so insolated, south of the Yangtze and far inland from the coast, that they
could not receive arms or any other help from Russia, while the intensity of
the fight for survival made it impossible for them to slacken or strengthen their
civil-war efforts in accordance with directives from either the international or
the Soviet Government.

And he ends his paragraph with —

They were on their own.

I submit that Mr. Lattimore. who is said to be the best-informed
American on China and Chinese-Russian relations, cannot have been
ignorant of all the evidence which proves beyond any reasonable doubt
that the Chinese Communists were never "on their own"; that they
were continuously and always acting on Moscow's directions; that
they have followed every twist and turn of the line laid down by
Moscow as obediently, or more obediently, than any Communist Party
in the world; that the Chinese Communist Party was recognized in
official Comintern and Soviet Government publications as the most
important of all the parties directed by Moscow\ or at least as only
second in im])ortance to the German Communist Party before the
defeat of the German Communist Party.

Why has Mr. Lattimore ignored all the evidence concerning the
complete subservience of the Chinese Commimist Party to Stalin?
Why can one find nowhere in his writing any reference to such im-
portant documents as, for instance, the Chinese Communist Party's
handbook on party organization, in which it is written :

According to the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party, all who recognize-
the constitution and rules and program of the Communist "^International and
the * * * Chinese Communist Party may become party members * * *



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IIsTVESTIGATION 757

The Chinese Conuunnist Tarty was born with the help of tiie Communist Inter-
national. It grew up under the guidance of the C()mniuiiist International.
The Ciiinese Connnunist Tarty and central committee, with tiie exception of
two short periods, have been loyal to the guidance of the Communist Inter-
national » * * To carry out the international line and to be loyal to the
executive committee of the Connnunist International is to guarantee the success
of the Chinese revolution.

Why, again, did Mr. Lattimore, in all his writings and in the publi-
cations he edited, fail to draw attention to such important Communist
lu'onouncemeiits a^ that made by Wang Ming, the secretary of the
Chinese Connnunist Party, in the December 1937 issue of the Com-
munist International explaining that the Chinese Communist aban-
domnent of the policy of overthrowing the National Government of
China by force, and their jn-etence of being disciples of Dr. Sun Yat-
sen, was only a tactic, and that once Japan was defeated the slogan
of "Sovietizing China" would be revived? Wang Ming's concluding
words ran :

They—

the people of China —

regard the U. S. S. R. as the country which in actual practice has shown China
how it can and must transform the country * * * into one mighty and
capable of defending itself, from a country poor and backward into one rich,
and cultural * * « into tlie most democratic country in the world under
the banner of the Stalinist constitution.

Surely Mr. Lattimore. as editor of a magazine published by an or-
ganization, the IPIi, which assures its members that it is impartial,
and devoted to objective research on far-eastern problems, was under
an obligation to inform his readers concerning the salient facts con-
cerning Russia's China policy, as shown in such pronouncements as
the one I have quoted above.

Why, in view of such evidence as I have quoted, does Mr. Lattimore
write as follows, on page 16-1 of his 1949 book, the Situation in Asia —
and this is my most important quotation :

If the Chinese Communists gravitate —

please note the word "gravitate" —

toward a political center in Russia, we shall have one kind of world. If they
maintain their own political center in China, we shall have a decidedly different
world.

I ask this committee to consider whether Mr. Lattimore was not
deliberately obscuring the facts b}^ representing the Chinese Commu-
n.ists as independent of Moscoav, and only as likely to "gravitate"
toward Moscow if America should not be friendly to them.

Is it possible tliat Mr. Lattimore was so ignorant as not to know
of the many ])rotestations of unswerving loyalty and fealty to Stalin
made by the Chinese Communiist Party leaders? Is it not evidence of
Mr. Lattimore's own subservience to Moscow that in all his books
and writings he has never called attention to the abundant evidence
proving that the Chinese Commimist Party is. a tool of the Soviet
Government ?

Why, again, is there nowhere in Ids writings to be found any ref-
erence to the docinnentai-y evidence which proves that the Chinese
Comnnniists during the war with Japan were reserving their major
forces for a futnre struggle to place China under llussian dondnation?



