has traveled extensively in China, central Asia, and Russia, speaks the
language of the countries and tribes he has visited, and is not sus-
jiectecl of being a Communist or fellow traveler on account of his
position at the Johns Hopkins University, and the respect and trust
with which he is regarded bv the administration?
Continuing with his assertions of untruths, or at the very least, of
exceedingly controversial expressions of opinion, as if they were in-
controA^ertible facts, Lattimore continues as follows on the same page
139 of Solution in Asia :
The fact that tlie Soviet Union also stands for democracy is not to be over-
looked. It stands for democracy because it stands for all the other things â€”
economic prosperity, equality of opportunity, and so forth.
Realizing, no doubt, at this point that some of his readers may
possibly have enough knowledge of the Soviet Union to question his
assertion that the Soviet L^nion stands for democracy and may begin
to get suspicious of him, Lattimore proceeds to confuse and shame
them by suggesting that they are narrow-minded, igniorant, and just
too, too unrealistic and theoretically minded if thev don't realize that
Anglo-Saxon or American democracy is just "one kind of democracy"
764 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and not a very good specimen at that, since it is not held in high regard
by other nations. He writes :
Here in America we are in the habit of taking a narrow view of foreign
claimants to the status of democracy. If China, or Russia, or some other alien
people does not measure up to the standards of the particular American modi-
fication of Anglo-Saxon democracy, we say that it is not democratic. We are
going to find ourselves boxing with shadows instead of maneuvering in politics
it we stick to this habit. The fact is that for most of the people in the world
today what constitutes democracy in theory is more or less irrelevant. What
moves people to act, to try to line up with one party or country and not with
another, is the difference between what is more democratic and less democratic
in practice (pp. 1.39-140).
"^^Hiat, in effect, Lattimore has told his readers is that the Soviet
Union is more democratic in practice than America. But he has care-
fnlly refrained from saying so right out. If accused of being a
Commnnist propagandist he can reply that he didn't say so, bnt that
the peoples of Asia think so.
The whole of Lattimore's argument is based on two false premises :
(1) That the Soviet Government has greatly improved the material
conditions of the Russian people and given them unlimited op])or-
tunities to better themselves; (2) that the neighbors of the Soviet
Union are full of admiration and envy for the happy people under
Soviet rule. Such little details as the fact that thousands of people
are trying every week to escape from the benefits of Communi.st rule
at the risk of their lives are of course not mentioned by the learned
In the next paragraph (p. 140 of Solution in Asia) Lattimore
resorts to another of his favorite techniques : a quotation from the
writings of an eminent American or British writer who cannot be sus-
pected of being a Communist :
Doubts in America about the extent to which the Stalin constitution has really
been put into effect or criticisms of Soviet labor unions on the ground tliat they
are not really labor unions, do not lead us anywhere in trying to understand
what democracy means to people in Asia â€” or in the Soviet Union * * *
Wendell Willkie describes a hot colloquy on the subject of freedom with a
Soviet factory superintendent * * * finally Mi-. Willkie said, "Then actually
you've got no freedom." To which the Soviet engineer replied that he had more
freedom than his father and grandfather, illiterate peasants, bound to the soil,
with no medical attention when they were sick. He himself had had, from
the Soviet system, an education and a chance to make good. That for him meant
Lattimore fails to point out that the enthusiasm of the Communist
boss of a large Soviet enterprise for the system which has given him
a lot of advantages proves no more concerning the sentiments of the
mass of the Russian people toward the Soviet system, than any
â€¢ approval voiced by an executive of, say, General Motors for our
"capitalist" system proves that the majority of the American people
are in favor of free enterprise.
Nevertheless, having driven his opponent to the ropes by this kind
of quotation out of context, Lattimore proceeds to hit liim below the
belt by resorting to another of the clever tricks which he constantly
employs. This trick consists in overawing his critics by a display
of his erudition, and assertions concerning his intimate knowledge of
the sentiments and aspirations of some obscure people or tribe, of
whom the reader has never heard, and concerning whom he therefore
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 785
ilares not argue with so eminent an authority' as Professoi- Lattimore.
