STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 93

have been or are iio-sv highly placed officials of the Department of State
of the United States.

Tlieir names are: T. A. Bisson, Owen Lattimore, David H. Popper,
and William T. Stone.

In the June 6, 1946, issue of the Washinoton Times-Herald there
api)ears an article entitled "How Come?" written by Mr. Frank C.
"\Val(h()i>, editorial directoi- of that newspaper, whicli will be exhibit
28.

Shortly, I shall read that article into the record, but I should like
to mention in passing that of the 57 instructors in the orientation con-
ference and training programs for personnel of the Foreign Service
and the Department of State, all but three were Government officials.
Those three were Dr. Edward C. Acheson, director of the School of
Foreign Service and brother of the present Secretary of State; Prof.
Owen Lattimore of Johns Hopkins University, and Prof. Frederick L.
Schuman, of Williams College, Williamstown, Mass.

But more of this gentleman later.

When Mr. Waldrop asked ''How come?" he was getting closer to a
sordid picture than he imagined.

Here is what he had to say :

Herewith an item that may ])e of interest to Secretary of State Jimmy Byrnes
who is doing liis level best these days to cope with J. Stalin's bucking broncos of
the Kremlin.

Whether he finds it interesting or not, he certainly could with profit ask a
few questions about a project in his own shop going by the title of the "Orienta-
tion Conference and Training Programs for Personnel of the Foreign Office and
the Department of State."

The writer of this piece sat in, uninvited, yesterday on one of those training
projects and found it nothing more or less than an example to diplomats on
how to needle a man whose back is turned — in this case Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

I might say to the committee that while I am going back a number
of yeais, I think you must go back a number of years to develop the
complete picture. [Continues reading :]

To begin at the beginning, the State Department has a Division of Training
Services which has the very valuable assignment of making better diplomats of
the departmental forces.

As a part of this, there are scheduled for every workday from Monday through
Friday all this month, a series of lectures by supposed experts on subjects of
importance in diplomacy.

Don't give u.p. It concerns you too, because the State Department is sup-
posed to look out for the interests of the United States between wars and you
live here.

Of ~)7 instructors listed to give the developing diplomats the real dope on their
business, all but three are Government officials.

The tbree exceptions are: Dr. Edward C. Acheson, director of the School of
Foreign Service at the George Washington University here and brother of Under
Secretary of State Dean Acheson : Prof. Owen Lattimore, of .lohns Hopkins
University, Baltimore; and Prof. Frederick L. Schuman, of Williams College,
Williamstown, Mass.

Lattimore is a bosom pal of Henry Wallace, th«; great mind of the ages now
trying to decide whether he can best save the world by staying on in Truman's
Cabinet to bore from within or by resigning to bore from without.

Lattimore also hangs out with other i>ersons less well known, to an extent
that ought to give .1. Byrnes some pause.

.Tust an item: He was formerly on the editorial board of Amerasia. the pro-
Soviet magazine that got caught in possession of confidential State Department
documents in 1944 with the result that an editor and a State Department em-
ployee were convicted and fined.

Lattimore also has described Stalin's blood purges of 1936-39 as a "triumph
for democracy," and that, friends, is just a slight sample.

He's clever, but you invariably find him in all those old familiar places when
you check up. Consider his performance of yesterday.



94 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

Most people have the impression that on the record and the evidence the wel-
fare of the United States is better looked after in Japan with Gen. Douglas
MacArthnr in sole command than in Germany, where a four-cornered quarrel
over the remains grows worse and worse.

To all of this, Dr. Lattimore yesterday issued an hoiir-long "na-a-a-a-ah, it's
lousy." His line is that the Japs have outsmarted IMacArthur in that they are
holding onto a "conservative" agricultural policy and occasionally rescue one
of their industrialists, bankers, and so forth, from the hangman's rope.

Match that up, citizens, with what you've been hearing from Moscow, if you
both'er to listen. And match up with it the realization that such a thought is
the best offered our State Department help as expert inside dope on the Far
East.

