questions and the answers that were given have been given quite a bit
of attention in this statement, if from this question here one does not
gather that at least in the mind of Mr. Parris at that time the im-
plication might be that you and Mr. Barnes might be fellow travelers.
Is that a fair conclusion?
Dr. Lattimore. I have not seen the transcript since it was handed
in, so I don't recall the rest of the exact language, but the impression
that I retain is that Mr. Parris, as an editor, was thinking of what
readers might conclude, and wanted to raise the question whether
Budenz was in fact implying that I was not a Communist, exactly, but
a fellow traveler.
Mr. Morgan. My thought there was with respect to the observa-
tions that have been made that Mr. Budenz at no time up to this
j)oint has indicated you in such a light. This might be an indication
to the contrary, might it not ?
Dr. Lattimore. I would have to see the transcript to see what opin-
ion I would form from it. All I recall is that my name came in and
the moment it was brought up Budenz backed off very hastily and
Mr. FoRTAS. Mr. Morgan, I have a distinct recollection of the record
in this respect, and I respectfully ask that the exact language that is
contained in that manuscript referring to Mr. Lattimore be placed in
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\^ESTIGATION 833
the record at this point; that is to say, at the point where you are
askin<2: tliose questions.
Ml. MoKOAx. That is entirely satisfactory with me, Mr. Chairman,
for its insertion at this point in the record.
Now to paoe Al7 of the statement. There is one observation there
tliat I woukl ap])reciate your connnents on, Mr. Lattimore, because it
did not necessarily disturb me, but I would like your observations on
In referring to Mr. Budenz, you are referriufj to the "disgusting
sport of being an informer.'' Would you care to make any further
observation on that ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. I think that Mr. Budenz is an extremely
disgusting ])erson in this respect, that if a man gets out of the kind of
conspiracy that he himself talks of having participated in, he may,
of course, and he should, of course, give any information that he feels
is important to the security of this country to the proper Government
agencies. But Avhat I think is disgusting is the practice of taking ad-
vantage of senatorial immunity to scatter names around before they
have even been given to a proper agency for orderly investigation.
That seems to me to be an extremely unpalatable form of commer-
cializing his past career.
Senator McMaiion. But, Dr. Lattimore, Budenz did not volunteer.
As I understand it, he did not volunteer to come here to testify. Sena-
tor McCarthy requested the committee, if I am not mistaken, Mr.
Chairman, to subpena him here to testify. Is that not accurate?
Senator Tydixgs. I think that is accurate, but Senator McCarthy â€”
I may be wrong about it and I won't say it â€” but at least I think Sena-
tor McCarthy felt tl'iat what Mr. Budenz would say through having
other ])eople talk to I'lim was the reason for his being summoned. I
think Senator McCariMiy himself made the request that Mr. Budenz
Senator Mc]\L\hox. Yes, but Dr. Lattimore indicates, it seems to
me, that he appeared here as a volunteer witness, and the record does
not bear you out in that.
Dr. Lattimore. No. I'he only point I want to bring attention to.
Senator, is this : This man has had 5 years to turn in any names that
he considers impoitant. He has written articles in which he lays
heav}^ stress on the import>'ince of the whole China question and
China policy. And yet after 5 years he has not mentioned my name
to any investigatiAe agency, fond he is still talking about some 400
other names. Within 5 years. ,even if a man cannot give the investi-
gative agencies detailed inform'ation on names, surely orderly pro-
cedure would require that he tiArn in those names before he begins
Senator ]\IcMauox. I do want to make sure, though, that I under-
stand you correctly when you said that "During the 4 or 5 years since
he left the Communist Party, in which he was principally occupied
in the disgusting sport of being an informer * '^' *," do I under-
stand you correctly now to say that you would not classify him as
being engaged in the disgusting sport by turning over to the author-
ities of the Government evidence that he has of criminal conspirators
who are seeking to overthrow the Government?
834 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Dr. Lattimore. Wliat I am saying. Senator, is that for him to
release names first, in public, and under immunity, is a disgusting
way of being an informer.
