these districts which I know you might say that there exists a cer-
tain group of democratic practices which somewhat resemble an un-
fiuiiished house of which the first story has been built and the second
not added.

6S970 — 50 — pt. 1 — —54



840 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"

That is, very often in, as far as I have seen, country villages and
little towns, there does appear to he a system of election and rep-
resentation, and those people run their own affairs on a local scale.
Then on top, where they have a democratic structure that goes all
the way on up to the highest offices of the country, the Russian sys-
tem seems to stop and instead there is an all-pervading Communist
Party which in sessions of its own works out policy lines. These
policy lines are then handed down to people who are told to do what
has been decided, and that is definitely not democratic. In Russia any-
thing that we would recognize as democracy either does not exist or
I do not know about it.

Mr. Morgan. There has been one phase of your writings brought
into question here, and I would like to refer to it, since we are dis-
cussing the subject of democracy.

In the September 1938 edition of Pacific Affairs, at the time when
you were editor, there appears an article written by William Henry
Chamberlain, I think you mention Mr. Chamberlain in your state-
ment. In the article he is, to speak generally, critical of the Moscow
trials. Thereafter, as editor, you make some observations concerning
Mr. Chamberlain's criticism, and without reading it all, I want to
read the concluding paragraph of your observations concerning the
Chamberlain statement.

Mr. FoRTAS. Mr. Morg;an, please, what page?

Mr. Morgan. Page 371, the last paragraph.

After taking issue with Mr. Chamberlain in certain aspects of the
situation, you say :

The real point, of course, for those who live in democratic countries is whether
the discovery of the conspiracies was a triumph for dmocracy or not. I think
that this can easily he he determined. Tlie accounts of the most widely read
Moscow correspondents all emphasize that since the close scrutiny of every person
in a responsihle position, following the trials, a great many abuses have been
discovered and rectified. A lot depends on whether yon emphasize the discovery
of the aliuse or the rectification of it ; but habitual rectification can hardly do
anytliing but give the ordinary citizen more courage to protest, loudly, whenever
in the future he finds himself being victimized by "someone in the party" or
"someone in the government." That sounds to me lilve democi-acy.

Would you care to make any observation on that?

Dr. Lattimore. Surely. Incidentally, yesterday I spoke with Mr.
Demaree Bess, who is mentioned here, because I quoted him as Mr.
Chamberlain's successor as Moscow correspondent, and I spoke of this
l^assage, and he laughed and said, "Well, you certainly were off base
that time."

Nevertheless, I do not think that I was off base. The point here is
that, following the practice of Pacific Affairs, we had an article on
the other side in which someone had praised the conduct of the Moscow^
trials, and I think there is where the phrase "triumph of democracy"
comes from. The question of "triumph for democracy" then was not
my phrase, but one which I was quoting that had come up in the course
of this controversy, and I as editor was trying to close the controversy,
oecause that was a quarterly magazine and in a magazine that comes
out every 3 months you can't carry on the thing forever and ever. I
stressed something Mr. Demaree Bess has published; and there were
also other correspondents whom I mentioned here at that time who
were rei)orting that since the close scrutiny of every person in a re-



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 841

sponsible position followino- the trials, a jrreat many abuses had been
discovered and rectified. 1 then eini)hasized the idea that when the
ordinary citizen can have more courafjje to protest loudly whenever
in the future he finds himself victimized by someone in the party or
someone in the Government, that sounds to me like democracy — not
like tlie triumph of democracy, but like democracy. In other words,
I was i)raisin<> what perhaps too optimistically sceemed to be a change
at the time from the original Russian system of authority and what I
thought was the hopeful sign that people were beginning to have
courage to protest when they were ridden over roughshod by party
functionaries.

Mr. JNIoRGAN. You still feel, therefore, that the handling of the
^vloscow trials sounds like democracy to you?

Dr. Laitimore. I think I was speaking there of the results of the
^Moscow trials. The result of the Moscow^ trials was that people
weie beofinniuff to talk back to officials if the officials were too
dictatorial.