How come the State Department has to drag in Owen Lattimore to tell what's
what in the Orient? Hasn't the Department got anybody on its own staff
who knows anything?

And as for the baby lined up for June 19 — that F. L. Schuman — ^he's all too
well known around here, especially to people who have read the record of the
Dies committee.

But if you don't already know what he is, you can get him completely in a
fla.sh by turning to page 582 of his latest book, Soviet Politics at Hmue and
Abroad, wherein he states "The Russian adventure marks a long forward stride
toward human mastery of man's fate * * *."

This again, Mr. Chairman, is referring to a man who is called in
to lecture our diplomats. He says in his book :

The Russian adventure marks a long forward stride toward human mastery
of man's fate. * * *

That is how the State Department's expert instructor on United States Soviet
relations sums up Stalin's behavior and the almost 28 bloody years of Commu-
nist dictatorship in Russia.

No wonder State Department secret documents leak. No wonder Jimmy
Byrnes goes to conferences with Molotov and comes staggering home asking
who touched off the blast.

This writer plans to sit in on Schuman's June 19 performance, if it comes off,
and will try to report on same in this space. That is, of course, if they don't
lock the door first.

Thus we have the officials of the State Department again warned
of a man who by any "yardstick of loyalty*' could not possibly be a
good security risk.

Mr. Lattimore himself is a prolific writer and there is no lack of
material for the committee to ascertain exactly where this man stands
in the political scheme of things.

The Reverend James F. Kearney, S. J., writing in the Colinnbia
magazine of September 1949, gives more first-hand information of
great value to the committee. This magazine is published by the
Knights of Columbus, the most prominent order of Catholic laymen
in America.

Here is what Reverend Kearney wrote :

Who or what has so vitiated the opinion of intelligent Americans on the China
question?

This article was in September, 1949 :

Until recently, despite the dust that has been deliberately thrown in American
eyes by pink correspondents, the question could be stated so clearly and simply
that granuuar school students could grasp it. Having explained it to grammar
school students, I know. Here it is, expressed in monosyllabic words : "If the
Reds win out tliere, we lose. If they lose, we win." Well, for all practical pur-
poses, the Reds have now won, and in consequence we and the Chinese have lost.
For communism it is the greatest triumph since the Russian revolution ; for us,
though few Americans yet fully realize it, it is perhaps the greatest disaster in
our history; and the end is not yet. Who is responsible? It wasn't a one-man
job ; short-sighted Chinese officials contributed 50 percent. There are those who



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 95

believe, though, that no Americans deserve more credit for tliis Russian triumph
and Sino-American disaster than Owen Lattiniore and a small group of his
followers.

Owen Lattiniore, contid.-int of two United States Pre.sidents, adviser to our
State Department, author of 10 books about the Far P^ast, where he has 25 years
of travel and study to his credit, was born in Washington, D. C, but after a few
months was taken to North China. At 12 he went to study in Switzerhmd, then
In Eiiirhmd, and returned to China as a newsman before taking up exploration,
particularly in Manchuria and Mongolia. He then studied in Peipinii', first on
a I'eUowship from the Harvartl Yenching Foundation and later on a John Simon
GuggenJieim Memorial Foundation fellowship, knows the Chinese, Mongolian,
and Russian languages well.

Returning to the United States at the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war in
I'JoT. a year later he became directm' of the Walter Hines Page School of Inter-
national" Relations of .Johns Hopkins Univer.sity, a post he still holds.

Iiicidentall}', he has held that post, I believe, all through the time
he has acted as State Department consultant.

In 1941 he was for 6 months President Roosevelt's political adviser to Gen-
eralissimo Chiang Kai-shek, then returned to the States to enter the OWI, be-
coming deputy director to the overseas branch in charge of Pacific operations.
In June, 1!>44. he and J. Carter Vinent, later to head the Far Eastern Bureau of
the State Department, accompanied Henry Wallace of the State Department on
a diplomatic tour of Siberia and free China.