Senator McMAHOisr. Well, of course, he did give your name to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Dr. Lattimore. After some 5 years, and after my name had come
into the press and after he had an opportunity when he knew he was
going to have an opportunity, to testify under immunity.
Senator McMahoivt. My memory is not so good on that. Are you
correct in that last statement? Did he know that he was going to
be a witness here when he gave your name to the FBI ?
Mr. FoRTAs. Senator, perhaps I can tell you what the transcript
shows in response to questions by Senator Green. I don't have the
exact page here, but in response to questions by Senator Green, Mr.
Budenz said that the first time that he mentioned INIr. Lattimore to
the FBI was last month. That would be some time in the month
of March. If you will give me a few moments I can find that.
Senator ]\Ic]\Iahox. I do not want to hold up the proceedings now,
and will let counsel go ahead, but I wanted to make very sure that
you were not condemning Budenz for giving information that he might
have, or condemning any person, not alone Budenz but any person,
who would leave the Communist Party and would give the authorities
of the United States correct information relative to this conspiracy
which exists in this country as it does in every couT.itry in the world.
And I wanted to make sure that you were not condemning that prac-
tice, because if you were, then I would be condemnatory of your
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, I think that any citizen who has informa-
tion relative to the security of this country has not only the right but
the obligation to report it to the proper authorit es.
I find in myself a deep distaste, however, for parlying the informa-
tion later into lecture tours, books, and senfjation. I find it partic-
ularly distasteful when a man acts as Bud.enz did and gets on the
stand in a position of immunity and testifies against him. My vo-
cabulary in describing that Mr. Budenz \s that of a man who has
been struck at unsuccessfully by a rattleFjUake and do not feel over-
come by affection.
Mr. Morgan. In that same connection., Dr. Lattimore, at the top of
page B4 you say, again referring to Mr. Budenz, "Since that time he
has been engaged in commercial explc/itation of his own sordid past,
methods which in my opinion are a menace to our society."
Now I am wondering if there yoi.i are referring to the testimony
that Mr. Budenz has given to agen.cies of our Government in some
12 different proceedings, or are you referring to something else in that
particular sentence ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes. I am referrin.^ to his commercial exploita-
tion of himself and his own sordid past, with all his lectures and sen-
sational books, and particularly in connection with this business of
waving around lists of 400 undisclosed names, so that anybody who
questions Budenz had better look out: "You may be on my list of
Mr. Morgan, I think I would liko to ask at this point,in line with
Senator McMahon's question, if here you are referring to ]\Ir. Budenz's
activities in revealing the nature of the Communist Party and the
STATE DEPARTMENT EIMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 835
Comnmiiist movement in this country. Do you regard that as a
menace to society?
Dr. Lattimore. I think that the more publicity and light we can
have on the nature and methods of the Connnunist Party in this
country, the better for tlie formation of sound understanding and
public opinion in this country. I also think there are ways and ways
of doino; it.
â– Sir. ^loKGAX. You do not object, therefore, to the findings of Mr.
Budenz, and the statements of Mr. Budenz. Your objection goes
to the numner in which he does it, is that correct ?
Dr. Lattimore. I think that any statement on Communist or any
other political activities in this country of subversive groups or any
other political groups are a proper part of open political discussion
in this country, and should be accomioanied by proper proof and
demonstration. I don't like the kind of wild allegation to which I
have been subjected.
Mr. j\[oRGAN. In the same paragraph to which I have referred there
is a statement that is made, and I think perhaps in view of the cir-
cumstances here you mig'ht like to make an observation. You state
that "I respectfully draw your attention, Senator, to the fact that
when a man like Budenz becomes a renegade from a secret party or
conspiracy such as he has himself described the American Com-
munist Party to be * * *" and it goes on from there. I am won-
dering if you would like to make an observation on the record, Dr,
Lattimore, as to tlie manner in wliich vou regard the Comnninist
Party of this country. I notice you have attributed this cons])iracy
aspect to something Mr. Budenz said. "Would you care to make a
statement on the record concerning your attitude relative to the Com-
Dr. Latti^iore. I could make no statement on the structure or inside
operations of the Communist Party in this country except by hearsay.