Otlun- statements designed to deceive or totally untrue are:
Page 53 :
It is this kind of historical relativity that enables the Russians to exalt a live
Peter the Great, though they would regard a live one with horror.
The clear implication here is that Stalin is not a tyrant at all,
Avhereas in fact he is a much greater one than Peter the Great.
Page 46 :
Greece is a doubtful stronghold, because it is a stronghold in which the garrison
is besieged by the populace.
Here Lattimore in defiance of the facts is telling his readers that
the majority of the Greek population wanted a Communist Govern-
ment but were forced by America to submit to a government of our
choosing â€” untrue, or at least unproven.
Page 61 :
Every one [of the east European governments] with the exception of Czecho-
slovakia, had been Fascist or semi-Fascist.
Another untruth. Poland, for instance, had a predominantly Lib-
eral and Socialist Government in exile. Nor is it correct to describe
Yugoslavia under its monarchy as Fascists, and Michaelovitch was
certainly not a Fascist. Lattimore here accepts the Communist
identification of ''Fascist'' with capitalist.
Page 63 :
There had been an expansion of Russian power, but there has also been eastern
Europe's own retreat into the arms of Russia.
All the countries referred to had Communist governments imposed
on them by force, but Lattimore tries to prove that they voluntarily
Concerning all these matters Lattimore cannot be absolved on the
ground of ignorance, as I know personally he is well aware of the real
situation in the Soviet Union.
May I here quote Mr. Lattimore's best -known quotation about Mr.
Lattimore's attitude toward the Soviet Union. This is the jacket of
the first short popular book, Solution in Asia, published in 1945, and
it reads as follows :
He [Lattimore! shows that all the Asiatic peoples are more interested in actual
democratic practices, such as the ones they can see in action across the Russian
border, thnn they are in the fine theories of Anglo-Saxon democracies which come
coupled with ruthless imperialism.
It seems to me that Lattimore thus definitely arraigned himself with
those who were busy propagating the myth of Soviet democracy.
I have many more quotations that I could read, but I just know you
cannot listen to me long enough.
Mr, Morgan. If I may interrupt, for the benefit of the reporter can
you mark those that you' would like to have incorporated in the record
by him as you go along, or is all of that to be incorporated?
'Miss Utley. Parts of it I have not read. I will put them in.
Mr. Morgan. If all of it is to be incorporated, that will take care
Miss Utley. In passage after passage Lattimore slyly slips in big
lies and small, always with the air of a detached observer and student
of international affairs. In one place he casually refers to "the trend
toward increased personal liberty and economic prosperity which has
766 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
contributed so much to [Russia's] advantages in competing with us"
for the favor of the peoples of Asia, as compared with our tardiness
in "the evohition of democratic processes." In another place he refers
to the grant by Moscow to ]Mongolia of "independent diplomatic rep-
resentation and action." All the evidence available contradicts the
first statement, and the second is not true, and I would here have you
note that in an earlier book which Mr. Lattimore wrote in 1935 called
Manchuria: Cradle of Conflict, he honestly wrote "The loss of Outer
Mongolia and its virtual inclusion in the Soviet Union * * *."
Now he is writing, and I can give other references, that Outer Mon-
golia ought to be admitted as a Soviet state into the United Nations.
It seems to me that in his latest book, the Situation in Asia, pub-
lished in 1949, Mr. Lattimore has gone ever further in deceiving the
American people than in his former writings. Also, something new
has been aclded. Formerly he urged us to recognize only the superior
"power of attraction" of the great and good Soviet Union, and the
virtues of the Chinese Communists. Now he is also seeking to awaken
our fears. This last book of his seeks to convince us that, whether or
not we like communism, the Soviet Union and its adherents over most
of the world are certain to wdn, so we had better appease them if we
want to avoid destruction.
