26. Report by the Operations Coordinating Board to the National Security Council 1

PROGRESS REPORT ON NSC 143/2 ACTIVATION OF A VOLUNTEER FREEDOM CORPS2

[Page 54]

(Policy Approved by the President, May 20, 1953)

A. Summary of Major Actions and Decisions

1. Coordination of VFC was assigned in May 1953 by the NSC to the Secretaries of State and Defense. After consultation with the U.S. Ambassadors in Paris and London, and the U.S. High Commissioner in Bonn, it was decided to delay any official approach because of the forthcoming West German elections and the expected early resolution of EDC, both of which it was felt would have been endangered by a premature disclosure of plans for VFC.

2. On September 24, 1954 NSC assigned the coordinating responsibility of VFC to the Operations Coordinating Board. Early in 1954 General Willis D. Crittenberger visited the U.S. Missions in Europe and reported on May 11, 19543 that it was still the consensus of U.S. diplomatic and military representatives that VFC should be held in abeyance until the problem of EDC was resolved. In order to achieve some of the objectives of NSC 143/2 the OCB recommended and the NSC approved on October 16, 1954 expansion of the Labor Service Organization to include more non-German Soviet orbit escapees.4 This has been done.

3. NSC 143/2 was kept under continuing review by the OCB in the light of developments in Europe and, following ratification of the London–Paris Agreements, the OCB requested that a plan of implementation be prepared. On June 14, 1955 the OCB concluded that the original conditions which had held the project in abeyance had changed sufficiently to justify implementation of a Volunteer Freedom Corps, although on a somewhat modified basis.5

B. Policy Considerations

4. The plan of implementation developed by the OCB would establish a smaller organization than that generally understood to be envisaged in NSC 143/2, although both the current project and the NSC paper would establish a modest and austere program of cadre units for expansion in emergency. While NSC 143/2 provides that diplomatic approaches should be made to allied governments and to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to enlist their advance concurrence, the OCB plan, in view of the termination of the occupation status of West Germany, calls for diplomatic action to secure the concurrence of the German Government only, and that the U.K. and French Governments simply be informed in advance. Further, [Page 55] since the policy paper provides that emphasis should be placed on exploiting the psychological aspects of the project, the question may arise as to whether a program which would not be given any special publicity until an appropriate future time can be viewed as an adequate implementation of NSC 143/2.

C. Recommendations and Future Actions

5. In view of the foregoing considerations, the OCB recommends that the National Security Council amend paragraph 4 of NSC 143/2 to dispense with the necessity of diplomatic approaches to obtain the concurrence of the U.K. and French Governments, and that the current OCB plan be considered an adequate implementation in other respects in spite of the small size of the organization and the change of emphasis away from psychological exploitation in the current situation. In view of the implications that the Four Power Conference and subsequent negotiations developing therefrom might have for implementation of VFC, the OCB further recommends that the Council concur as a matter of policy that timing for initiating action be subject to the determination of the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary of Defense.

6. Following action by the NSC and the Secretary of State, the Department of Defense will make arrangements for funding of this project by a Presidential determination and allotment of monies, initially under the Kersten Amendment authority (Section 401 (a), MSA of 1954, as amended) to the Department of Defense and for appropriate instructions to be issued to implement the program. Until such time as the OCB agrees that it would be useful and proper to publicize VFC the substance of the instructions should remain classified.6

[Attachment]

Report by the Operations Coordinating Board 7

REPORT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ON THE ACTIVATION OF A VOLUNTEER FREEDOM CORPS

[Page 56]

Part One—Summary

I. Background Considerations

Details regarding the origins, development, advantages and disadvantages, and the present possibilities of a Volunteer Freedom Corps (hereafter referred to as VFC) have been developed in Part Two of this report.