The ho})e did not develop, as we know. After that there were
farther trials, and since then the system in Russia has become more
rigid, not less rigid ; but what I was reacting to was what seemed to me
a hopeful symptom at that time that it was becoming less rigid.

Senator McMahox. It certainly was pretty rigid for the ones they
stood up against a wall and shot.

Dr. Lattimore. It certainly was.

Mr. MoRGAX. This morning I think all of us, in reading page D7 of
your statement, were somewhat impressed with the quotation that
appeared in one of the series of recommendations that you gave
Chiang. The passage to which I refer is the one quoted there, as
follows :

It is i-eeom mended that China immediately adopt political methods that will
decrease the present Communist influence in Outer Mongolia and prevent the
Chinese Communists from replacing the Russians as a source of Communist
ideas and influence in Outer Mongolia.

This expression, "replacing the Russians," confuses me a little, Dr.
Lattimore. Will you amplify on that a bit?

Dr. Lattimore. Yes.

Outer Mongolia, since the early 1920's, has been a country that has
defied Chinese authority successfully. Let's put it this way : There has
been no question whether Outer Mongolia has been de facto independ-
ent of China. The question has often been raised whether it was de
facto independent of Russia. That is a separate question. It was
definitely independent of China.

At this point the Generalissimo, as part of his over-all view of the
world situation — and remember that that was in the summer of 1941,
when the Russians were extremely hard-pressed and when for the
British also victory lay down a very long and hard road; the Chinese
were also having an extremely tough time, and the Generalissimo
wanted to put up an idea of a new treaty between Russia, China, and
Britain, all of which were defending tliemselves, that would not only
strengthen their defense position during the war but make it easier
to stabilize their postwar relations on a long-term basis.

As part of that he was extremely anxious to clarify and solidify and
strengthen the frontier between China and Russia. He asked me to



842 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

telegraph this idea to Washington, which I did. You ^yill find that
part of the telegram— and that is why I can talk about this freely—
has been published. It can be found in Robert Sherwood's Roosevelt

and Hopkins. . , ,. , i

The idea didn't come off, and I won't go nito that further, but as part
of the preparation for implementing the idea if it should come off
the Generalissimo asked me, as an expert on Mongolia and central
Asia, to prepare a memorandum on problems and suggested methods of
handling the Mongolian question for China, which I did.

I started from the point that Mongolia at that time, and for some 15
years ; no, for nearly 20 years, had been— we were not using the term
then, but what we would now call a satellite of Russia. I don't know
the exact forms of Russian control or domination, but it had beeu
very close to Russia. It had a Mongol Government, but there were
Russian advisers in there, and it was quite obvious that no questions of
hiirh policy were decided without the Russians.

Senator Hickenlooper. What year was this?

Dr. Lattimore. 1941.

Now, if the Chinese were to succeed in a diplomatic move v.hich
would get the Mongols to recognize Chinese sovereignty again, thdy
would improve their territorial position by reuniting Mongolia with
China. But the Mongolia that would be reunited with China would be
a Mongolia that had been deeply penetrated if not permeated by Rus-
sian ideas for about 20 years. Therefore it would be an advantage to
China to get the territory back, yet there would be a very serious

problem. , « tt i n

What about the political ideas of these people i How do we ht
them into the Chinese community again ?

Therefore I said, if they are detached from Russia in this way, there
will be a firm frontier between Mongolia and Russia, but your Chinese
Communists are up here in the north, and tliere may be a coming to-
irether of Communist-minded Mongols and Communist-minded Chi-
nese ; therefore, vou are going to have a problem, and accordingly in
order to handle that problem you should, in good tim.e, set up a plan
of operation that will give these Mongols, if they can be newly united
with China, a stake, something to their own benefit, in a non-Commu-
nist association with a non-Communist China. And that is the
way to handle this problem, and the details are to a certain extent
worked out in that memorandum.

Of course the whole thing is over the dam now because the treaty
never came off, and at the end of the war the Chinese recognized the
independence of Outer Mongolia.

, Mr. Morgan. I appreciate the explanation very much. Dr. Latti-
more. I might suggest that we have a long way to go here, and if
you can in justice to the answer shorten it a bit, fine. If not, go ahead
and elaborate any way you see fit.

