Mr. JENNER. And did he understand the distinctions?
Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I think he understood the distinctions as well as
most reasonably educated people do. I think he certainly had a Marxist
bias in how--where he drew the lines.
For example, he could look upon the Soviet system today as a democracy
by, of course, giving a completely different definition to the word
"democracy" than I, for example. He would give----
Mr. JENNER. Can you remember some discussions or incidents that explain
that? Would he use objectivism?
Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I remember one in particular that always reminded
me of his general outlook.
One day we got into an argument and I thought I was really going to pin
him to the wall, I thought I was going to win this argument.
Mr. JENNER. On what subject?
Mr. THORNLEY. On Marxism. On the theory of history.
Mr. JENNER. Reconstruct the argument for me.
Mr. THORNLEY. Well, all right. Let me add this.
When I was in my freshman year in college, in my English class, I
believe it was, perhaps it was a history class we had been required
to read, it was a history workshop, we had been required to read
the Communist manifesto which presents an outline of the theory of
the Marx-Engels outlook on past and future history. The dialectical
outlook. Oswald was also familiar with this outlook. As to what it
constituted we both agreed. Oswald had argued previously that communism
was a rational approach to life, a scientific approach to life, Marxism.
Mr. JENNER. This was in argumentation with you?
Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. All right.
Mr. THORNLEY. With me. I challenged him to show me any shred of
evidence to support the idea that history took place in the manner
described by Engels and Marx (this was not just an arbitrary system
looted as many suspect, from Hegel) and he, after some attempt to give
me a satisfactory answer, which he was unable to do, became aware of
that and he admitted that there was no justification, logically, for
the Communist theory of history or the Marxist theory of history, but
that Marxism was still, in his opinion, the best system for other
reasons that there was----
Mr. JENNER. Best as against what?
Mr. THORNLEY. As against, well primarily as against religions. He
did--that first comment of his always sticks in my mind, about
communism being the best religion. He did think of communism as, not as
a religion in the strict sense but as an overwhelming cultural outlook
that, once applied to a country, would make it much better off than,
say the Roman Catholic Church cultural outlook or the Hindu cultural
outlook or the Islamic cultural outlook, and he felt that, as I say, to
get back to this argument, he felt that there were enough other things
about communism that justified it that one could accept the theory of
history on faith.
Mr. JENNER. What other things?
Mr. THORNLEY. Well, for one thing: the idea that he felt--as did
Marx--that under capitalism workers are exploited, that in some way
they are robbed of their full reward for their work by means of
entrepreneurs' profits, and he felt that Marxism took his money but
instead of taking it away from the worker spent it on the worker.
He felt that under a Soviet--under the present Soviet system, for
example, that the money was spent for the benefit of the people rather
than going to the individual who happened to be running the enterprise,
and he thought this was a juster situation.
Mr. JENNER. Did you raise with him the price the individual had to pay
for the material accommodation accorded the worker under the Communist
system; for the substance or money, of which you speak, being returned
to the worker? The price paid in terms of individual liberty as against
the capitalistic or democratic system?
Mr. THORNLEY. You couldn't say this to him. Because he would say: "How
do you know? How do you know what is going on there."
Mr. JENNER. First; did you raise it with him?
Mr. THORNLEY. I raised it with him.
Mr. JENNER. You being a libertarian as you say?
Mr. THORNLEY. Well, at that time I was--my ideas have changed since
that time. At that time I was much to the left in my political thinking
once again; well, I would say about in the same position that Mr. Stone
who I spoke of earlier is now. I was on the "left-hand" side of the
acceptable political spectrum in this country, and so, therefore, these
issues, the issues I would now raise with him had I again the chance to
speak to him, would be much different than the issues I raised with him
at that time. I did not raise that issue particularly, I did not push
it.
Mr. JENNER. Was there much, if any, discussion at the time on the issue
of individual liberty?
Mr. THORNLEY. No; very little, because I wasn't too concerned about it
at the time and neither was he. We were both concerned about what was
the best for the greatest number of people. I don't think that concept
was clear to either one of us.
