754, 902–912, 914CIA comments on, 754–755; 915–917, 922–946, 956–959, 964,
968–971,
1012Defense Department comments on, 973Eberstadt Report and, 912–913“Four Problems” papers, 756, 994–1004,
1020–1024CIA position, 1005–1010, 1027–1043, 1056IAC comments on, 918–921McNarney Report, 755–756, 974–986, 988–990, 994–1004Implementation, 1016–1017, 1025–1026, 1045–1049, 1056, 1072, 1076, 1078, 1082–1083, 1094Navy Department comments on, 755, 947NSC discussions, 755, 959–961, 965–967, 972,
984–986NSCID No. 1 and, 1119nState Department comments on, 755,
921, 947–953, 963Dunn, James C., 184, 207n, 219Early, Stephen T., 984Earman, John S., 487, 510–512, 757n, 767, 789, 797–798IAB meetings, 417, 434,
461, 467, 760, 776, 790, 793Eberstadt, Ferdinand, 5, 60–61Eberstadt Committee, 5, 60–61, 751, 871–876, 912–913, 1012Economic Cooperation Adminstration (ECA),
732–733Eddy, Col. William A., 430–433, 445–446, 476–478, 494–499, 580nAuthority controversy, 491–494, 776,
779, 781–785, 793–794FBI Latin America withdrawal, 288IAB meetings, 424–425, 441–443, 464–465, 766, 790–791Authority controversy, 776,
779, 781–785, 793–794Basic intelligence, 419, 421–423, 456CIG–JCS relationship, 426, 451–453Collection activities, 461–463, 467–474National intelligence production, 434, 436–439, 760, 762National Intelligence Requirements, 444, 447–449U.S. business exploitation, 405, 409, 416National Security Act, 567–568NIA meetings, 395, 413,
427, 430–431, 487, 491–492, 767State Department intelligence operations, 185, 224–228, 505–507Edgar, Donald, 480–482, 767IAB meetings: Hillenkoetter
tenure, 760, 776, 782, 785, 790, 793, 796Vandenberg
tenure, 417, 420–421, 423, 434, 441–444, 447–449, 461–463National intelligence production, 495–496, 512–513, 760Edwards, Lt. Col. E.G., 405Eisenhower, Dwight D., 348nElsey, George M., 550, 566Embick, Lt. Gen. Stanley D., 99Ennis, Col. Riley F., 512–513, 760–761, 765, 776, 810Espionage. SeePsychological and political warfare.Evans, Allan, 495n, 512–513, 810, 818, 855, 1000–1004, 1027Executive Order 9621, 3,
5–6, 40n, 44–46, 51–53, 230, 245, 615Executive Order, 9630, 92Fearing, George R., 461Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 4–5,
14, 231Authority controversy, 379–384CIA liaison, 1009–1010, 1047–1048IAC membership, 905, 907,
918, 920, 950, 957, 963, 976, 986–988Latin America intelligence role, 4–5, 24–25, 34–35, 106–107, 119,
128, 382–384Latin America withdrawal; 233–234, 277–279, 305–309, 414Congressional appropriations, 248–249, 276FBI–CIG negotiations, 234, 277–281, 283–285, 288–289, 296–304Acheson
position, 234, 286–287Clark
letters, 289–295Hoover–Vandenberg correspondence, 280–281, 283–284, 301–302State Department staff discussions, 128, 248–249, 325–326National intelligence production, 354National intelligence structure planning, 4–5, 14–15, 27–30, 58, 106–107Budget Bureau position, 34–38Clark proposal,
48–50, 82–84, 88–89Donovan Plan, 24–25,
27–28, 31–32, 58Hoover position,
4, 24–26, 52–53Three Secretaries meetings, 110–111Truman position,
33–34, 55–56, 233State Department intelligence operations, 219–220U.S. business exploitation, 402–404, 406–407, 410–412Wartime intelligence role, 4, 34–35Field, Henry, 193–194First War Powers Act, 15–16Flack, Joseph, 303Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service (FBIS), 352–353, 370–371, 488Foreign economic intelligence, 1060–1062Foreign information programs (see
alsoPsychological and political warfare), 616, 639–642, 646–649, 654–655, 666–667, 734–735Foreign propaganda, 197–198, 1107Forgan, Russell, 99Forney, Col. L.R.; 68nForrestal, James V., 5, 7, 570–571, 772, 893, 960Atomic energy intelligence, 396–399, 817Authority controversy, 491–492, 749–750, 767,
780, 823–825Central Intelligence Group, 327, 415–416, 768–769, 774Budget, 428, 430–432, 536–537FBI Latin America withdrawal, 288, 414Intelligence Survey Group, 750–751, 842,
845National intelligence structure planning, 10–11, 61–62, 155, 166–169, 182,
313–314Forrestal–Royall proposal (Jan. 6, 1946), 10–12, 161–164, 175–177JCS1181/5, 39–44, 40–44,
53–54, 58–60McCormack proposal,
137, 141, 145Three Secretaries’ meetings, 7,
10, 63–65, 108–111, 139–141NIA meetings: Hillenkoetter
tenure, 766–769, 772, 774Souers tenure,
327, 337Vandenberg
tenure, 395–399, 412, 414, 416, 427–428, 430–432, 487, 489, 491–492NSC meetings, 588, 823–825, 850Psychological and political warfare, 616, 627, 638, 724,
728CIA Special Projects Office, 619, 691, 695–698, 710n, 711–712NSC4 Series, 617, 654–655Special Studies Director proposal, 684, 686, 690Fortier, Brig. Gen. Louis J. (see alsoFortier
Committee), 155, 275, 282, 350, 370Fortier Committee, 231–232, 255–271Foskett, Rear Adm. James H., 746France, 734–735,
805Frank, Joseph A., 741Frankel, Capt., 832Friendly, Al, 733Galloway, Col. Donald H., 313, 651, 655–661, 717n, 751, 831FBI Latin America withdrawal, 283n, 288–289Office of Special Operations, 282,