II. Conclusions

A.
A VFC, composed initially of a few military units under the control of the U.S. Forces in Germany, the size and numbers of the units to be determined by the availability of recruits of non-German Soviet Orbit escapees, should now be established to provide a basis for possible development of national military cadres in the event of an emergency.
1.
The initial step in the implementation of NSC 143/2 has been taken by the expansion of the Labor Service Organization (LSO) in Germany to include a unit of former nationals of the USSR (NSC 5435)8 and additional East European escapees.
2.
From the recruiting response to the expansion of the LSO, it is apparent that no large reservoir of qualified personnel is immediately available for the formation of a VFC in Europe. At the outset, recruits for a VFC may come primarily from the LSO aided by personnel from the Alien Enlistee (Lodge Bill)9 Program.
3.
All agencies concerned with the VFC must be prepared to minimize the impact of political pressures from the various émigré groups who may attempt to use VFC to further their own aims. Such pressures can be anticipated in direct approaches to members of Congress, to the participating agencies and to the press.
4.
The principal immediate benefit of this pilot operation, VFC, lies in its ability to provide a cadre of trained personnel to form, control, and exploit to U.S. advantage any large numbers of defected Soviet Orbit personnel during war time. No special publicity will be given to the VFC until organization and training have progressed to such a degree that the potential manpower and psychological values of the organization can be estimated and reviewed by the OCB.
B.
In addition to the program outlined in A. above, the OCB is proceeding with studies leading toward the implementation of paragraph 7 in NSC 143/2 which provides for the expansion of the VFC concept to other areas.
[Page 57]
1.
Reconsideration of the formation, probably in the Far East, of an air unit along lines previously developed within the Department of Defense.
2.
Examination of the feasibility and desirability of ground, sea, or air units in the Middle East and in Southeast Asia.
3.
Consideration of the feasibility of expanding a skeleton VFC general headquarters from among personnel already being utilized by the Department of Defense.

III. Courses of Action Prerequisite to formation of VFC in Europe

A.
Diplomatic action should be initiated to secure the concurrence of the West German Government to the formation of a VFC within its borders.
B.
A Presidental Executive Order similar to that which has already been prepared should be issued. Until such time as the OCB agrees that it would be useful and proper to publicize VFC, the substance of that order should remain classified.
C.
Arrangements should be made for funding of this project by a Presidental determination and allotment of monies, initially from the Kersten Amendment authority (Section 401, MSA ’55)10 to the Department of the Army.

IV. Recommendations

It is recommended:

1.
That the Board concur in the implementation of the actions indicated in paragraph III above.
2.
That the OCB advise the NSC of these actions and request NSC approval as a matter of urgency.
3.
That the interested departments proceed immediately upon NSC approval with the courses of action outlined in Paragraph III and that the Department of Defense concurrently initiate action, coordinating with the Department of State, to establish the cadre VFC.

Part Two—Detailed Report

I. Background

1. Origins

The Volunteer Freedom Corps (hereafter referred to as VFC) was proposed in a letter from the President to the National Security Council on February 14, 1953 (NSC 143).11 The President, mentioning the potential additional combat manpower and the mobilization of the will to oppose communism, recommended that the U.S. Army recruit and train national battalions of anti-communist volunteers for freedom [Page 58] from Iron Curtain countries. He suggested the establishment of an ad hoc committee to work out all other terms and provisions of the proposal. The President mentioned the British precedent during World War II: 15 national battalions in the Pioneer Corps.

2. Initial Reactions

NSC considered the President’s letter on February 18 and 25, 1953.12 On the latter date, the NSC approved the proposal in principle but referred it to an ad hoc committee, chaired by General Willis D. Crittenberger, Retired, a consultant to the NSC, to study all aspects of the proposal for its feasibility (NSC Action No. 724).13 The Crittenberger Committee studied the basic proposal in all of its ramifications for two months. All available viewpoints, contingencies, conditions and details were presented to and discussed by that Committee. On April 20, 1953,14 the Crittenberger Committee reported that the VFC concept was sound and that the establishment of VFC on a modest and austere basis, namely several battalions of non-German escapees from the European Soviet orbit, was now feasible.

3. The Crittenberger Committee Report (attached to NSC 143/2)

The Committee Report interwove the detailed plan and the analysis of the feasibility of the VFC proposal. It admitted the unavailability of exact information on eligible foreign nationals, then or in the future, but estimated 33,000 eligible “escapees” over the next four years. Analyzing the available escapees and the differences between a VFC during a cold war and in actual war, it selected West Germany as the recruitment area. The Committee Report gave extensive treatment to the psychological considerations in the VFC proposal. Emphasizing the anti-Soviet “rallying” point value, the Report recognized that the psychological advantages, disadvantages, envisaged gains and drawbacks, were dependent on and in proportion to the manner and spirit with which the proposal was implemented.

4. NSC 143/2 (May 20, 1953)

The Crittenberger Report was forwarded to the NSC Planning Board on April 21, 1953, and the policy paper recommending for NSC consideration the establishment of a VFC (NSC 143/1),15 was prepared in early May 1953. The NSC on May 20, 1953 adopted the [Page 59] policy paper with an amendment. The President approved the statement of policy. This paper, NSC 143/2, concluded that “a Volunteer Freedom Corps should be established.” It provided that several battalions of European anti-Soviet escapees, excluding Germans, but including escapees from the USSR, should be trained by the U.S. Army as cadre units for further development in case of an emergency. Details of organization such as permissive nationality distinctions, recruitment, pay, command by U.S. officers and attachment to U.S. or UN divisions as well as future entry into the U.S. were listed. Diplomatic approaches were to be made to the Allied and German governments to secure their concurrence. Para. 8 of NSC 143/2 provided that: “In the event of delay in the initiation of the Volunteer Freedom Corps project, and upon instruction of the National Security Council, there should be put into effect an interim proposal designed to expand the existing Labor Service Organization in Germany until such time as it is considered desirable or possible to undertake the Volunteer Freedom Corps program.”