So high does Owen Lattimore stand in Washington that it is said the only
two books on President Truman's desk when he announced Japan's surrender
were newsman John Gunther's Inside Asia and Lattimore's Solution in Asia.
Lattimore was next named special economic adviser to Edwin V. Pauley, head
of the postwar economic mission to Tokyo. Though not an authority on Japan,
he did not he.sitate to criticize former Ambassador Jo.seph C. Grew's plan,
adopted by MacArthur, to govern the Japanese people through the Emperor.
He believed that the Emperor and all his male heirs should be interned in China
and a republic set up in Japan.

In this thoroughly distinguished orientalist's career there are many disturbing
features. For example, in fornier Red Louis Budenz' March 19, 1949, Collier's
article, entitled "The Menace of Red China," we read "Most Americans, during
World War II fell for the Moscow line that the Chinese Communists were not
really Communists, but agrarian reformers. Tliat is just what Moscow wanted
Americans to believe. Even many naive Government officials fell for it. This
deception of United States officials and public was the result of a planned cam-
paign ; I helped to plan it. The No. 1 end was a Chinese coalition government in
which Chiang would accept the agrarian reformers, at the insistence of the
United States. We could work through legitimate Far East organizations and
writers that were recognized as 'Oriental authorities.' Frederick V. Field em-
phasized use of the Institute of Pacific Relations. The agrarian reformers idea
started from there. It took root in leading Far East cultural groups in the
United Statt^s, spread to certain policymaking circles in the State Department
and broke into prominent position in the American press. The Communists
were successful in impressing their views on the United States State Department
simply by planting articles with the proper slant in such magazines as Far
Eastern Survey, Pacific Affairs and Amerasia. Both Far Eastern Survey and
Pacific Affairs "are publications of the Institute of Pacific Relations. This is not
a Communist organization."

I might say for the benefit of Father Kearney that the Califoriiia
Committee on Un-American Activities cited the Institute of Pacific
Relations as a Communist front organization.

Senator Tydixgs. You have been just quoting for the record Mr.
Budenz' article in Collier's magazine?

Senator McCarthy. That is correct.

Where does Mr. Lattimore come in? From 1934 to 1941 he was editor of
Pacific Affairs. Freda Utley mentions him in two of her books. In her Last
Chance in Cliina she tells how ^Moscow, where .she then worked as a Communist,
was able to help its friends and discomfit its enemies in the Far East thanks
to the Institute of Pacific Relations, and that Mr. Lattimore was among those
Americans who came to Moscow for help and advice (p. 193).



96 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

I may inject here, if I may, that while I have not been in touch
with Freda Utley, I believe that she would be one of the valuable wit-
nesses on whom the committee could call. She is a former Communist,
apparently has completely reformed, and is apparently a very in-
telligent woman.

Senator Tydings. Is she the Polisli lady who went in there and
came back and became an American citizen ?

Senator McCarthy. I don't know her national background.

Senator Tydings. I have them mixed up, I suppose.

Senator McCarthy (continues reading) :

In her Lost Illusion (p. 194) she refers to the same 1936 Moscow meeting:
"The whole staff of our Pacitic Ocean cabinet had an all-day session at the
institute with E. C. Carter, Owen Lattimore, and Harriet Moore, leading lights of
the Institute of Pacific Relations."

Understand, I am now quoting from a person who apparently sat
in tight with the Communists at that time.

"I was a little surprised at the time that these Americans should defer so
often and so completely to the Russian viewpoint. Owen Lattimore found it
difficult at first to submit to the discipline required of the Friends of the Soviet
Union. He told me a few months later in Londcm how he had almost lost his
I>osition as editor of Pacific Affairs because he had published an article by the
Trotskyist Harold Isaacs. In later years in the United States it did not astonish
me to "find the Institute of Pacific Relations following the same general lines
as the Daily Worker in regard to China and .Japan."