665–671Gamble, Ralph A., 573Gange, John, 118, 124, 132, 248, 355nGermany, 805–806Gilpatrick, Chadbourne, 831Gingrich, John E., 511n, 580n, 592n, 793, 810, 813–816Goggins, Capt. William B., 282, 322, 339, 350, 370, 832Goldthwaite, Capt. R., 350Graham, John, 954Gray, Gordon, 954–955, 985Great Britain, 773, 805Greenman, Commodore, 887–889Groves, Maj. Gen. Leslie R., 394–398, 458–460Gruenther, Gen. Alfred
M., 646, 691, 798Gurney, Chan, 522, 568, 571–572, 574Habecker, Capt. F.S., 455Hackworth, 118, 124, 132, 134, 248Hannegan, Robert, 31Harriman, W. Averell, 616, 627, 732n, 745Harris, Col. William H., 427, 429–431Havenner, Franck R., 600Heck, James, 434, 442–443Henderson, Loy, 182, 199n, 219, 323, 325–326Henry, Capt. Patrick, 793, 855Hickerson, John, 139,
153, 224, 396, 413–414, 427, 526Hidalgo, Edward, 327,
337Hill, Arthur M., 589, 686n, 696, 710n, 823, 850Hillenkoetter, Rear Adm. Roscoe,
311n, 802, 993, 1025n, 1104Atomic energy intelligence, 511n, 769Authority controversy, 747, 767, 824IAB procedures, 747, 779–781, 783–784, 786, 793National Security Council Intelligence Directives, 748–749, 800, 807, 810–817, 866China, 895–897CIA enabling legislation, 569–570, 597,
600, 602, 606–607, 610–611CIA–State Department relationship, 312–315, 766, 791Civilian director issue, 574–575, 594–595, 603Collection activities, 772–774Defectors/refugees, 894Director, appointment as, 498–499, 569n, 746–747Dulles Report, 902, 912,
918, 924, 931–935, 964“Four Problems” papers, 994,
1020–1021, 1056McNarney Report, 984–985, 1016–1017, 1045–1049NSC discussion, 965–966, 984–985Dulles Report criticisms
of, 753–754,
912, 982Eberstadt Committee, 871–875, 912Enemy document repositories, 766, 773, 792,
796IAB meetings, 760–765, 776–781, 783–784, 790–796, 810–817IAC meetings, 855–865, 881–902Intelligence Survey Group, 751, 841n, 876–877National intelligence production, 770–772, 796, 835,
915IAC discussions, 856–865, 899–902Interagency coordination, 760–765, 771, 791–792, 794–795, 828–829National Security Act, 523, 573, 580–586, 592–593, 622,
748National Security Council, 579–580, 587,
748–749,
800Meetings, 589, 686n, 687, 710n, 824, 850, 965–966, 984–985NIA meetings, 766–775Petroleum reserve intelligence, 887–890Psychological and political warfare, 622, 633, 688–689, 715, 717,
730CIA Special Projects Office, 620, 691, 695–699, 703–705, 719–722Defense Department position, 737, 743–744NSC4 Series, 639–640, 644–645, 650–652Operations Division, 984–985, 999–1000, 1016–1017SANACC proposal, 616, 626–627, 630Special Studies Director proposal, 673–677, 687Publicity, 768–769, 890–892Scientific intelligence, 774, 881–886, 893, 897–898, 1012Service attachés, 1069–1070, 1074–1075Soviet Union intelligence, 991, 1062–1067Hiss, Alger, 118Hoelscher, L.W., 17, 130n, 159–160Hoffman, Clare E., 311–312, 573, 576Hoffman, Paul G., 732nHoover, J. Edgar, 52–53, 220, 334–335, 351, 768FBI Latin America withdrawal, 233–234, 278n, 279FBI–CIG negotiations, 277, 289, 291–294, 296, 298–299Acheson
position, 234, 286–287Vandenberg correspondence, 280, 283, 301–302Vandenberg draft
directive (June 1946), 384nNational intelligence structure planning, 4, 24–27, 31–33, 55, 58, 106–107NIA Directive No. 5, 233–234U.S. business exploitation, 402–404, 407,
410–412,
417Hoover Commission. SeeEberstadt
Committee.Houston, Lawrence R., 519, 523–526, 603–606, 786–788, 810CIA enabling legislation, 597–599, 602–603, 611–614National Security Act, 554, 622–623Howe, Fisher, 607, 608n, 609n, 893, 1011, 1019–1020, 1054–1060, 1076nHuddle, J. Klhar, 480, 485, 495Hull, Lt. Gen. J.E., 84–87Humelsine, Carlisle H., 312–315, 954–955, 1070nDulles Report, 755, 921,
956, 967, 974nHuston, Col. M.N., 350Hyde, Capt. R.U., 455Inglis, Rear Adm. Thomas B., 64, 65n, 135–136, 424, 580n, 592n, 767Dulles Report, 755IAB meetings: Hillenkoetter
tenure, 760, 776–783, 785, 790–796, 810–811, 813–817Souers tenure,
322, 339–342Vandenberg
tenure, 405–409, 417–420, 422–426, 434–444, 447–458, 461–467, 469–470IAC meetings, 895–897National intelligence production, 791–792, 794–796, 856–862, 864–865Basic intelligence, 419–420, 422–423, 455–458Biographic intelligence, 441–443IAB discussion, 435–440IAC discussion, 856–862, 864–865, 899–901National Intelligence Requirements, 444, 448–449National intelligence structure planning, 54, 56n, 97–98NSC meetings, 824Petroleum reserve intelligence, 888–890Psychological and political warfare, 715Scientific intelligence, 881–886, 893,
897–898Intelligence Advisory Board (IAB) (see alsoAuthority controversy; Intelligence Advisory Committee): AEC membership, 401n, 511n, 747Documents: No. 1, 511–517, 760–765, 791–792, 794–795No. 3, 776–779No. 4, 790–791Establishment, 179Meetings: Hillenkoetter
tenure, 748, 760–766, 776–785, 790–796, 810–817Souers tenure,
321–322, 334–337, 339–343, 350–354Vandenberg
tenure, 369–372, 387–390, 405–409, 416–426, 434–445, 447–458, 461–475Organization, 321–322Procedures, 747–748, 757–759, 779–783, 786–788, 793–794, 797–798Intelligence Advisory Board (State Depattment), 183–184, 224–225Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) (see alsoIntelligence Advisory Board): AEC membership, 920, 950,
976Dulles Report, 753–755, 907, 918–919, 947,