It would seem to me that Mr. Lattimore, and others like him, had
only two choices after it became increasingly clear to the American
people that they had been deluded concerning the nature and aims
of the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists. They had either
to retreat, or a(|vance to the offensive. To retreat would have meant
that they would be forced to admit: (a) that the Soviet Govern-
ment is neither peace loving nor democratic nor "progressive" but a
totalitarian tyranny under which its subjects toil without hope for
ruthless masters; (h) that the Chinese Communists are not nice
liberal reformers unconnected with Moscow, but very "real" Com-
munists under Moscow's orders. To retreat would have meant that
Lattimore and his friends must sacrifice their reputations and pos-
sibly their jobs since they would have exposed themselves as ig-
noramuses or tellers of untruths.
Having once hitched their wagons to the Soviet star, they had
either publicly to recant, or convince us that the Communists are
destined to win and so force us to give way to them. Lattimore has
chosen the latter course.
Senator Tydinos. Let me just say this to you. I don't want to
cut you off, but it would be very helpful to our committee if you
would take these two books and mark all of the parts that you want
considered by the committee, and leave out your opinions on them.
We will form our opinions, and we do not need any help from the
outside, but we would like very much to have you confine your testi-
mony to facts, and not what your opinion from the facts may or
may not be.
Miss Utlf.y. Senator Tydings, I am cutting all this out.
Senator Tydings. But it has been your opinion and interpreta-
tion. That is the committee's job. If you would mark those parts â€”
and they are pertinent; I am not taking issue with you â€” and let the
committee study the parts, we will say what they are when they are in
connotation with the whole text, or separately and every other way,
but it is not proper testimony for you tell what your opinion is. The
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 767
committee may aoree with you and it may not. We don't want
opinion evidence here. We want facts, f-a-c-t-s. We are getting
very few of them. We are getting mostly opinion.
Miss Utley. Senator Tydings, I tliink that I am testifying here
at least partly because I am an expert on the Far East and China,
and it does seem to me that unless one has had time to study the mat-
ters it IS not possible to understand the purport, intent, and influence
of Mr. Lattimore's writings.
Senator Tyoixgs. We are very glad to have you take Mr, Latti-
more's writings and mark in pencil every item which you consider
will support the opinions you have expressed. But the committee
did not call you here to get your opinion on these books. It called
you to present facts that will support the case in view of the charges
that have been made before us. We can call in 100 experts and hear
what their opinions are, and there will probably be 100 different
opinions. That is not going to decide anything. "Wliat we want are
facts, so please give us the parts of the books and do not give us your
opinions on the parts of the books. Let us be humble enough to
try to be able to see what those facts make an opinion of.
Miss Utley. Am I allowed to read one last quotation which is not
from his books and which you might find some difficulty in finding?
Senator Tydings. If you tell us where it is we will take that difficulty
upon our shoulders.
Miss Utley. It is an article of Mr. Lattimore's in the Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1946.
Senator Tydings. If we allow that to go in, somebody could come
in with opinions just on the opposite side to those of Mr. Lattimore.
We do not want opinions of other people on what Mr. Lattimore is.
Our records would be a mile high. It is our job to get every fact that
is pertinent to this inquiry, and for us to form the opinions for the
Senate of the United States, without opinion evidence being in here.
Without any desire to limit this hearing, this is a hearing to elicit
facts. We have already had all kinds of hearsay and everything else
in it, and the chairman, unless he is overruled by his committee, is going
to stick a little more closely to what might be called reasonable rules
Senator Lodge. Does that not purport to be an article by Mr.
Senator Tydings. Is it written by Mr. Lattimore ?
Miss Utley. It is written by Mr. Lattimore.
Senator Tydings. Then you may read it.
Miss Utley. There are many other things written by Mr. Lattimore
which I have not read out. I am giving this one from the Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science because it also
shows that Mr. Lattimore has not confined his propaganda to the Far
East. He says :
I think that in Europe we may look to Poland, for instance, for creative and
valuable thinking in the realm of political theory and to excellent methods and
techiu(iues in jjolitical practice.
Poland â€” 1946. I am not allowed to make any comment.