Henry Wallace never claimed to be an expert on the Far East. How much,
if any, of his report after returning from the Siberia-China visit was written or
suggested by the oriental expert, I\Ir. Lattimore, I do not know. One thing
emerges, however : After their return, the American policy which has proved so
disastrous for both Chinese and American interests and so helpful to Russia was
put into effect and is still being pursued. Lattimore's solution in Asia was
described by one reviewer as "an ai)peal to Chiang Kai-shek to free himself from
the galling yoke (of the Kuomintaiig) and to set free the democratic forces
which have proved effective in northwestern China,' for example, the Chinese
Reds. That book is again referred to in an article by ex-Conununist Max East-
man and J. B. Powell in a June, 1945, Reader's Digest article, The Fate of the
World Is at Stake in China, wherein they blast the deception that Russia is a
democracy and that the Chinese can therefore safely be left to Russian influence.
Owen Lattimore is perhaps the most subtle evangelist of this erroneous con-
ception.

Mr. Lattimore praised the net result of the Moscow trials and the blood purge
))y which Stalin secured his dictatorship in 19nr>-,'?I) as a triumph for democracy.
He now urges our Government, in Solution in Asia, to accept cheerfully the
spread of the Soviet form of democracy in Central Asia. His publishers thus
indicate the drift of his book: "He (Mr. 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, than they are in the fine theories
of Anglo-Saxon democracies which come coupled with ruthless imperialism."
Does that sound as if Mr. Lattimore, a top advi.ser on our Far Eastern affairs, is
on our team?

The same article continues with a prophecy which has just about come true:
"If Russian dictatorship spreads its tentacles across China the cause of democ-
racy (for example. United States style) in Asia is lost. As is well known, these
tentacles need not include invading Soviet troops, but only the native Commu-
nist Parties now giving allegiance to the Soviet Union and taking their direc-
tives from Moscow. When these Couuuunist Parties get control of a neighbor-
ing state the Moscow dictatorship and its fellow travelers call that a friendly
government. It is by means of these Conununist-controlled friendly govern-
ments — not by Soviet military conquest — that Russian power and totalitarian
tyranny is spreading from the Soviet Union, in Asia as in Europe."

That* is perhaps good background for the current slogan of Mr. Lattimore and
his loyal followers, Edgar Snow, Ted White, Richard Lauterbach, Harvard's
Fairbank, and many an ex-OWI man, that there's nothing much for America to
worry about because Mao Tse-tung's communism is a nationalist movement.



STATE DEPAKTMEAT e:MPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 97

A moment's reflection should make it clear that the very last thing a real
riiinese nationalist would do would he to swallow hook, line, and sinker the
doctrine of Karl Marx, a (lerman Jew, who besides lieing a foreigner lias la
system that .uoes coiuiter to every Cliinese instinct and evei-y tradition in the
Chinese concept of society.

This recalls an incident a Belgian prie>st related to me in Shanghai a year and
a half ago. He had become a Chinese citizen, and when the Chinese Reds occu-
]tled his church in North Cliina they followed the usual custom (which is proba-
bly new to Mr. Lattimore) of putting up the pictures of Marx and Stalin in tlie
place of honor above the high altar, with those of Mao Tse-tung and Chu Teh
lielow. A Chinese Red then told the priest flatly, "We are going to get rid of
absolutely all foreign influence in Cliina. Our policy is China for the Chinese."
I can imagine I\Ir. Lattimore saying. "Just what I told you." But the Belgian-
Chinese replied, "And those two foreign gentlemen up there. ;\Iarx and Stalin?
When did they become Chinese citizens?"' The Red slunk silently away.

If anyone is still puzzled by the contention that the Chinese Marxists are
primarily nationalists, a glance at the Communist manifesto will clear matters
up. Though not in substance, yet in form, we read there : "The struggle of the
proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat
of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bour-
geoisie." That. I believe, .shows us wdiat is back of the present national slogan
our United States pinks apply to China's Reds. It's not authentic nationalism,
of course, as the manifesto explains later : "The Communists are reproached with
desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country.
We cannot take from them what they have not got."