957, 963, 975–976, 983Comments on, 918–921“Four Problems” papers, 756,
995, 1001, 1020–1024, 1030–1031FBI membership, 905, 907,
918, 920, 950, 957, 963, 976–977, 986–988Intelligence Survey Group, 853–855Meetings, 855–865, 881–902Meeting schedule, 886–887NSCID No. 1, 987–988, 1119–1122Proposal for, 523, 580–585, 591–594, 596–597, 748–749, 818–819Webb–Magruder Report, 1097–1098Intelligence estimates/summaries. SeeNational intelligence production.Intelligence production. SeeNational intelligence production.Intelligence Survey Group (see alsoDulles
Report), 876–880Establishment, 750–751, 827,
841–844Intelligence Advisory Committee, 853–855Penrose report, 829–834Progress reports, 845–849, 851–852Psychological and political warfare, 618–619, 681–685Interdepartmental Intelligence Committee, 35,
83Interdepartmental working committee, 111, 116–117, 135–136Irwin, Maj. Gen. Stafford Leroy, 155, 231, 250–251, 914, 1062IAC meetings, 881–882, 886, 889,
892, 894–902, 919Jackson, William E., 99Jackson, William H. (see alsoIntelligence Survey Group), 681n, 954Jamison, E.A., 323nJCS1181/5 (see alsoLovett Board,
Proposal), 2–3, 39–44, 53–54, 95–97, 157–159, 161, 518Navy Department position, 58–60, 62–63State–War–Navy–FBI meeting
proposal, 5, 60War Department position, 66–69Johnson, Leroy,
600Johnson, Louis, 755–756, 965–967, 973–984, 1069Psychological and political warfare, 737–741, 743, 1018,
1049, 1068Johnson, Lyndon B., 600Johnson, Col. Wendell G., 881, 892–893, 902Joint Army–Navy Intelligence Studies (JANIS), 419–420, 764, 796Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) (see alsoArmed forces; specific
departments), 3–6, 11, 17,
764CIG relationship with, 369, 415,
425–426,
450–455,
770, 774–775Documents (see alsoJCS1181/5): JIC239/5, 1–2IAC membership, 950, 976JANIS program, 419–420, 764, 796Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), 1–2, 119–120, 126, 774–775, 798–800, 802–804, 910, 961–962Joint Intelligence Staff (JIS),
798–799,
802–804,
961–962Psychological and political warfare, 684, 737–741State Department, relationship with, 798–800, 802–804, 961–962Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), 1–2, 119–120, 126Central Intelligence Group and, 336,
774–775State Department membership, 798–800, 802–804, 961–962Joint Intelligence Studies Publishing Board (JISPB), 766, 775Joint Research and Development Board (JRDB), 501–503, 770, 774Joyce, Robert P., 736, 1059, 1070nJudson, Harold, 13–15Justice, U.S. Department of, 13, 249Katz, Lt. Cmdr. Milton, 99Kennan, George F., 724n, 807, 823, 825, 921Psychological and political warfare, 652, 665n, 736, 742–743, 1000, 1018CIA Office of Policy Coordination, 728–729, 734CIA Special Projects Office, 620, 702–703, 709–710, 714n, 716, 719–723Intelligence Survey Group, 684–685, 751NSC4 Series, 617, 647Special Studies Director proposal, 618, 684–685, 690Kent, Sherman, 184, 835–840Kilgour, Frederick G., 466Kindleberger, Charles P., 118King, Adm. E.J., 58–60, 62–63, 135Kirkpatrick, Evron, 893–894Klaus, Samuel, 257Knowles, Capt. K.A., 855Korean War, 756Kroner, Gen. H., 595Kurth, Harry M., 187,
189Labouisse, Henry A., 124Ladd, D. Milton, 350–351, 370–371, 379FBI Latin America withdrawal, 14–15, 106–107, 234, 277–279, 280n, 283nLanger, William L., 185, 355–357, 366, 387–389IAB meetings, 350–351, 353, 366,
369–371,
387–389National intelligence production, 371,
384–386NIA meetings, 526, 528,
530–532Lay, James S., Jr., 301, 327, 512, 519, 525–526, 1070–1074Dulles Report, 960, 1025IAB meetings, 322, 335,
339, 350, 424, 445, 447Authority controversy, 387CIG–JCS relationship, 425Collection activities, 461–462Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service, 370National intelligence production, 434–435, 439U.S. business exploitation, 405, 407–408, 417National intelligence production, 434–435, 439, 1025,
1058–1059National intelligence structure planning, 95–97NIA meetings, 396, 400,
413, 487, 527NSC meetings, 686n, 687, 710n, 824,
850Psychological and political warfare, 628–630, 687, 699–700, 703,
712, 1077U.S. business exploitation, 405, 407–408, 417Leahy, Adm. William D., 7, 94, 316, 570–571Atomic energy intelligence, 397–402, 415Authority controversy, 390n, 491, 767Central Intelligence Group, 349, 746Budget, 429–431, 536–537Role in, 316–317, 324, 326–327Statutory basis, 520, 528–531FBI Latin America withdrawal, 234, 288,
295, 298–300, 414National intelligence production, 319,
328, 772National intelligence structure planning, 10, 12–14, 40, 170–171, 313Three Secretaries’ meetings, 7–8, 63–65,
107n,
108, 125National Security Act, 555NIA meetings, 337n, 413–414, 487, 491,
766–768,
772Atomic energy intelligence, 395, 397–400CIG budget, 427, 429–431CIG–JCS relationship, 415, 775CIG statutory basis, 526, 528–531U.S. business exploitation, 402, 410–411Legal issues, 15–16Lewis, James H., 118n, 124n, 132n, 248, 323Libert, O.J., 313Little, Lt. Col., 197–198Lovett, Robert A. (see alsoLovett
Board), 5–6, 593, 608–610, 751, 798–800, 807–808CIA Special Projects Office, 691, 694Hillenkoetter successor,