Mr. ISIorgax. Doesn't that. Dr. Lattimore, almost place us all in
the position of having to depend and rely upon men like Mr. Budenz.
who have had an intimate acquaintance with the operations of the
Communist Party in this country ?
Dr. Lattimore. There is, Mr. Morgan, I believe, quite a large litera-
ture on the subject in this country, and there have been a good many
people who have been Communists and have written on the subject.
There have also been a great many political scientists who, without
ever having been Communists or Marxists of any kind, have studied
it from the documents, analyzed it, and so foi'th. We have in this
country at Stanford University the Hoover Library and Institute
of War. Revolution and Peace, which has collected documents from
all over the world on the various stages of history, of various Com-
munist Parties, and I think that (hat kind of a study is not only proper
but necessary. I think it is an extremely important part of political,
science at the present time.
I myself am not an expert on that subject.
Mr. MoRGAX. Have a'ou familiarized yourself with those writings
to such a point that you would care to make any observation along
the lines j^ou earlier suggested there ?
Dr. Lattimore. My general idea of the American Communist Party,,
not only as an outsider but as decidedly a nonexpert on the subj/ect
836 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and having seen something of countries like China, in which there are
Communist I'arties, is that the American Communist Party seems to
have practically no roots in American political life. It seems to con-
sist very largely of people of recent European origin or extraction,
from families that have brought with them political ideas from
Europe. Added to that, there seems to be an extraordinary collection
of misfits, crackpots, generally discontented peo])le, and so forth.
There may also be in the party a certain number of honest people,
the kind of people that you would disagree with yourself ; you might
dispute their conclusions but not the fact that the conclusions were
arrived at by honest intellectual processes.
However, my over-all impression is that the American Communist
Party has not only a very small place in American life, but a very small
future in American life. The reason I believe that, and the reason
that I am more interested in other political manifestations in this
country than I am in communism, is because I believe that this country,
throughout its history, has been of all countries the one in which a
living democratic structure has been most real and most genuine. I
have been a lot in countries which hope that they might some day have
democracy, in which democratic phrases and expressions are more
or less slogans or catchwords. But in this country we have, and have
always had, a real democracy. People are not just working up en-
thusiasm over phrases. Democracy is a state in this country for
every man. This is a country in which all of us, and our forebears, as
long as they have lived in the country, have actually benefited by a
real democracy. So that the praises of democracy are not just ideas
in the air, but words which give a name to something real and precious
in our life.
Mr. Morgan. I think that a great many of us, Dr. Lattimore, will
thoroughly agree with your statement that the roots of the Communist
Party in this country are not in America, and I am wondering, from
your observations and studies, which certainly have been more inten-
sive than those of many of us, if you care to indicate where in your
ojjinion the roots of the Communist Pai'ty in this country are.
Dr. Lattimore. Again, Mr, Morgan, I am not an expert on the
subject. It is quite obvious that, even to a nonexpert, all over the
world all Communists look to Russia, and in Russia look to Moscow.
The degree to which those roots represent an actual flow of authority
from Moscow into the various countries appears, so far as my knowl-
edge goes â€” and my knowledge is not based on this country but on
other countries â€” to have been subjected to a certain amount of change
at different historical periods. For instance, in China you have Com-
munists who subscribe, and who never have ceased to subscribe, to
the ideas of Marx, Lenin, and later Stalin, but who at various periods
in their history have been operating in a Chinese environment cut off
from regular directives of detailed control from Russia, so that they
have operated in the context of their own society and, so far as they
have survived, have survived not only by adapting society to them-
selves but by adapting themselves to society.