5. Subsequent Developments

Initial coordination of the implementation of VFC was assigned to the Secretaries of State and Defense. State then queried the U.S. Ambassadors at Paris and London and the U.S. High Commissioner in Bonn as to the attitude of the foreign governments toward establishment of a VFC. The tenor of these replies advocated delaying any official approach lest the West German elections be affected adversely and later lest the approaching ratification of EDC be endangered. On September 24, 1953, NSC assigned the coordinating responsibilities for VFC to the Operations Coordinating Board. In informal OCB discussions, early in 1954, it was agreed that General Crittenberger should visit the above U.S. missions, explain the background of the VFC proposal and probe the views of American diplomatic and military officials in Europe.

General Crittenberger reported on May 11, 1954 that it was still the consensus of U.S. diplomatic and military representatives that VFC should be held in abeyance until the problem of EDC was resolved and that thereafter the plan might be reexamined in light of the then existing factors. General Crittenberger also reported on the developing Labor Service Organizations. He reported that it might be better to recruit escapees directly for the VFC if it were formed rather than to disrupt the LSOs by transferring personnel from them to the VFC.

[Page 60]

6. Most Recent Developments

As of March 31, 1955, the LSO strength was 25,974 which is 1,556 under authorized strength. Slow recruitment and losses are laid to the civilian nature of LSO coupled with the competition for manpower from an expanding German industry, and the fact that no publicity has been authorized in connection with the expansion. It is estimated that an initial body of recruits could be drawn from the LSOs who would volunteer and be qualified for VFC, and that the much needed LSOs could be brought up to strength by appropriate means. Since the LSOs have a fine record of efficiency and morale, this source could provide an initial VFC cadre.

Since LSO performs service support and guard duty, the term “Labor Service” is perhaps not fully descriptive. Nevertheless, because of LSO’s abbreviated military training and civilian status, they can not be considered as combat troops. Moreover, they are badly needed in their present capacity.

On September 8, 1954, the OCB recommended to NSC an expansion of LSOs to not more than 1,000 former nationals of Soviet orbit countries. This OCB action resulted in NSC 5435/1, “Expansion of the Labor Service Organization in Germany”, which was approved by the President on October 16, 1954. Recruiting for this expansion has been slow. As of May 10, 1955, only 168 former Soviet nationals and 152 escapees from European satellites have been instated.

All LSO men must have German work permits. An escapee may never get a work permit if he can not adequately identify himself to German authorities. In the meantime, he may languish, for months or years, in a Lager such as Camp Valka. This condition hardly induces escape from Iron Curtain countries. On the other hand, escapees qualified for VFC could probably be enlisted without work permits, thus obviating a major drawback to escape.

II. Advantages and Disadvantages of the VFC

1. Advantages Noted in the Crittenberger Study

a.
The establishment of a VFC would provide a positive and dramatic symbol around which the will to resist Soviet-Communism could be mobilized, particularly in the event of war, and it would:
(1)
Establish cadre units of anti-Soviet volunteers capable of rapid expansion in case of intensified emergency or general war. (It should be noted that valuable time would be lost if preparation for military cadres of the captive nations were made only after the start of actual hostilities. Assignment and training of qualified U.S. personnel would consume much time at the outset.)
(2)
Provide honorable employment for suitably motivated escapees, thus maintaining their morale and will to resist.
(3)
Contribute toward sustaining the national self-respect and will to resist of the enslaved peoples behind the Iron Curtain by demonstrating that anti-communist activists representing these peoples are sufficiently respected in the free world to be accorded the proudest right of a free citizen—the right to bear arms in support of his homeland.
(4)
Enable anti-communist volunteers who are otherwise without national rights to contribute to the defense of the free world, to prepare themselves to play a combat role in any military action in which the U.S. participates in defense of freedom, and even when the occasion is suitable, actually to participate in such U.S. military action.
(5)
Set an example of dedication to the cause of freedom of morale-building value to free men everywhere.
b.
VFC would also create an additional incentive to defectors behind the Iron Curtain, thus giving promise of threatening and weakening the Soviet’s psychological and military position by one or more of the following:
(1)
Increasing the flow of defectors.
(2)
Increasing the strain on the Soviet security system.
(3)
Raising or intensifying in the Soviet minds doubts as to the reliability of satellite—or even Soviet—armed forces in case of war.
(4)
Provoking the Soviet rulers into self-defeating counterpolicies such as increased restrictions on armed forces.