954–955National intelligence structure planning, 70–72, 108–111, 116–117, 314NSC meetings, 588, 850Oversight committee proposal, 523,
587–588Psychological and political warfare, 624, 638, 648, 652CIA Office of Policy Coordination, 724–725, 728CIA Special Projects Office, 619–620, 694–698, 702, 709–712, 716Separate organization proposal, 661, 663–664Special Studies Director proposal, 618, 684, 686, 690Lovett Board: Formation, 70–72Hull report, 84–87Proposal, 5–6,
11, 98–105, 145–146, 161–162McCormack proposal
and, 118, 120–124, 126–130, 132–133, 140–141, 147–151McCormack revision
proposal, 164–166Reconvention, 146–147Strategic Services Unit and, 74–81, 104–105, 231Lyon, Frederick B., 29–30, 106, 189, 194, 219, 278, 307Strategic Services Unit, 245–246, 279–280MacCarthy, Shane, 855,
881, 893, 1000–1004Machle, Willard, 1012–1016MacLean, Col. Allan D., 855, 860, 863Magruder, Helen
Schurman, 31Magruder, Brig. Gen. John, (see alsoLovett
Board): National intelligence structure planning, 6, 31–32, 54, 56–57, 66–68, 71, 74–81Psychological and political warfare, 741–742, 1018, 1049–1054, 1059–1060,
1068Strategic Services Unit, 231, 235–247, 251–254, 615Webb–Magruder Report, 756, 1080–1103Manhattan Engineer District, 394, 397, 399Marks, Herbert S., 394nMarshall, Gen. George C., 62, 69–70, 570–571, 686n, 694, 842–843National Security Act, 521–522, 568NIA meetings, 487–488, 492–493, 766–767, 769, 775–776Psychological and political warfare, 616, 618, 638, 684,
709–710State Department intelligence operations, 185–186, 229Marshall Plan, 732–733Martin, Leo C., 16, 51Matthews, Francis P., 108, 189, 219, 323, 327, 337, 487McCarthy, Col. Charles W., 139, 153, 288, 396, 526McCarthy, Col. Frank, 24, 27–30, 33–34, 181, 187–190, 189n, 193–194McCloy, John J., 53, 735–736, 875Strategic Services Unit, 231, 235–237, 243, 246,
250McCormack, Col. Alfred (see alsoMcCormack
proposal), 70, 166n, 195n, 323–327, 333FBI intelligence role, 106–107, 248–249, 325Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service, 353Intelligence Advisory Board, 321, 339National intelligence production, 324–327National intelligence structure planning, 12–13, 95, 140–141, 155, 170, 172–177Interdepartmental working committee, 111, 116–117Lovett Board, 99, 164–166Truman
interdepartmental group directive, 54, 56–57, 73,
94, 182Psychological and political warfare, 197–198, 231State Department intelligence operations, 193, 197–199, 339–342IRIS appointment, 52–53,
61, 92, 181, 190–193, 196Resignation, 185, 217, 222–224Russell plan, 184–185, 207–211, 217–220Truman
interdepartmental group directive and, 6–7, 56–57,
94, 182Strategic Services Unit, 245–246McCormack proposal, 6–10, 97–98, 111–117, 518Dec. 1945 revisions, 137–139, 141–144, 147JCS1181/5 and, 157–159Lovett Board proposal and,
118, 120–124, 126–130, 132–133, 140–141, 147–151McCormack memorandum, 173–174Nimitz position, 145–146State Department disagreement on, 136,
154State Department staff discussions, 118–120, 124–130, 132–135War Department acceptance of, 151–152, 154–155, 159–160McCormick, Anne O’Hare, 709McCracken, Capt. Alan R., 653, 831–832McDonald, Brig. Gen. George C.,
371, 580n, 592nIAB meetings: Hillenkoetter
tenure, 760, 776–777, 780, 783–785, 790, 792–795, 810, 812–816Souers tenure,
334, 339, 341, 350Vandenberg
tenure, 370, 405, 461, 465–466McFarland, Brig. Gen. Andrew J., 47, 799McGregor, Douglas, 301McManus, Cmdr. George B., 282, 405–406, 417McNarney, Gen. Joseph T. (see alsoMcNarney ReportunderDulles
Report), 755, 967, 974n,
985, 988–990, 1049McNeil, W.J., 829–830McWilliams, William J., 867Medical intelligence (see alsoScientific intelligence), 897–898, 1013Michela, Col. Joseph A., 387Miles, Arnold, 34–38, 47, 130n, 159–160Montague, Ludwell L., 155, 485–487, 746, 750, 804–806, 931nIntelligence Advisory Board, 322, 334, 370Moseley, H.W., 624–625Murphy, Charles S., 554–558, 559nMurphy, James, 279Murphy, Robert, 735Mussett, Col. E.P., 455,
512–513, 516–517IAB meetings: Hillenkoetter
tenure, 793, 795, 810Souers tenure,
322, 350Vandenberg
tenure, 370, 387, 417, 434, 447, 461IAC meetings, 881–882, 884, 886–887National Intelligence Authority (NIA) (see alsoAuthority controversy; Central
Intelligence Group), 13, 318CIG funding, 366CIG statutory basis, 526–533Directives: No. 1, 317–318, 323–327, 329–331, 333, 407–408, 757No. 2, 318–319, 323–327, 331–333No. 4, 232, 272–274No. 5, 232–234, 282, 391–392, 486, 757, 759No. 6, 444–445No. 7, 475, 478–479No. 9, 401n, 510–511No. 10, 789No. 11, 748, 797–798Establishment, 178–179FBI Latin America withdrawal, 234, 288–291, 294–295McCormack proposal, 8–9Meetings: Hillenkoetter
tenure, 766–776Souers tenure,
327–329, 337–338Vandenberg
tenure, 395–400, 412–416, 427–432, 487–493, 519–520, 526–533National intelligence production, 368Psychological and politicai warfare, 311–312State Department intelligence operations, 219–220Strategic Services Unit, 231National intelligence production (see alsoBasic intelligence), 117, 319–320, 336, 357, 361–362, 495–497Crisis situations, 943, 1045–1046,