Senator Green. Will you kindly state whether this whole memoran-
dum has ever been published?

Di-. Lattimore. No, sir. None of the memorandums that I wrote for
the generalissimo have ever been published.

Senator Green. Would you be authorized to publish it in part now?

Dr. Lattimore. I said this morning, Senator, that I thought that I
really should not take the responsibility of publishing or asking to
have published any memorandums of this kind.



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 843

Senator Greex. But you have taken the responsibility, nevertheless,
in iniblishing part of it.

Dr. Lattimore, Yes. 1 would never have done so if a totally un-
justifiable attack on my person had not forced me to do so in self-
defense. I have given "the whole memorandum to the committee, but
have asked the connnittee if in its discretion it would refrain from put-
ting the whole memorandum on the record.

Senator Green. The extracts from the memorandum you have pub-
lished, and not in response to any question.

Dr. Lattimore. This one paragraph.

Senator Green. Yes.

Mr. FoRTAs. Mr. Chairman, perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
This morning it was agreed that the entire memorandum would be
handed to the chairman.

Senator Green. I was here and remember that, but I am asking Mr.
Lattimore how he justifies the publication here of part of this memo-
randum without any authority from the person to whom it was
addressed.

Dr. Lattimore. Senator, these memorandums are not in the same
class as classified documents of the United States. These are personal
memorandums presented by me to the generalissimo, and when I left
Chungking I spoke to the generalissimo about it, and I was allowed
to take with me anything of the kind as my personal possession.
Therefore, so far as declassification is concerned, I can declassify the
whole thing if I want to. It is not a matter of regulation ; it is simply
a matter that I liave the personal feeling that so long as the man for
whom I worked is still the head of even a nominal government, I do
not tliink it would be becoming for me to publish all these documents
in wliole. but I liave the riglit to publish any P'^^i't of them that I want,
and I liave the riglit to publish the whole of it if I want to, and the
committee may overrule me and publish the whole memorandum if it
wants to. It is simply a question on my part that I do not think it is a
fitting thing to do.

Senator Green. But do you think it is fitting to quote from it ?

Dr. Lattimore. Certainly.

Senator Green. I just wanted to get your point of view as to the
proprieties, that was all.

Dr. Latfimore. All that I quoted there was the specific fact, and,
after all, it is a hypothetical question now, a question of the reuniting
of Mongolia and China, but I thought it was perfectly fitting to show
that my attitude toward their hypothetical question was not one of
promoting communism or communization.

Senator Green. I had understood you to state you were confiden-
tial adviser to Chiang Kai-shek.

Dr. Lattimore. That is right.

Senator Green. So you did not I'egard this as a confidential
communication ?

Dr. Lattimore. That was at the time a highly confidential docu-
ment. The reason that I selected it is because the whole question has
since gone by the boards, and the redeveloping of it does not hamper
the diplomatic moves of anybody, because the whole thing, so far as
that is concerned, is a dead issue.



844 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

But there is no question but that at any time it has been in my
discretion to publisli part or all of this and other documents if I
want to.

Mr. Morgan. Referring now to page D9 of your statement, in the
second paragraph there appears this sentence :

I have not had the slightest desire to prove innocence by association, which
I regard as about as fallacious as trying to prove guilt by association.

Dr. Lattimore, does your revulsion at endeavoring to establish guilt
by association in the field of communism also apply in the field of
fascism? In other words, do you regard it as reprehensible and
objectionable. Is it fallacious to endeavor to hold one guilty of
Fascist practices, by association, as you indicate is the case in showing
that one may be Communist by reasons of associations?

Dr. Lattimore. Certainly.

Mv. Morgan. On pages D 11 and D 12, you make a very pointed
statement which you presented to us this morning relative to the free-
dom of American scholars to think and talk and write, as they hon-
estly feel they should.

I am merely asking for more information here. On pages D-11 and
D-12 you make a very pointed statement which you presented to us
with some vehemence this morning relative to the freedom of American
scholars to think and talk and write as they honestly feel they should.
I am merely asking for information here. Do you mean to imply
there, Dr. Lattimore, that you feel it is not a proper province to in-
quire into the character and the purport of writings wherein it ap-
pears that they have a degree of parallel, or do parallel programs that
may at any time be regarded as inimical to the best interests of this
country ?