Then you have other phenomena coming up, more recent, and to a
political scientist extremely intere.sting : phenomena like the detach-
ment of the Tito Communists of themselves from Moscow. We are
dealing not with a simple phenomenon that can be reduced to a few
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTV'ESTIGATION 837
cliches but with one of the most varied phenomena of contemporary
world political life.
jNIr. MoHGAX. I notice in your statement yon have just made, and
])articularly the one precedin<r it, and also on page D3 of your state-
ment, the observation in your letter to Admiral Yarnell. You state
there that there is too little in common between the two nations, refer-
ring to the United States and Russia, to such elementary things as the
meaning of words. You mentioned the word "democracy" just a
moment ago. I wonder. Dr. Lattimore, from your study and experi-
ence, if the word "democracy'" itself has a dift'erent meaning to the
Russians from what it does to us.
Dr. Lattimore. I think it does, Mv. INIorgan, but I am not enough
of an expert on the subject to give you a good political scientist's
definition. There are many of these terms, and I have dealt wnth them
primarily in my experience not as an expert on American domestic
politics nor as an expert on Russian domestic politics. My experience
has been principally in the field between the Russians and the Chinese.
My most specialized studies have been on peoples like the Mongols,
the various Central Asian peoples of Sinkiang Province, and so on.
Now, in dealing with these people I find that very often the largest
fund of factual information is in the Russian language, partly nine-
teenth century Czarist Russian, some older than that, of course, but
^ erv larjielv nineteenth centurv Russian, and since the Russian Revolu-
tion, Soviet information.
Xow, in dealing with that information I find that over and over
and over again, while looking toward that in the context of our daily
lives you understand without any difficulty, it has to be extremely
carefully handled when you are dealing with Russian political science
or economic literature. It is not only the word "democracy"; it is
words like "feudal,"' "clan,"' "tribal," "family," and so forth.
Mr. Morgan. When you use the word "democracy," Dr. Lattimore,
in your writings, in which sense do you use it ?
Dr. Lattimore. I am trying to recall a definition of democracy
that I tried to write down for myself once not so very long ago. It
may be in one of my books here, or it may be in an article that I can't
lay my hand^ on.
Perhaps I had better just try and recall the general thinking that
led me to that definition.
I think that the essence of democracy is to be found in society
Avhere men and Avomen may freely meet together to discuss their
political ideas, and if they agree on a group of ideas, to organize them-
selves in the support of those ideas, and are, by the constitution or
standing customs of their country, allowed to be represented in the
processes of government, by freely choosing for themselves people
whose ideas are like their own, to speak on their behalf in the neces-
sarily smaller bodies that order the affairs of a community.
Mr. MoRGAX. I would gather from your definition, therefore, that
that would contemplate respect for the ideas and thinking of various
elements and various groups, and the privilege of such groups to be
entitled to representation ; is that correct ?
Dr. Lattimore. That is implicit in the whole idea, because if you
allow people to organize in groups in support of their ideas â€” and, I
should add, their interests as well â€” then what applies to one such
group should apply to another.
838 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan, There is one reference in your writings to whieli we
will come momentarily, Dr. Lattimore, in which you referred, I be-
lieve, to certain groups in the Orient looking across the border to
"democracy" in Russia. What did you mean there ?
Dr. Lattimore. When we come to that passage, Mr. Morgan, I
shall be glad to go into it, or I can go into it at this point.
I was writing there, as I have often written, of groups of people
in Asia who never in their history have had the kind of democratic
political institutions that we have. Among such, for the last 50 years
or so, were the spread of various movements of nationalism and so on.
Democracy has become a very common delightful aspiration, but
since it is something to which they aspire, something which they do
not have yet but hope to have, their ideas of it are necessarily rather
vague. They are different from ours because when we speak of
democracy we speak of defending something that we have, not of a
hope of something that we might get.
Accordingly in such counties, and this was extremely important in
China during the war and at the end of the war, democracy not only
in the Chinese language but in a number of other languages in cen-
tral Asia, India, Indonesia, .and so on, very often to the man in the
street or the man in the village, comes to mean a more tolerable kind
of life than we have. Remember, we are dealing with populations and
that the vast majority have a day-to-day life that is not easily tolerable.