758 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

As an expert and a scholar who reads both Chinese and Russian,
Mr. Lattimore must have been aware that as early as 1937 ISIao Tse-
tung, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party, had issued the fol-
lowing; orders to the Communist armed forces :

The Si no- Japanese war affords our party an excellent opportunity for expan-
sion. Our fixed policy should be 70 percent expansion, 20 percent dealing with
the Kuonnntang, and 10 percent resisting Japan. There are three stages in
carrying out this fixed policy : The first is a compromising stage, in which self-
sacrifice should be made to show our outward obedience to the Central Govern-
ment and adherence to the three principles of the people [nationality, democ-
racy, and livelihood, as outlined by Dr. Sun Yat-sen], but in reality this will
serve as camouflage for the existence and development of our party.

The second is a contending stage, in which 2 or 3 years should be spent in
laying the foundation of our party's political and military powers, and develop-
ing these until we can matt-h and break the Kuomintang, and eliminate the
influence of the latter north of the Yellow River. V\'hiie waiting for an unusual
turn of events, we should give the Japanese invader certain concessions.

The third is an offensive stage, in which our forces should penetrate deeply
into central China, sever the communications of the Central Government troops
in various sectors, isolate and disperse them until we are ready f(ir the counter-
offensive, and wrest the leadership from the hands of the Kuomintang.

In his testimony to this committee on April 6, page 913 in the writ-
ten record, Mr. Lattimore said that, "like any other student wdio is
worth his salt," he had "eagerly seized upon every opportunity to ob-
tain information through chinks and crevices in the wall of fear and
suppression that communism builds around its informed people. This
makes it all the stranger, it w^ould seem, that he failed to familiarize
himself with, or inform his readers of, the available statements, books,
theses, etc., as used by the Chinese Communists and by the Comintern.

In his statement to this committee, as quoted, Lattimore admits
that the Communists have themselves erected a wall of fear and
.suppression. Why, then, in his 1949 book. The Situation in Asia,
did he blame the western democracies for isolating Russia ? He wrote,
on page 218 :

The Truman doctrine originated more in out-of-date British thinking than in
an up-to-date American thinking. It is the child of the Fulton, ]\Io., .speech at
which President Truman sat on the platform while Winston Churchill rang
down the iron curtain.

Wliy did Mr. Lattimore, during the years he edited the Institute of
Pacific Relations magazine Pacific Affairs, never publish any articles,
or reproduce or refer to any of the Communist literature, provii>g that
the Chinese Communists were only pretending to be democrats and
v/ere acting under Moscow's instructions? I have searched in vain
through Mr. Lattimore's own books, through back numbers of Pacific
Affairs under his editorship, through Amerasia during the years he
was on its editorial board, and through Mr. Lattimore's articles in
the New Republic, Asia, the Atlantic, Harper's, and so forth, for any
reference wJiatsoever to the evidence available concerning the Chinese
Communist Party's complete and absolute subservience to Moscow.

Instead, Mr. Lattimore has written about the danger of the Chinese
Communist Party "gravitating" toward Moscow unless we cease to
recognize the National Government, seat the Communist Government
in the United Nations, and give aid and comfort to Communist China
by trading with them and giving them economic aid.

It is just as easy to misinform people by omission of vitally im-
portant information as by telling direct untruths, and Mr. Lattimore's



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 759

omissions are so serious that he succeeds in consequence in presenting
a totally False picture for the benefit of the Soviet Union.

The primary and most important fact which has determined recent
victory in the Far East is the subservience of the Chinese Comnumist
Party to Ikloscow, and tliis is precisely the fact ignored or obscured by
Mr. Lattimore in all his writings.

The second most important fact which has led to China becoming
a satellite of the Soviet Union is the denial of American aid to the
National Government of China during the critical period of the civil
war. This fact is also denied by Mr. Lattimore, who falsely states in
his book The Situation in Asia, on page 147, "all during the period of
his [General Marshall's] mission the Kuomintang kept accumulating
American supplies."

Again, on page 152, he writes with regret concerning the agreement
with the Conununists for a coalition government "which might have
been obtained if military aid to the Kuomintang had been suspended."