Dr. Lattimore. I shall always attack any writings that I consider
to be directly promoting fascism or in-omoting communism. The ques-
tion of whether a person is guilty of fascism by association is a sep-
arate question. But I think that all writings should be subject to the
scrutiny and open criticism. The point that I was making was the
kind of paralyzing attack that I have been subjected to by calling
writings of mine Communist or party line when they were not.

Mr. Morgan. That is why I want you to make every observation
you wish to, Dr. Lattimore, about your writings.

Dr. Lattimore. That is why I appreciate the letter that I quoted
from Dr. Linebarger, in which he said that he had disagreed with me
right down the line in various capacities for a number of years, but
that he considered that there was a difference between disputing my
ideas as ideas, and carrying on an attack on my person.

Mr. Morgan. What I had in mind is, you are not presuming to sug-
gest that a committee of Congress may not properly inquire into mat-
ters of this kind?

Dr. LATriJiORE. Decidedly not. What I object to is the impro-
priety of Senator McCarthy getting up and making all these allega-
tions which he has not even attempted to prove — "top espionage
agent," "Soviet agent," "Communist" and all the rest of it. and he has
repeatedly refused to say so in an area where I can debate the issues
as a scholar should be allowed to debate the issue.

Mr. Morgan. In your statement, going back to the testimony of
Mr. Budenz, you imply, if not state pointedly, that Mr. Budenz has



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOX 845

not told tlie committee tlie truth. I am wondering, Dr. Lattimore, if
you liave found any instance in winch Mr. Budenz has not told the
truth incident to his some 12 appearances before various bodies.

Dr. Laitimore. An instance in which he has not told the truth ?

Mr. ]\IoRGAX. My thought here is this? We here have a witness
who has appeared many, many times on many different situations and
issues. We have alreatly an indication, at "least, that your belief is
that he has not told this committee the truth. I am wondering if you
base that on the fact that anywhere Mr. Budenz has thus far not told
the truth in his testimony.

Dr. Lattimore. 1 have no way of knowing the truth or falsity of
any of his previous testimony about other people or other issues. I
do know, and I deeply resent, the lies he has told about me.

]\ir. Morgan. Well, Dr. Lattimore, it seems to me — and correct me
if I am wrong — that Mr. Budenz's testimony related to what he had
been told by others, which you could not know, of course, and I am
wondering if his stating what he has indicated was told him is a
basis for your concluding that his statement was not the truth.

Mr. FoRTAS. Oh, now, Mr. Morgan, after all. Your questioning of
this witness, it seems to me, is highly objectionable. The last question
implies that you, and I know this is not true, attach a greater dignity
to hearsay testimony than to direct statements. This witness, Mr. Lat-
timore, has testified at length as to just what he characterizes as lies in
Mr. Budenz's testimony, and if you want him to repeat that state-
ment, I am sure he can obi ige you.

Mr. Morgan. I want him to answer my question, Mr. Fortas.

Dr. Lattimore. I should like to add, Mr. Morgan, that Budenz testi-
fied to hearsay evidence that I was actually carrying out Communist
directives and organizing writers on behalf of the Communists. That
is a lie. It is a lie if it was told to Budenz, and it is a lie when he
repeats it.

Mr. ]MoRGAN. We are getting now to the point I wanted cleared up
for the record.

In other words, when you refer to the fact that Mr. Budenz has
not told this committee the truth, you mean that what he says he was
told by others is not the truth ; is that correct ?

Dr. Lattimore. "He says he was told by others." That has been
denied by others. I don't know whether anybody else told Budenz
anything or not. I don't know what weight the committee may place
on the testimony of one ex-Communist, or practicing Communist,
versus another ex-Communist.

My point is that I have been lied about, and Budenz may have in-
vented that right out of old cloth, or he may have repeated it. I think
he has invented it out of old cloth.