2. Possible Additional Advantages

a.
A VFC might attract larger numbers of escapees than have the LSOs. (Recruitment for the expansion of LSOs has been slow. This may be due to the fact that the LSOs have not been publicized, they are not first-class military organizations, and members must have German work permits.)
b.
The U.S. Ambassador to the UN has recently reaffirmed his position that establishment of a VFC would be in the national interest of the United States.

3. Disadvantages Noted in the Crittenberger Study

a.
Even if the implementation of the VFC is carefully planned and publicized, propaganda comparisons with mercenary foreign legions may be expected and, to a degree that these can be made to appear valid, such charges may weaken any psychological appeal to nationalistically motivated groups behind the Iron Curtain.
b.
In addition, the creation of conspicuous Soviet-nationality contingents will tend to provide the Soviets with the opportunity to arouse suspicion at home and abroad that the United States is committed to a policy of dismemberment of the USSR empire.
c.
Special efforts by the USSR to exploit the VFC as proof of United States aggressive intentions, as well as the sole United States responsibility for continuation of world tensions, may be anticipated; [Page 62] and United States psychological strategy will be required to develop measures therefore to reduce Soviet capabilities to benefit from such moves.

4. Possible Additional Disadvantages

a.
With the rearming of Western Germany, the military advantages of VFC in the current situation are questionable, although the subsequent potential weakening of satellite forces may create a relative military strength.
b.
The flow of new Soviet orbit escapees who would provide recruits for a VFC is decreasing according to current National Intelligence Estimates (NIE 12–54, “European Satellites through Mid-1956”, August 24, 1954).16
c.
Certain émigré leaders would probably interfere in the VFC for their own political purposes which might not be identical with U.S. objectives.
d.
Establishing a VFC on a conspicuous scale may militate against the attainment of important U.S. objectives at the forthcoming 4-Power Conference.

III. Present Considerations

1. Legislative Authorizations

Section 401(a), the so-called Kersten Amendment, of the Mutual Security Act of 1951 provided the original general legislative authorization and the basis of funds for the support of VFC. In the Mutual Security Act of 1954, this original section was continued but re-numbered as Section 401. The Executive Branch has proposed that the Mutual Security Act of 1955 continue the general legislative authority and in addition provide funds for programs under the Kersten Amendment and for contingencies arising abroad.

2. Political Considerations

The German Federal Republic is now a sovereign state and a member of NATO. While present agreements provide for the maintenance of U.S. forces in West Germany, it would be necessary to obtain the cooperation of the German Federal Government for the establishment of a VFC in West Germany. Since the occupation status of West Germany has ended and it is not intended to exploit the formation of the VFC for propaganda purposes it is felt that it would be adequate simply to inform France and the U.K.

[Page 63]

3. Psychological Factors

In view of the uncertainty that exists as to the manpower and psychological potential of a VFC and the international repercussions and hostile propaganda that might result in the current situation, no special effort should be made to publicize it at the outset. Psychological and political exploitation should be held in abeyance and, for the present, establishment of VFC should be essentially a military operation. After the VFC has been organized and trained, consideration should be given to planned psychological exploitation.

4. The Practical Solution

A VFC as a normal and legitimate military preparation for defense against the contingency of Soviet aggression might be acceptable to the German Federal Government. Units of militarily-fit escapees (some of whom are now available in the LSOs, whose services to those units could be replaced by appropriate means) would be organized without a special publicity effort for first-class military training under the control of the U.S. Army in Germany as the basis for national cadres in time of emergency. Emphasis would be on the military desirability of developing such cadres in the current situation so that they could be immediately and rapidly expanded when the need arises.