On page 151 he says:

Defeat [of the National Government] lias been largely due to the demonstrated
inability of the high command to use the lavish American aid provided. * * *
Kuomintang China withered on the vine not from lack of American aid but
from misuse of it. i

Now, the above statements made by Mr. Lattimore are untrtie, and
he must know that the}^ are untrue.

What are the facts ?

The facts are that while in China in 1946 General Marshall, in his
efforts to force Chiang Kai-shek to share power with the Communists,
embargoed American supplies of arms and ammunition to China.
This embargo, which prevented the anti-Communist forces in China
from buying, much less being given, American arms and ammunition,
was maintained from August 1946 to July 1947. During all this
period the National Government of China was unable to obtain arms
or ammunition from us, while the Russians were supplying the Com-
munists with unlimited supplies from the Japanese stocks they had
captured in Manchuria and from American lend-lease supplies de-
livered across the Pacific to Siberia after Germany's defeat, for Rus-
sia's use in a. war against Japan which she never fought.

Relying on General Marshall and those of his advisers in the State
Dei^artment, I should say, who all followed the Lattimore line, Presi-
dent Truman in 1946 expressly forbade the sale to China of any
surplus American war stocks which, I quote, "could be used in fighting
a civil war."

My point here is to brin^ out that Mr. Lattimore's statement about
all this unlimited aid to China given by America is simply not true.

In July li)47, the embargo placed on arms to Free China by General
Marshall, who had that year become Secretary of State, was partially
lifted to allow the Chinese Government to buy loO,000,000 rounds of
7.92 ammunition on liand in the LTnited States, which could not be sold
to anyone else since it had been made specially for the Chinese during
the ^Vorld AVar. This provided the anti-Communist forces in China
with, at most, a month's supply of ammunition for their .30-caliber
rifles.

I do not pretend to be either a military or an ordnance expert. But
if this committee desires to know the true facts about aid to China,

68970— 50— pt. 1 49



760 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

as against the repeated assertions of Mr. Lattimore that we gave two,
three, or four billions of aid to China to defeat the Communists — he
varies the figures in his writings — I suggest that you call for the
testimony of Col. L. B. Moody, a retired United States Army ord-
nance officer who accompanied the Donald Nelson mission to China,
and who then and subsequently made a detailed study of exactly how
much American arms aid has been given to China during and since
the war, as contrasted with the mythical billions which Mr. Lattimore
refers to.

Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the witness to say
that the amount of aid extended to China was very small i

Miss Utley. Yes — arms aid, for fighting the civil war.

Senator Lodge. What do you mean by "small" ?

Miss Utley. Light arms and ammunition.

Senator Lodge. What do you consider to be a small amount of arms ?

Miss Utley. My own calculation, in which I have been largely
helped by Colonel Moody, is that it amounts to something around a
quarter of a million, not the billions that Mr. Lattimore speaks of.

Senator Lodge. Speaking in dollars, a quarter of a million dollars'
worth of arms aid?

Miss Utley. Yes.

Senator Lodge. Is that what you mean ?

Miss Utley. Yes. I put it this way. I think this is the best calcu-
lation, if I may read this : It has been estimated by an AP corre-
spondent in Tokyo who studied the Japanese evidence that Soviet
Russia was able to supply Chinese Communists with sufficient sur-
rendered stores of Japanese arms and ammunition to supply an army
of a million men for 10 years. As against this, it can be calculated
that the United States supplied the Chinese National Government,
during the whole postwar period, with only sufficient light arms and
ammunition to equip an army of at most half a million men for half
a year. As I say, I would not pretend to be an expert on ordnance,
and I would like to refer again to Colonel Moody.

Senator Lodge, And you put a dollar value of half a million dollars
on that ?

Miss Utley. Yes. >

Senator Tydings. Might I ask you for your authority for that
figure? Did you see these stores of American ai-ms, or where did
you get your information ?

Miss Utley. I said that my authority for this is Col. L. B. Moody,
who is a retired colonel of United States Army ordnance, who has made
a detailed study of exactly what China has had, and I am suggesting
to this committee that if they want the details there is nobody better
qualified to give them, and I have relied on the material he has given
me in making the statement.