1054–1055Defense Department-position, 973“Four Problems” papers, 1038–1039IAC position, 919–920Watch Committee proposal, 1063Current intelligence, 481, 515, 772,
791–792,
917, 1099–1100, 1110Dulles Report, 186, 753–754, 906–907, 949,
973CIA position, 915–916, 923–924, 931–935, 940–943, 1036–1043Defense Department position, 973“Four Proqlems” papers, 756,
996–999, 1003–1004, 1006–1007, 1023, 1031–1032, 1036–1043IAC position, 920McNarney Report, 755–756, 978, 1025–1026, 1044, 1046, 1048–1049State Department position, 755, 915–917, 919, 949IAB discussions, 435–440IAC discussions, 856–865, 899–902Interagency coordination, 747, 771, 828–829Draft NIA directive (April 21, 1947), 511–517, 760–765IAB discussions, 760–765, 791–792, 794–795McCormack memorandum, 177McCormack proposal, 115–117, 119–120, 123, 127NIA Directive No. 1, 317NSCID No. 3, 825, 916, 923, 933, 941–942, 1063–1064, 1082, 1094,
1109–1112ORE program, 480–482, 485–487Situation reports, 771, 804–806, 917Soviet Union, 345–347, 353–354, 464–465Atomic energy intelligence, 1012ORE–1, 368, 435, 805Watch Committee proposal, 991–992, 1062–1067Staff intelligence, 515–516, 791–792, 917,
1110–1111State Department position, 384–386, 1056–1059, 1068–1069State Department staff discussions, 324–327Vandenberg tenure, 367–368Webb–Magruder Report, 756, 1080–1103Weekly summary trial issue, 371National intelligence structure planning (see alsoJCS1181/5; National
intelligence structure planningunderFederal Bureau of Investigation; Lovett Board;
Three Secretaries’ meetings; Truman
interdepartmental group directive): Budget Bureau proposals, 3–4, 8, 89–97, 110, 126Council of National Defense proposal, 64Donovan Plan, 1–2, 19, 24–25, 27–28, 31–32, 58, 173, 230Donovan Statement of
Principles, 2, 18–21Eberstadt Report, 5, 60–61Executive Secretariat proposals, 8–9, 11FBI proposals, 4–5Forrestal–Royall proposal (Jan. 6, 1946), 10–12, 161–164, 175–177JCS proposals, 1–4, 39–44Magruder report, 74–81Three Secretaries proposal (Jan. 7, 1946),
166–169,
518Truman directive (Jan. 22, 1946), 178–179, 518, 787Truman role, 5, 10, 130–131, 159War Department position, 74–81War Department–State Department meeting, 155–156White House meetings (Jan. 1946), 12–15, 170–171National Security Act (1947) (see alsoCentral Intelligence Agency; National Security Council), 365–366, 499Authority controversy and, 788CIA enabling legislation, 522, 569–571, 576, 597–600, 602–603, 606–614Congressional hearings, 573, 576Donovan position, 571–572Dulles Report, 903Hillenkoetter, appointment
as CIG Director, 499Intelligence Advisory Committee proposal, 523, 580–585, 591–594, 596–597, 748–749, 818–819Interim authorization, 586Joint Chiefs of Staff and, 798–799National intelligence production, 1093Psychological and political warfare, 233, 622–623White House draft bill, 521–522, 550–565, 567–568National Security Council (NSC) (see alsoNational Security Act (1947)), 790Actions: No. 1, 522No. 3, 523, 807, 822No. 14, 825No. 15, 825–826No. 25, 827, 842No. 42, 664No. 47, 687No. 65, 712No. 73, 867No. 95, 723No. 198, 961No. 202, 967No. 231, 985–986Documents: NSC4 Series, 616–617, 639–652, 654–655, 678, 680–681, 690, 993, 1018NSC10 Series, 616, 620–621, 677–681, 690, 713–715, 754, 999, 1018NSC17/4, 977, 987–988NSC29, 725–727NSC43, 993,
1018NSC50. SeeMcNarney
ReportunderDulles Report.Dulles Report, 755, 959–961, 965–967, 972,
984–986Intelligence Directives (NSCIDs), 522, 749, 790,
800–801,
807, 822–823“Four Problems” papers, 996–997, 1002–1003IAB discussion, 810–817McNarney Report, 756No. 1, 825, 923, 933, 941–942, 977, 987–988, 1055, 1063, 1119–1122No. 2, 825, 1009, 1107–1108No. 3, 825, 916, 923, 933, 941–942, 1063–1064, 1082, 1094, 1109–1112No. 4, 825, 1105No. 5, 825, 1009, 1106No. 6, 825, 1107No. 7, 1112–1114No. 8, 1114–1115No. 9, 1123–1125No. 10, 1115–1117No. 11, 1117–1118No. 12, 1118–1119No. 13, 1122No. 14, 1122NSC discussions, 825–826, 850, 866–867State Department position, 749, 807–809Webb–Magruder Report, 1093, 1095–1096Meetings: 1st, Sept. 26, 1947, 522–523, 588–5902d, Nov.14, 1947, 637–6383d, Dec. 12, 1947, 823–8269th, April 2, 1948, 66410th, April 22, 1948, 85011th, May 20, 1948, 686–68712th, June 3, 1948, 694–69813th, June 17, 1948, 710–71214th, July 1, 1948, 866–86718th, August 19, 1948, 72336th, Mar. 22, 1949, 959–96137th, Apr. 7, 1949, 965–96738th, Apr. 20, 1949, 972–97343d, July 7, 1949, 984–986Oversight committee proposal (see alsoIntelligence Survey Group), 523, 579–580, 587–588, 748–749Psychological and political warfare, 638, 649–651, 664–665, 672–673, 677–681, 686–687, 690CIA Special, Projects Office, 694–702, 711–715, 723Transition, 579–580, 748–749, 800–801Navy, U.S. Department of the (see alsoArmed forces; Inteliigence
Advisory Board; Joint Chiefs of Staff),
1, 11–12, 61, 355–357Dulles Report comments,
755, 947McCormack proposal, 9–10, 157–159Neal, Jack D., 279, 307, 309, 314Newcomer, Lt. Col. F.K., 350, 370Nicholas, Col. C.P., 322,