Now, when you come up against the Soviet frontier you find many
communities closely similar, originally closely similar, to the com-
munities that are not within the Russian frontier. The Russian
frontier was formed there historically by the Russians stopping along
a line not because, or not always because, they had come to a natural
frontier, but just because they had reached the limit of expansion, so
that you can take a people and half of them had been taken under
Russian rule and half had been left outside of Russian rule.
Now, in Soviet Central Asia, which is the part of the world I was
writing about in that passage, there have been since the Russian
Revolution, and it would be foolish for us to close our eyes to the fact,
very considerable material improvements in people's lives. A great
many people are still poor, poorly dressed, and perhaps not adequately
fed. On the other hand, the number of people who can get an educa-
tion, who can go on to a career better than their ancestors had, and
all that kind of thing â€” they can become engineers, doctors, and one
thing and another â€” has greatly increased.
The people next to them, but not under Soviet rule, very often envy
them, and since in their political vocabularly democracy means some-
thing that it would be nice to have "but we haven't got it," they very
easily apply it to what they know about on the Soviet side of the
Mr. Morgan. When you referred, therefore, to the democracy which
they saw on the Russian side of the border, you were not referring to
democracy in the sense of the definition you gave us, then; is that
Mr. Fortas. Do you have that passage, Mr. Morgan ?
Mr. Morgan. Suppose we pass that until we get to it. I am sorry
we got diverted there.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 839
Dr. LATTi:NtoRE. I just niioht as well make the point at the. moment
that in the general treatment of that question I carefully pointed out
that these people who are in contact with something under Kussian
rule that to a certain extent they envy or would like to have are also
people who are entirely out of touch with us, and are therefore not in a
i)osition to make a comparison between our democracy and what they
tend to call democracy in Russia.
JSIr. MoKGAX. Well, of course, when I read it, for example, Dr.
Latt imore, I did not find that you were expressing it in such terms. I
could see, for example, their seeing a better school or better conditions
across the border, but when they see the democracy across the border
that left me with the impression that you conceived of the situation
there as a democratic one, and that is all I am talking about now.
Dr. Lati'imoke. Yes. I go on with the development of that idea
there, and then I speak of this man, any man, in this heart of central
Asia, who ma}- be told that these people are free and have democi-acy.
If he is then told that in distant America nobody considers that there
is either freedom or democracy in the Soviet Union, he is going to
shrug his shoulders. He is not in contact with the American system
and for him it forms no basis of action.
I might add something to that from recent experience. I don't
know whether on this occasion I should speak freely about the affairs
of another country, but I will go ahead. I?tcently when I was in
Afghanistan I asked the members of the foreign western community,
mainl}" diplomats whom I met in the capital of Afghanistan, whether
there was any overt Russian or Afghanistan propaganda going on
in the country. All of them except one said "No." The one excep-
tion was a man who had spent most of his life in countries close to
the Soviet frontier, and spoke several of the languages. He shrugged
his shoulders. He said, "I think the answer to your question is that
just across the frontier of this country at a certain point there is a
large Russian development enterprise going on. A big city is spring-
ing up. There are factory chimneys. The trams run. There are
movies and people who formerly were very humble shepherds, or
the kind of farmer who plows with a wooden plow, are getting em-
ployment in that town in ways which to them are exciting and new."
He said, "That town doesn't happen to be within the territory of this
country, but I think that its existence is very powerful propaganda
in this country."
Mr. Morgax. Perhaps I can dispose of all of this by asking you
a simple question now. Do you regard the Soviet system as a demo-
Dr. Lattimore. Under our definition, the definition that I have
just given, certainly not. On the other hand, it would only be fair
to say that so far as I know about Russia, and remember I don't know
the typically Russian parts of Russia. The only parts of Russia in
which I spent any time at all are these frontier districts in which/
ver}' often the Russians are outnumbered by non-Russian people. Idi