Senator Tydings. I do not know tliat the committee will want it, but
it won't be hard to get, for every bullet and every gun, within reason,
exactly what we have given China, and in dollar values, and if the
committee would like to have it I will get it and put it in the record
at this point, so we can see how accurate that estimate is.

Miss Utley. Right.

My point, of course, here, in referring to these matters, is to show
that when Mr. Lattimore keeps on writing in his books about the



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IJSWESTIGATION 761

various fioures of two or three or four billion dollars or whatever
tiguve he feels inclined to use on aid to China, it simply is not true. My
main point is to sliow that the statements in Mr. Lattimore's books are
not true and are misleadiuf^, and have made the American public
unaware of what is ^oinir on.

Senator Green. May 1 interrupt to ask you why you think that this
is in the interest of the Communist o-overnment, to show that we have
«riven a very small amount to Chiang- Kai-shek?

Miss Utley. Mr. Lattimore says we have f^iven huo'e amounts. He
says two or three or four million dollars' worth at different times in
his works. I say they are small amounts.

Senator Green. You want to show that we have given less?

Miss Utley. Mr. Lattimore all through his book, The Situation in
Asia, is arguing that America tried to establish tyrannical government
in China, that it backed the National Government to the limit and it
Avas defeated by the pjower of the ideals of communism and the greater
virtues of the Communists and the attraction of the Soviet Union.

I woidd here refer you to an article by Mr. Lattimore in the United
Nations World last March :

It is clear that the change of power in China cannot properly be described as
primarily a victory either of Communist armies or of Communist ideas. The
chief phenomenon has been the moral and political bankruptcy of the National
Government of China, whose "ability" to collapse greatly exceeded the ability of
the Communists to push it over.

It is also clear that Russian intervention, in the way of supplying either muni-
tions or political and military advisers, was insignificant. * * *

As it is, we do not even have a measuring stick for assessing what kind of
strength Russia has in the Far East or how much of it there may be. Whatever
the Russia strength, it remains behind the Russian frontier — undeployed, unex-
posed, a card unplayed. What we do know, therefore, comes down simply to the
fact that there has been so colossal an upheaval within China, in Chinese terms,
without benefit of Russian intervention, that we can no longer analyze the China
of today by use of the concepts which were adequate for analyzing the China of
the Boxer Rebellion just half a century ago. This change has been so great that
it coiild not be prevented by an American intervention measurable in money — so
far as such things can be measured in money values — by an expenditure of some
three billion American dollars.

Senator McMahox. Mr. Chairman, I have a call to go to the floor.

Senator TVdixgs. You will be excused.

Miss Utley. Although in this article Lattimore insists that Russia
did not help the Chinese Communists to win power, he elsewhere had
liimself once written to the contrary. In Solution in Asia he wrote:

There is too much danger of a drift toward making China a Poland in Asia,
with America eventually identified as the not too enthusiastic backer of a "legiti-
mist" group with too many Chinese "Polish colonels" and not enough popular sup-
port, and Russia identified as the strategically placed backer of a group which
is legally "dissident" but has growing support among moderate groups as well
as the peasants.

It seems to me that Lattimore has represented the Chinese Com-
munists as both independent and not independent, according to the
necessities of his propaganda.

I could go on giving you quotations from Mr. Lattimore's writings
Avhich give a totally false account of what has happened in China,
and of what American policy has been ; and which demonstrate Mr.
Lattimore's propensity" always to put the worst possible construction
on America's acts, and the best possible construction on Soviet Rus-
sia's acts.



762 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

Here I give only a few examples out the Situation in Asia —
page 42:

Ever since the defeat of Japan, American discussion of tlie fate of Cbina has
harped on tlie idea that China is a field of power which should be "preventively"
occupied by the United States in order to keep Russia out.

So far from there ever having been any "harping" on such a theme,
and so far from American policy having tried to "keep Russia out,"
the administration's efforts were directed to letting Russia in by Gen-
eral Marshall's insistence on the admission of the Communists into a
coalition government.