335, 339, 341, 350, 370Nimitz, Adm. Chester W., 145–146Nordbeck, T.M., 505nNorstad, Maj. Gen. Lauris, 554–555, 559n, 824Nye, Col. G.C., 793Ocker, Capt. J.M., 855,
881, 893O’Donnell, John, 595Oechsner, F.C., 993nOffice of Strategic Services (OSS) (see alsoInterim Research and Intelligence ServiceunderState Department intelligence operations; Strategic Services Unit), 1, 4, 173,
430Liquidation, 2–3, 16–19, 26, 32–33, 44–46, 195Budget Bureau position, 22–23, 51–52, 89, 92Ohly, John H., 596n, 750, 824, 921Oliver, Col. John P., 595Olsen, 480nOrville, Capt., 718Panuch, Anthony, 182, 199n, 217–220Pasvolsky, Leo, 118, 124, 130, 132–133, 248Patterson, Robert P., 288, 354, 395–399, 536–537, 570–571Authority controversy, 491–492, 767National intellegence structure planning, 6, 98n,
146JCS1181/5, 5,
40n,
53–54, 59McCormack proposal,
137, 141, 152, 154–155, 159–160Three Secretaries meetings, 7,
10, 63–65, 108–111, 139–141, 153–154NIA meetings, 327, 337–338Hillenkoetter
tenure, 766–768, 774–775Vandenberg
tenure, 395–399, 412, 415, 427–428, 431, 487, 491–492, 526–528, 532State Department intelligence operations, 182, 205–206Strategic Services Unit, 235n, 251,
272n, 337–338Pawley, Wiiliam D., 296,
488Pearson, Drew, 219Penrose, Stephen, 829–834Perry, Col. W.A., 322,
335, 350, 370Petersen, Howard.C., 153, 273–274, 309, 337, 413, 487, 767Peurifoy, John E., 225, 229, 314, 766nPforzheimer, Walter, 283, 594n, 600, 607–608, 611–614National Security Act, 550–557, 561–565, 569–571, 573,
576Pixtou, Lt. Col. Allen G., 625–626Pratt, Fletcher, 595–596Price, Byron, 36Price,. Vice Adm. J.D., 715Psychological and political warfare (see alsoForeign information programs; Special Projects OfficeunderCentral Intelligence Agency; Strategic Services Unit), 615–621, 653–654, 1018Budget Bureau proposals, 230–231CIA Office of Policy Coordination, 724–725, 728, 730–734, 924–927, 999,
1072–1073Clark proposal, 88Congressional discussions, 311–315Defense Department position, 737–741, 743–744Donovan Plan, 230Donovan Statement of
Principles, 21Dulles Report, 621, 980–981, 1008–1009, 1047Hillenkoetter position,
688–689Intelligence Survey Group proposal, 618–619, 681–685Magruder Report, 77–78National Security Act and, 622–623NSC4 Series, 616–617, 616–618, 639–652, 654–655, 678, 680–681, 690,
993, 1018NSC29, 725–727NSCID No. 5, 825, 1009, 1106NSC review, 617–618, 664–665Office of Special Operations, 651–653, 655–661Operations Division, 621, 909, 1011,
1049–1054, 1057, 1059–1060CIA position, 925–926, 929, 1016–1017McNarney Report, 978–979, 988–990, 999–1000NSC discussion, 966, 984–986State Department position, 755, 950, 963, 1057, 1068, 1076–1080Project Ultimate, 715, 718SANACC proposal (see alsoNSC 4
Seriesabove), 615–616, 624–633, 630–633, 635–639Separate organization proposal, 617,
661–664Special Studies Director proposal (see alsoCIA Special Projects Officeabove), 618, 673–677, 682, 686–687NSC draft directives, 672–673, 677–681, 684–685, 690State Department position, 618, 668–672State Department intelligence operations and, 197–198, 666–668Tito–Cominform dispute, 717, 742War Council discussion, 616, 633–634Quesada, Maj. Gen. E.R. (see
alsoLovett
Board), 71Quinn, Col. William W., 99, 273–274,
304–305, 309–310Ramsey, G. E., Jr., 16n, 51–52Ravndal, Christian M., 314Rayburn, Sam, 610Reams, Robert, 219Rend, Cmdr. Charles J., 334–335, 350–351, 369, 371, 387, 389Reserve Officers Association, 595Rivvell, Lt. Col. Richard, 595Roamer, Col. J.M. (see
alsoLovett Board), 71Robinson, David, 17Robinson, Adm. S.M., 58–59Rochefort, Capt. J.J., 370Rogers, Col. Gordon B., 99Roosevelt, Franklin D., 1–2, 4, 27, 34–35, 126Rosenman, Samuel I., 13, 170, 172OSS liquidation, 2, 17, 23n, 26, 89Rositzke, Harry, 831Rothwell, C. Easton, 118,
124, 132, 248Royall, Kenneth, 166–169, 596–597, 749, 866, 973Forrestal–Royall proposal (Jan. 6, 1946), 10–12, 161–164, 175–177NSC meetings, 588, 638,
823, 850Psychological and political warfare, 638, 686, 696–697, 710n, 711–712Rusk, Dean, 427, 1070nRussell, Donald S., 6–7, 70; 195n, 323–327, 432–433FBI Latin America withdrawal, 248–249, 288National intelligence structure planning, 65, 73, 111, 116–117, 305–306McCormack proposal,
118, 124, 128, 132–134NIA meetings, 427, 430–432State Department intelligence operations, 182–183, 204–211, 217, 224Budget Bureau report, 200–202Resignation, 185, 226Sabalot, Capt. Abel C., 760–761Safehaven programs, 37Saltonstall, Leverett, 595Saltzman, Charles E., 961Samford, Brig. Gen. John A., 426IAB meetings, 322, 434,
436, 447, 449Basic intelligence, 420–423, 457Collection activities, 461,
467, 470, 472U.S. business exploitation, 405, 407–409, 417Sandifer, Durward V., 565Sands, Col. T.J., 350,
370, 833Sargeant, Howland H., 647–649Saunders, Edward R., 427Schneider, Franz, 219Schow, Robert A., 1008–1011Schulgen, Brig. Gen. George F., 790Schwarzwalder, George F., 89n, 111, 130n, 159n, 219–220, 566Scientific intelligence, 369, 501–503, 747Dulles Report, 905, 908,