Mr. ]\IoRGAN. I merely wanted to get on the record the apparent
discrepancy. I am not attaching significance to anyone or any bit
of testimony. I do believe that we have here some very pointed indi-
cations concei-iiing ]\Ir. Budenz's veracity, one way or the other. I
merely wanted to clarify it for the record at this point.

On page Y6 of your statement, you say [reading] :

The world is now grouped in tliree major divisions. In one, the capitalist
economic system and democratic political system are vigorous and unshaken. In
another the Communist, or strictly speaking the Socialist, political system is now
permanently established, and identified with a collectivist economic system.



846 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

Do yoii make a distinction, Dr. Lattimore, between a Communist
and a Socialist system?

Dr. Lattimore. The Communists and Socialists both make that
distinction, and I repeat the distinction here. I am not enough of a
specialist on either communism or socialism to tell you the exact dif-
ference. The British Government, for instance, is certainly a Socialist
government. Again it is very obviously different from the Soviet
Government, it is a democratic government, as well as a Socialist
government. But I know from the literature that the Communists
themselves always refer to their government and th.eir social and
economic as well as their political system as being Socialist rather
than Communist.

Mr. Morgan. The position that you take with respect to the third
element, which you neither characterize as Conununist, Socialist, or,
let us say. Democratic, or ])ro-United States, that element, as I under-
stand it insofar as American policy is concerned, is not to be ap-
proached with the idea of projecting any positive American entree
into such countries: is that the idea?

Dr. Lattimore. That refers to such countries, such very different
countries, as Britain, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and so forth. I
think that as third countries, which are not now and are not likely
to come under our control, we should do everything in our power to
project our ideas, to help create conditions which may make those
countries become more like us, but as far as politics are concerned,
we cannot assume that any of these countries will make itself over
exactly in our image.

Mr. Morgan. Well, if I am correct in my interpretation of some
recent statements made by the American Secretary of State, he con-
templates some such approaclies to such peoples. Are you in dis-
agreement with his policy in that respect ?

Dr. Lattimore. I am sorry ; I have been kept so busy for the last
month that I am not up to date on any recent statements. If you
could give me the text

Mr. Morgan. I think perhaps I am getting a little far afield even
there, Dr. Lattimore, so we will not pursue that any further.

Getting back to some matters clearly on the record here that I w^ould
like to have clarified; in your testimony, I believe, originally, you
referred to a meeting with Mr. Earl Browder in 1936. Mr. Browder
in testifying before our committee stated that he had never seen you.
Manifestly we have, on our record, at least, a little discrepancy.
Would you care to amplify as to the meeting, when it was, where it
was?

Dr. Lattimore. I can't recall very clearly when the meeting took
place. To the best of my recollection it was sometime in the fall of
1936. As I said in my statement, I was hoping to open some leads
which might lead to sources of information about the Chinese Com-
munists, because I was going to China. I am not at all surprised Mr.
Browder doesn't recall the occasion because, as I said, I went down
there to call on him, I got a very quick brush-off, about a minute and
a half, and it is not surprising at all that he doesn't rec_all it.

Mr. Morgan. That occurred in New York City, did it?

Dr. Lattimore. Yes.

Mr. Morgan. In connection with the expression we have here about
your being or not being the architect of our foreign policy in the Far



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 847

East, and tlie statements that have recently been made by three former
Secretaries of State and the ])resent Secretary of State to the effect
that you had nothinir to do with it so far as they were concerned, what
has been the extent of your acquaintance. Dr. Lattimore, with employ-
ees of the State Department in the Far Eastern Section?

I don't want to oo into a long discussion, if we can avoid it, but I
think that it would help us a great deal if you could go into your
association with them and develop that a bit for the record.

Dr. Lattimore. Well, naturally, Mr. Morgan, since I was living in
Peking through most of the thirties, and part of the twenties, I met
and got to know socially, more or less well, from casual acquaintance to
very good friendship, a number of members of onr Foreign Service,
some of whom have since risen to positions of considerable authority.
I knew them, as I knew other Americans in the Far East, and I talked
with them, as I talked with businessmen, about situations in China, the
way things were running, prospects of the future, all that kind of thing.