On page 9, Mr. Lattimore refers to "American attempts in China
to maintain indirect control by backing one side against the other
in a civil war."

On page 43 he writes :

Tlie grandiose and disastrous American attempt to determine the character and
outcome of the Chinese civil war * * * proved that America does not have
the kind of power that can settle Chinese issues * * *. The American ex-
penditure of from 2 to 4 billion dollars included both military and economic aid
to Chiang Kai-shek.

On page 165 Mr. Lattimore excels himself in his misrepresentation
of America and American policy by directly echoing the Communist
line of propaganda begun in 1946. Remember in that year the Com-
munists began to say that there was no difference between American
and Japanese imperialists except that American imperialism was more
subtle and more hypocritical. Lattimore himself wrote —

It took 3 years and from 2 to 4 billion dollars of American money to prove the
uselessuess of an American attempt to imitate this early Japanese policy in China.

On page 102 he says :

In military action the biggest single battle in Asia, that of China, has already
been won by the Chinese Communists with little or no aid from Russia.

Page 163: "The top political and military leadership" (of the Chi-
nese Communist Party) "is not Moscow trained." This is one of
Lattimore's biggest falsehoods, most easy to disprove, for at the time
he wrote 32 of the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party were Mos-
cow trained. Since then the number has increased. In his testimony
before this committee on April 6, however, following Senator
McCarthy's list of Moscow-trained Chinese Communist leaders given
in his speech on the Senate floor, Lattimore admitted that most of the
top leadership of the Chinese Connnunist Party are now Moscow
trained.

Allow me to quote one or two other typical Lattimorisms designed
to put the Communists in a favorable light, and to praise the Soviet
Government :

On page 129 of The Situation in Asia he writes :

There will be an over-all food deficiency in China until the 1949 harvest, be-
cause of the civil war ; but after that, offering food to Japan would not cause
hardship in China and make the new government unpopular, because wherever
the Communists have taken over they have increased food production, con-
trolled distribution, and stabilized prices, successfully breaking the old cycle of
recurring shortages and famines.

This mythical expectation is directly contradicted by the famine
in China noM^ expected to be one of the worst in her history. But
even if nature had not added to China's troubles it would have been
impossible for "food to be offered to Japan" witliout causing hardship.



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY I]Sr\'ESTIGATION 763

Lattiniore must be Avell aware that with JNIanchiiria's surphis being
exported to Russia, there could not be enough food in Ciiina to go
around. His lie is of course designed to show that it was only the
wicked Kuoniintang Government whicli caused food shortages. The
fact is that with only an aci'e of land i)er head of the population, if
one excludes Manchuria, China cannot produce enough food for her
people.

I would here also like to put in the record a recent editorial in the
Herald Tribune summarizing the tyranny and op])ression of the Chi-
nese peo])le under Communist rule, as against Mr. Lattimore's picture
of a China happy to have escaped from Kuoniintang rule.

Senator Tydixgs. We will put in that article from the newspaper
as exhibit 80, but if we cret to putting newspaper articles in this
record, it will be so big it will reach to the ceiling,

IMiss Utley. I have also collected certain quotations from Mr. Lat-
timore's what I would call pro-Soviet propaganda, his representation
of the Soviet Union as democratic and as a happy land of peasants,
and all the rest of it. In the text of Solution in Asia he wrote, on
page 134 :

In A8ia the Soviet Union has a major power of attraction, backed by a his-
tory of development and a body of procedures.

And on page 139 :

To all (the Asiatic peoples along her frontiers) the Russians and the Soviet
Union have a great power of attraction. In their eyes — rather doubtfully in the
eyes of the older generation, more and more clearly in the eyes of the younger
generation — the Soviet Union stands for strategic security, economic prosperity,
technological progress, miraculous medicine, fi'ee education, equality of oppor-
tunity, and democracy : a powerful combination.

Hardly a single one of these claims is even remotely true, but
Lattimore protects himself from the accusation of being a Communist
propagandist by telling his reader, not that he believes all these wonder-
ful things about Soviet Russia, but that the Asiatic peoples do. And
how are his readers to question the assertion of a learned professor who