May I now, in concluding my testimony â€” I am nearly at the end-
Senator Tydings. If you are about to conclude your testimony you
may read anything you want, even though it is 'way out of the limits
768 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Miss Utley. I am getting to the end, Senator, and if I may say here
in passing, it still seems to me that in such a difficult subject, when you
are dealing with so brilliant and clever a propagandistr- â€”
Senator Tydings. Just a minute. We do not want your opinion
about Mr. Lattimore's brilliance or propaganda. "WTiat we want are
Miss Utlet. I think that Senator McCarthy was wrong in his origi-
nal statement that Owen Lattimore is the Soviet Government's top
espionage agent in America. I think the Senator under-estimated
Lattimore. Mr. Lattimore is such a renowned scholar, such an ex-
cellent writer, so adept at teaching the American people that they
ought to stop opposing the great, good, and progressive Soviet Govern-
ment, that it is impossible to believe that Moscow would regard him
as expendable, as all spies are. To suggest that Mr. Lattimore's great
talents have been utilized in espionage seems to me as absurd as to
suggest that Mr. Gromyko or Mr. Molotov employ their leisure
hours at Lake Success, or at international conferences, in snitching
Mr. Lattimore has been of far too great value in influencing Ameri-
can opinion and in determining American policy to Moscow's advan-
tage to be used in such a minor capacity as an espionage agent.
In searching for a suitable term to describe Mr. Lattimore I first
thought of an obvious Communist designation, namely, policy sabo-
teur. But afterward I recalled having heard that in the Chicago
stockyards they call the beast who leads the other animals to slaugh-
ter a "Judas cow." This seems to me a fit appellation for Mr.
Lattimore. His function has been to lead us unknowingly to de-
struction. I might, of course, call him a siren luring us to the totali-
tarian abyss with sweet songs about the progressive, just, and demo-
cratic society which he says exists in the Soviet Union. But some-
how the term siren does not quite fit the learned Baltimore professor.
I do not know whether Mr. Lattimore is a member of the Com-
munist Party or knows the influence he has devoted to the detriment
of America, but, as I say, his function has been to lead us to
He may not be the "architect" of the disastrous China policy pur-
sued by the administration, which has delivered 400,000,000 people
to the tender mercies of the Communists, rendered vain the sacrifice
of so many young Americans in the war against Japan, and placed
the United States in dire peril. But there can be no reasonable doubt
that the Far Eastern policy advocated, and to a large degree fol-
lowed, by the administration, was inspired by Mr. Lattimore and
his disciples, proteges, and friends.
I suggest to the committee- â€” I have already' said this â€” that they
compare the writings of Mr. Lattimore with the dispatches of Mr.
John Davies, John Service, and Raymond P. Ludden as reproduced
in annex 47 of the White Paper on China to show the extreme simi-
larity of the views of these foreign service officers and those of Mr-
Lattimore, and their extreme partiality for the Chinese Communists..
I have already quoted the beginning of one of Mr. John Davies' dis-
patches. I complete this dis])atch, which Mr. Lattimore has quoted
himself in an article he published in the New Republic.
In this imhappy dilemma â€”
STATE DEPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 769
says Mr. John Da vies â€”
the United St;itos should attempt to prevent the disaster of a civil war through
adjustiiieut of tiie n(>w alignment of power in China by peaceful processes. The
desirattle means to this end is to encourage the reform and revitalizntion of the
Ku'ominrang so that it may survive as a significant force in a coalition govern-
ment. If this fails, we must limit our involvement with the Kuomintang and
must commence some cooperation with the Communist.s, the force destined to
control 'China, in an effort to influence them further into an independent posi-
tion friendly to the United States. We are working against time because, if
tlie U. S. S. K. enters the war agjiinst Jaimn and invades China before either
of these alternatives succeeds, the Communists will be captured by the U. S. S. K.
and become Soviet satellites.
Yoii will note the fact that John Davies, echoing Lattimore, fails
to acknowledge the fact that the Chinese Communist Party is. was,
and always has been under ISIoscow's orders. Lattimore wrote of the
danirer of the Chinese Communists "gravitating" townrd Russia:
Davies wrote of the danger of the Communists being "captured by
the U. S. S. R." and of their "becoming" Soviet satellites.
The truth was, of course, that the Chinese Communists had never
been anything but Soviet satellites.