Mr. JENNER. But, even having in mind the status of your political
thinking at that moment, your political thinking did not square with
his?
Mr. THORNLEY. No; I was opposed to the great trust that he put in, much
greater than I suspected at that time, of course, trust that he put in
the Soviet Government in the world today I felt they were misguided
idealists. He felt they weren't misguided.
Mr. JENNER. Give us as best you can recall his comments and views with
respect to capitalism of the variety then existing, or as he understood
existed in this Nation.
Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I wouldn't say that we--I can't recall us having
gone into any detail about anything so relevant to anything as
capitalism in this Nation at the time.
Mr. JENNER. These discussions were broader. They were more abstract?
Mr. THORNLEY. Usually, yes. Whenever we got specific we usually
discussed the Marine Corps.
Mr. JENNER. I see. You did not discuss the United States of America as
such?
Mr. THORNLEY. No.
Mr. JENNER. And the Soviet Union as such, and compared the two
countries?
Mr. THORNLEY. Well, as I say, you couldn't do this with Oswald because
whenever you tried to make any statement about the Soviet Union he
would challenge it on the grounds that we were probably propagandized
in this country and we had no knowledge of what was going on over there.
Mr. JENNER. Did he purport to know what was going on over there?
Mr. THORNLEY. No.
Mr. JENNER. Did he show any interest in what was going on over there?
Mr. THORNLEY. He definitely showed interest.
Mr. JENNER. Give us some examples and tell us.
Mr. THORNLEY. I would say he took an agnostical approach to this. It
seemed that he didn't know whether to believe what he read in his
Russian newspaper, not that he used those exact words, or what he heard
in this country. He took the attitude that "Well, they may be right and
we may be right but I suspect they are right." This, of course, once
again, I always got the impression in any of these discussions that
part of his slight bias toward the Communist way of life was an act of
rebellion against the present circumstances.
Mr. JENNER. Do you think that bias, if any, was a mild bias?
Mr. THORNLEY. I thought so at the time.
Mr. JENNER. Did you have any impression at anytime that he was
interested from an objective standpoint; that he might like to
experience by way of personal investigation what was going on in Russia?
Mr. THORNLEY. It never dawned on me. It was the farthest thing from
my mind. Although I certainly will say this: When he did go to Russia
it seemed to me as a much more likely alternative for Oswald than say
joining the Communist Party in the United States.
Mr. JENNER. Excuse me.
Mr. THORNLEY. It seemed to fit his personality.
Mr. JENNER. Would you read that? I lost the thought of it.
(The reporter read the answer.)
Mr. JENNER. Would you elaborate, please?
Mr. THORNLEY. Well, Oswald was not militant. At the time it didn't seem
to me he was at all militant. That he was at all a fighter, the kind
of person who would glory in thinking of himself as marching along in
a great crusade of some kind. He would be the kind of person who would
take a quiet, as quiet as possible, for him personally, approach to
something. For example, going to the Soviet Union would be a way he
could experience what he thought were the benefits of communism without
committing himself to storming the Bastille, so to speak.
Mr. JENNER. Is it a fair statement that, in seeking to interpret or
enlarge upon what you say, that you did not have the impression of
him as being a person who thought in terms of seeking to implant in
this country, for example, by force or violence or other leadership,
communism or Marxism so as materially to affect or change the
government here?
Mr. THORNLEY. No; I don't think he felt he had to do that. I think he
felt that that would inevitably happen some day and he was just getting
into the swing of things by doing things his way. I don't think he felt
that he could do much to promote the Communist cause or hinder it.
Mr. JENNER. Did he ever lead you to believe or did you have the
impression that he had any thought or desire or inclination to implant
communism here or elsewhere.
Mr. THORNLEY. No; not any more than merely to with the argument. He
certainly would have liked to have converted me or any other person
who was willing to discuss it with him. He would have liked to have
persuaded them that his ideas were correct. If he had done so, I have
no idea what he would have done then. I don't think he did either.
Mr. JENNER. What about his relationships, camaraderie with others on
base?
Mr. THORNLEY. Almost nil.
Mr. JENNER. Almost nil.