1012, 1045IAC discussions, 881–886, 893NIA discussion, 774NSCID No. 8, 1114–1115NSCID No. 10, 1115–1117Searls, Fred, 219Secret intelligence. SeePsychological and political warfare.Security/legal attachés, 36, 38, 82–83Service attachés, 1069–1070, 1074–1075Shafer, Paul W., 600Shannon, Col., 611, 833Sheppard, William, 1019,
1056, 1058Sherman, Vice Adm. Forrest P., 559n, 824Sherman, Col. John B., 810Sherman, Col. L.C., 455Skinner, Lt. Col. James H., 893Smith, Harold D., 4, 572National intelligence structure planning, 10, 12, 33n, 89–94, 130–131McCormack
memorandum, 172–177White House meetings (Jan. 1946),
170–171OSS liquidation, 2, 18, 22, 23n, 47,
89Smith, Col. Truman, 110Smith, Walter Bedell, 756Snyder, John W., 2, 17, 23n, 89Sommers, Davidson, 327Souers, Rear Adm. Sidney W., 276, 345–348, 802, 986–988, 1060Authority controversy, 749, 784, 822–823, 866CIG Organization, 318–321, 327–329, 338, 343–344Director, appointment as, 316Dulles Report, 902, 911–912, 921,
959–960,
963McNarney Report, 988, 1016, 1026, 1045NSC discussion, 965, 967, 984–986Final CIG progress report, 320, 358–364, 413,
518, 527Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service, 352–353, 370–371IAB meetings, 321, 334–337, 350–354, 369–372, 387Intelligence Survey Group, 750, 827n, 841–845National intelligence production, 317,
319, 328–329, 354, 371,
1026National intelligence structure planning, 10–12, 60–61, 111, 116–117, 157–159, 316National Security Act, 591, 596NSC meetings, 589, 710n, 711,
824, 850Psychological and political warfare, 616, 627–628, 665,
725–727CIA Special Projects Office, 620, 691–692, 696–697, 706, 710n, 711, 719–720, 722–723NSC4 Series, 639–640, 643–646, 649–650, 654Operations Division, 988, 990, 1016Special Studies Director proposal, 673, 675, 686State Department intelligence operations, 220, 340Strategic Services Unit, 231–232, 256,
274, 335Soviet Union, 345–347, 353–354, 368, 435, 464–465, 805Atomic energy intelligence, 1012Propaganda, 640–641Watch Committee proposal, 991–992, 1062–1067Special Intelligence Service (SIS) (see alsoFederal Bureau of Investigation), 24–25, 27–30, 34–38, 48–50, 82–84, 88–89Special operations. SeePsychological, and political warfare.Special Procedures Group (SPG), 651–653, 655–661, 666–668State, U.S. Department of (see also“Four Problems” papersunderDulles
Report; McCormack proposal; State
Department intelligence operations; State
Departmentheadings under other subjects), 36CIA budget, 1070–1074Dulles Report comments,
755, 921, 947–953, 963National intelligence role, 6–9, 11–13, 153–154, 305–306, 316,
319–320War/Navy Department consulate activity requests, 355–357State–Army–Navy–Air Coordinating Committee (SANACC) (see alsoState–War–Navy Coordinating Committee), 615–617, 624–633, 652, 663–664, 678Documents: SANACC304/8, 625–626SANACC304/10, 628–630SANACC304/11, 635–638State Department intelligence operations: Budget, 339–343Budget Bureau report, 3, 181, 183,
187–188,
200–202Carter/Field operations, 193–194Central Intelligence Agency, relationship with, 312–315, 867–871, 915–917, 927, 955,
1019–1020Collection activities, 505–510Congressional position, 182, 199Dulles Report, 186, 910–911Foreign Broadcast Information Service, 370Intelligence Advisory Board, 183–184, 224–225Interim Research and Intelligence Service (IRIS), 264Establishment, 3, 22–23,
64, 92, 181–182, 189–190McCormack
appointment, 52–53, 61,
181, 190–193, 196McCormack
resignation, 185, 217, 222–224Joint Chiefs of Staff, relationship with, 798–800, 802–804, 961–962Marshall decision, 185–186Oct. 27, 1945 meeting, 182–183, 199nPsychological and political warfare, 197–198, 666–668Russell plan, 182–185, 184, 200–222, 224–229, 320Russell resignation, 185, 226Truman interdepartmental
group directive and, 6–7, 56–57, 94, 182State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee (SWNCC) (see alsoState–Army–Navy–Air Coordinating Committee), 65, 615, 769–770Documents: SWNCC304/6, 625–627Static intelligence. SeeBasic intelligence.Stattler, Lt. Col. C.J., 893Steelman, 601, 1060–1062Stettinius, Edward R., Jr., 180Stevens, Francis, 716Stimson, Henry Louis, 40–44Stone, Donald C., 33–34, 47, 52, 56n, 82–84, 111, 663–664Stone, William T., 17, 22–23Stone, W.T., 993nStrategic intelligence (see alsoAuthority controversy; National intelligence production), 481–482, 516, 783–785Strategic Services Unit (SSU), 10, 23, 197–198, 245–246, 279–280Central Intelligence Group merger, 232–233, 250–254Fortier
Committee, 231–232, 255–271Implementation, 273–275Liquidation, 302, 304–306, 309–310, 335–336, 338NIA Directive No. 4, 272–273Establishment, 23, 230, 235–236Lovett Board reports, 74–81, 104–105, 231Magruder status reports,
237–247Strong, Gen., 64Strong, Philip G., 505n, 881Sullivan, John L., 153, 529, 531, 973Authority controversy, 767, 825National intelligence production, 772,
973NIA meetings, 413, 427,
526, 529, 531, 767, 772NSC meetings, 588, 686n, 710n, 823,
825, 850Symington, W. Stuart, 638, 711–712, 973NSC meetings, 589, 686n, 710n, 823,
825, 850Taber, John, 492, 775–776Tamm, Edward A., 24n, 27–30, 31n, 33–34, 58FBI Latin America role, 283, 296–298, 300,
384Taylor, Col. Charles E., 405Taylor, Col. Robert, III, 405, 466Tharp, William, 831Thorp, Willard L., 132,