IV. Description of Current OCB Proposal

1.
A VFC, composed initially of a few military units of non-German Soviet Orbit escapees under the control of the U.S. forces in Germany, should now be established to provide a basis for possible development of national military cadres in the event of an emergency.
a.
The initial step in the implementation of NSC 143/2 has been taken by the expansion of the Labor Service Organization (LSO) in Germany to include a unit of former nationals of the USSR (NSC 5435) and additional East European escapees.
b.
From the recruiting response to the expansion of the LSO, it is apparent that no large reservoir of qualified personnel is immediately available for the formation of a Volunteer Freedom Corps in Europe. At the outset, recruits for a VFC may come primarily from the LSO, possibly under the leadership of selected personnel from the Alien Enlistee Program.
c.
The principal immediate benefit of a VFC is that it will provide a cadre of trained personnel to form and control to U.S. advantage any large numbers of defected Soviet Orbit personnel in the event of war.
d.
All agencies concerned with the VFC must be prepared to minimize the impact of pressures from the various émigré groups. Such pressures can be anticipated in direct approaches to members of Congress, to the participating agencies and to the press.
2.
Questions of detail, such as status, size, relationship to the U.S. forces, etc., of the VFC will be developed generally in accordance with the details in NSC 143/2. However, the Department of Defense will be given freedom to modify those details as implementing problems necessitate.
3.
Diplomatic action must be initiated to secure the concurrence of the West German Government to the formation of a VFC within its borders. Since the occupation status of West Germany has ended and it is not intended initially to exploit the formation of the VFC for propaganda purposes, it is felt that it would be adequate simply to inform Allied Governments that these units will be developed as cadres for an emergency. This approach is not inconsistent with the NSC 143/2 wording:

“Diplomatic approaches should be made to Allied Governments necessarily concerned and to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, to enlist their advance concurrence, insofar as possible, in the Volunteer Freedom Corps project”.

4.
Due to the uncertainty that exists as to the manpower and psychological potential, as well as the international repercussions and hostile propaganda that might result in the current situation, the VFC should be essentially a military operation. No special publicity should be given to the VFC until organization and training have progressed to such a degree that the potential manpower and psychological values of the organization can be estimated and reviewed by the OCB.
5.
The actual establishment of the VFC pilot project in Europe is the responsibility of the Department of Defense. That Department will develop the implementing authority and plans for establishing such a VFC pilot project and it will execute the project in the field upon the resolution of the diplomatic arrangements noted above in IV.3.
6.
Arrangements should be made for funding of this project by a Presidential determination and allotment of monies, initially from the Kersten Amendment authority (Section 401 of M.S.A. of ’55) to the Department of the Army.
7.
Although no estimate can be made of the number of volunteers initially available for this pilot project, a planning figure of 1,000 men in the first year is considered ample for budgetary and other purposes.
  1. Source: Department of State, OCB Files: Lot 61 D 385, Volunteer Freedom Corps—Documents. Top Secret. A covering memorandum from Livingston Satter-thwaite to Lay, August 4, indicates that this report was concurred in by the OCB on August 3 and transmitted to the NSC for its consideration. The NSC discussed the report on September 8; see Document 30.
  2. For text of NSC 143/2, May 20, 1953, see Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, vol. VIII, p. 218.
  3. For text of the memorandum, see ibid., p. 230.
  4. Reference is to NSC Action No. 1244. (Department of State, S/SNSC (Miscellaneous) Files: Lot 66 D 95, Records of Action by the National Security Council)
  5. See the OCB Report attached below.
  6. The Kersten amendment, named for Congressman Charles J. Kersten of Wisconsin, was attached to the 1951 Mutual Security Act and allocated $100 million in assistance to escapees or residents of the Soviet Union or the Eastern European satellites. The funds were to be used to organize them into military forces supporting NATO or for other purposes deemed by the President as assisting the defense of the NATO area or the United States. The amendment was written into subsequent Mutual Security Acts; for section 401 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, see P.L. 665 (68 Stat. 843), approved August 26, 1954.
  7. Top Secret.
  8. The memorandum by Crittenberger to the OCB, May 11, 1954, and the report of the OCB ad hoc working group, September 8, 1954, made up NSC 5435, “Expansion of Labor Service Organization in Germany,” approved as NSC 5435/1 by the President on October 16, 1954. See Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, vol. VIII, p. 230.
  9. Reference is to the Alien Enlistment Act of 1950, P.L. 597 (64 Stat. 316), June 30, 1950.
  10. For the amended section 401 of the Mutual Security Act of 1955, see P.L. 138 (69 Stat. 286), July 8, 1955.
  11. For text, see Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, vol. VIII, p. 180.
  12. The memoranda of discussion at the 132d and 134th NSC meetings, February 18 and 25, 1953, are not printed. (Eisenhower Library, Whitman File, NSC Records)
  13. Taken at the 134th NSC meeting. (Department of State, S/SNSC (Miscellaneous) Files: Lot 66 D 95, Records of Action by the National Security Council)
  14. See the editorial note, Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, vol. VIII, p. 192.
  15. Dated May 5, 1953, not printed. (Department of State, S/SNSC Files: Lot 63 D 351, NSC 143 Series)
  16. Not printed.