In a later dispatch, written on November 15, 1944, Mr. John Davies
We should not now abandon Chiang Kai-shek. To do so at this juncture
would be to lose more than we could gain. We must for the time being con-
tinue recognition of Chiang's government.
But we must be realistic. We must not indefinitely underwrite a politically
bankrupt regime. And, if the Russians are going to enter the Pacific war, we
must make a determined effort to capture politically the Chinese Communists
rather than allow them to go by default wholly to the Russians. Furthermore,
we must fully understand that by reason of our recognition of the Chiang
Kai-shek government as now constituted we are committed to a steadily de-
caying regime and severely restricted in working out military and political
cooperation with the Chinese Communists.
A coalition Chinese Government in which the Communists find a satisfactory
place is the solution of this impasse most desirable to us. It provides our great-
est assurance of a strong, united, democratic, independent, and friendly China â€”
our basic strategic aim in Asia and the Pacific. If Chiang and the Communists
reach a mutually satisfactory agreement, there will have been achieved from
our point of view the most desirable possible solution. If Chiang and the Com-
munists are iiTeconcilable, then we shall have to decide which faction we are
going to support.
In seeking to determine which faction we should support we must keep in
mind these basic considerations: Power in China is on the verge of shifting
from Chiang to the Communists.
If the Russians enter North China and Manchuria, we obviously cannot hope
to win tlie Comnumists entirely over to us, but we can through control of sup-
plies and postwar aid expect to exert considerable influence in the direction of
Chinese nationalism and independence from Soviet control.
If time permitted I could quote many other dispatches from John
Davies and other Foreign Service officials, as reproduced in the White
Paper, which prove how strongly the State Department's Far Eastern
Division was influenced by the Lattimore school. There were not
w anting many ]oyii\ and qualified experts on communism in the State
Department. The tragedy has been that they were not listened to.
The Lattimore clique had succeeded in drowning out the loyal and
giving paramount intluence to the disloyal, or to the stupid clupes of
I should like to state at this point that I do not hold the Republican
Party as without resf)onsibility.
770 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Be careful, now.
Miss Utley. I am trying to say I am nonpartisan in this, that it is
not only the Democrats who are responsible for what has happened.
Mr. Luce, who I understand is a Republican, built up the reputa-
tions of such pro-Communist writers as Theodore White and Richard
Lauterbach and Jack Belden. Mr. Dulles appointed Alger Hiss as
head of the Carnegie Institution, in spite of the fact that he had been
informed that Hiss was a Communist. And Mr. Lattimore enjoys
quoting Wendell Willkie to support his pro-Soviet propaganda, Mr.
Willkie having chosen a friend of Lattimore's and a notorius Soviet
propagandist, Mr. Joseph Barnes, to accompany him to Russia and
to help him write his book called One World.
Senator Tydings. You do not mean in the 1940 election ?
Miss Utley. This is a long time ago, wdien Mr. Willkie chose Mr.
Barnes to accompany him to Russia.
Senator Tydings. I just wanted to get the connection.
Miss Utley. I do not think the question of Communist influence
over American policy, in particular China policy, is a party question.
The issue is too grave, the peril which confronts us is too great, and
the number of Republicans who follow the "Love Russia" school in the
administration is too large.
The tragedy for America, and for what is left of the rest of the free
world, will be the result of failing to clean house because of party
politics. The chinese are supposed to be the one nation which is pri-
marily concerned with "saving face." It seems to me that both some
members of the United States administration and certain Republicans
are also more concerned with saving face than with saving America.
The Communist cancer nnist be cut out if we are to survive as a
free nation. Perhaps in this operation some healthy tissues on the
fringe of the Communist cancer will be destroyed. But we cannot
afford, in this time of dire peril to the survival of western civilization,
to refrain from eliminating the cancer which debilitates us because
some innocents and dupes and some unprincipled careerists may be
destroyed by the operation which is necessary if we are to stop the
spread of the Communist disease.
Senator Tydings. Miss Utley, before counsel begins to interrogate
you, so you will get a little chance to get a glass of water and a little
relief, I am going to read into the record a telegram. This telegram
is from a large city in China that shall not be named because it might
be disastrous to some of the people who sent it, and it is from the