248Three Secretaries meetings, 10, 60, 63–65, 108–111, 125, 135–136, 139–141, 153–154Interdepartmental working committee, 111McCormack proposal, War
Department acceptance, 159–160NIA meetings and, 337n, 529nTruman directive, 7, 107, 183Tibby, J.K., 335, 350, 370Tito, Josip Broz, 717,
742Todd, Brig. Gen. Walter E.: IAB meetings, 760, 763,
793, 795, 810, 816IAC meetings, 855, 857,
860–863,
881–882,
884, 886–887, 889–890National intelligence production, 760,
763, 795, 857, 860–862Tolson, C.A., 384Treacy, Col. E.J., 455IAB meetings: Hillenkoetter
tenure, 760, 776, 790, 793, 810Vandenberg
tenure, 405, 417, 434, 447, 461, 467IAC meetings, 855, 881,
892, 901Trohan, Walter, 595Troy, Thomas F., 6, 107nTrueheart, William C., 810, 855, 864, 881, 893, 1044nTruman, Harry S. (see alsoTruman
interdepartmental group directive), 2,
4–5, 588, 601Atomic energy intelligence, 394n, 396,
401, 415Central Intelligence Group, 316–317Leahy role, 326–327Statutory basis, 520, 529Vandenberg,
appointment as Director, 349,
354–355Dulles Report, 912, 972,
986FBI Latin America withdrawal, 234, 276–277, 289–290, 296–297National intelligence production, 319,
1058National intelligence structure planning, 7, 12, 17, 40, 89, 166, 313FBI intelligence role,
4, 33–34, 48, 55–56, 233Role in, 5, 10, 130–131, 159Three Secretaries meetings, 7–8, 107, 136Truman directive
(Jan. 22, 1946), 178–179, 518, 787White House meetings (Jan. 1946),
12–13, 170OSS liquidation, 17, 32, 33n, 44–46Psychological and political warfare, 650n, 664Truman interdepartmental group
directive, 3, 46–47, 54, 56–57, 73, 116–117McCormack proposal, 112–113Navy Department position, 61, 63State Department intelligence operations and, 56–57, 182Strategic Services Unit and, 230, 235–236Tydings, Millard, 610nUnited Kingdom, 773, 805U.S. business exploitation, 402–412, 417–418, 1112–1114Vandenberg, Lt. Gen. Hoyt S.: Atomic energy intelligence, 394–395, 397,
399–400,
415Authority controversy, 364–369, 373–379, 387–389, 489–492Basic intelligence, 419–424, 455–458Biographic intelligence, 441–443Central Intelligence Group: Budget, 428–431, 493, 520, 533–536Director, appointment as, 348–349, 354–355Enemy document repositories, 465–466, 489Information access, 414–415, 445Joint Chiefs of Staff, relationship with, 415, 425–426, 450–454National Intelligence Requirements, 448–449Organization, 393, 413Personnel clearance, 350, 418–419Personnel procurement, 415–416Statutory basis, 518–519, 523, 526–532, 538–550War plans, 424–425Civilian director issue, 595Collection activities, 461–462, 467–469, 473–475FBI Latin America withdrawal, 234, 307–308, 414,
488FBI–CIG negotiations, 234, 280–281, 283–284, 288–289, 300, 303–304Foreign Broadcast Information Service, 352–353, 370–371, 488IAB meetings, 334–337, 369–372, 387–389, 424–425, 464–465Basic intelligence, 419–424, 455–458CIG–JCS relationship, 425–426, 450–454Collection activities, 461–462, 467–469, 472–475Enemy document repositories, 465–466National intelligence production, 434–440National Intelligence Requirements, 447–449Personnel clearance, 350, 418–419State Department intelligence operations, 339–342U.S. business exploitation, 405–409, 416–417Joint Research and Development Board, 501National intelligence production, 367–368, 434–440, 495–497, 516National Security Act, 550, 553–556NIA meetings, 395, 397,
399–400,
414–416,
427–431,
487–493,
526–532Psychological and political warfare, 301–302Soviet Union intelligence, 464–465Strategic Services Unit, 232, 279–280, 335U.S. business exploitation, 405–409, 417Vardaman, James K., 170Vaughan, Brig. Gen. Harry H., 170Vincent, John Carter, 219, 323, 325Vischer, Peter, 595Voice of America, 616, 666Wadsworth, James, 576Walker, Col. S.P., 257War, U.S. Department of (see alsoArmed forces; Intelligence
Advisory Board; Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Strategic Services Unit), 69, 219–220, 355–357National intelligence structure planning, 66–69, 74–81, 84–87McCormack proposal,
10, 151–152, 159–160War Council, 616, 633Warren, Lindsay C., 534,
536Webb, James E., 741–742, 954, 1011, 1067, 1076CIA enabling legislation, 600, 606, 609Dulles Report, 921, 956,
963, 965–967, 1026, 1044National intelligence production, 1026, 1044Webb–Magruder Report, 756, 1080–1103Weckerling, Brig. Gen. John, 321Weicker, Lowell, 99White, Lincoln, 314Whitney, Cornelius V., 634, 696, 824, 850Williams, Col. L.L., 455Williams, Robert Jay, 718Wisner, Frank G., 734–735, 875–876, 954–955Dulles Report, 924–927, 956–959, 968–971Psychological and political warfare, 652, 716, 719, 721–723, 730–736, 741–743, 745Operations Division, 925–926, 1011Wood, Col. Tyler, 218,
222Wooldridge, Rear Adm. E.T., 767Wright, Col. Edwin K., 282–283, 313, 434, 502–503, 555–561, 751Atomic energy intelligence, 503–505CIG statutory basis, 538–539FBI Latin America withdrawal, 294–295, 301Psychological and political warfare, 617, 630–634, 638–639, 724–726Wyman, Maj. Gen. W.G., 71,
99, 105Yeaton, Col. Ivan D., 719, 721–723Yugoslavia, 717, 742