The spurious nature of the nationalism of Mao Tse-tung was admitted by
Mr. Lattimore himself, perhaps unintentionally, in a tape-recorded speech he
gave in San Francisco, December 7. 1948: "The Chinese Communists never
made any bones about the fact that they are Marxists. They are Marxist Com-
munists in their international relations. They never qtiestion the Russian line.
They follow every twist and tui-n of it." That is an important admission by
Mr. Lattimore, since so many of his followers have been trying to tell us there
is no Moscow control over China's Reds. If they follow every twist and turn of
the Moscow line they are evidently not Chinese nationalists as we understand
the term, but psuedo nationalists.

A. T. Steele and Andrew Roth of the New York Herald Tribune and the
Nation, respectively, after getting out of Red Peiping recently, declared that
the Chinese Red leaders are in every sense of the word Communists who stand
squarely and faithfully for the Moscow party line, and will join the Kremlin in
the coming World War III against the imperialist powers, particularly America.
They likewise agree that while ]\Iao might possibly become an extreme nationalist
at some future date, another Tito, there is ab.solutely no evidence that this is a
factor to be seriously reckoned with for a long time, IMr. Lattimore to the con-
trary notwithstanding. Spencer Moosa, latest newsman out of Peiping, con-
firms their statements. The very first movie put on by the Reds in the auditorium
of the Catholic University in Peiping after they moved in this year was the Life
of Stalin. Need we say it was not anti-Rus-sian? And so. instance after instance
shows the very close connection between Moscow and Chinese communism that
has been witnes.sed throughout the last 28 years by intelligent observers who
have lived in Red China — where Mr. Lattimore lijis nev,er lived.

To the average American, whom the Red propaganda is intended to victimize,
it seems quite natural that Mao Tse-tung a native of China who has never
visited Moscow, should think first of China's instead of Russia's interests. Yet
how many native-born Americans are there who, once they join the party, think
nothing of selling out their country and its secrets to the Kremlin? Such is the
strange mesmerism exercised by their Moscow masters. It is. then, no harder
to understand Mao's utter devotion to the party line than it is to understand
that of P^oster, or Dennis, or Earl Browder. After all, remember, a real Com-
munist has no country. And surely Mao has pi-oved he is a 100-percent Com-
munist. Let's not be deceived any longer, then, by this fake nationalism of
China's Reds, which is the central thesis of Mr. Lattimore's recent book, The Situ-
ation in Asia.

If a man who had written 10 volumes about Africa, and thereby won a name
for himself as an authority, should nevertheless maintain that the Ne^ri^es in
Africa aren't really black but white, it would be a cause for wonder. Mr. Owen
Lattimore, who has written 10 books on Asia and is called the best informed
American on Asiatic affairs living today is doubtless well-informed on many



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

Asiatic matters but unfortunately, if we are to take his written words as an
index of liis linowledtie of China's Reds, lie is very badly misinformed about the
true color of that most important body of individuals and their whole way of
acting. Which reminds me of a recent conversation with one of Mr. Lattimore's
OWI boys who had just returned from a P, years' correspondent assignment in
iChina. I aslved him why it was that practically all of our foreign newsmen,
though supposedly educated in the American tradition of fair play, spoke entirely
of corruption in the Chiang regime but said nothing about the corruption in the
Mao regime. And this man, who was being paid for giving his American readers
an honest picture of conditions in the vital Far East, answered, "Because there
is no corruption in the Red regime." I laughed at him for wasting his 3 years
in the Orient and passed him an article showing that not only is the Red regime
•corrupt, but from every conceivable American standpoint it is conservatively 10
times more corrupt than its current opposite number.

It is probably of such men that IMr. Lattimore. in his book Situation in China
(p. 277) writes : "Hitherto American observers who have been acutely conscious
of secret police activities in Kuomintang, China, have had nothing comparable to
report from Communist China." The reason is that these official observers
Avere allowed the freedom to observe the limited activities of KMT secret policy,
while they aren't even permitted to enter Red China. Had they wished,
though, they could have learned a lot from people, some of them Americans,
who had lived in Red China. They would have heard, for instance, about the
T'ing Chung hui, or eavesdropper corps, who, after killing off all watchdogs,
creep up at night, next to the wall or on the flat roofs of North China homes, to
liear what is being said inside the family about the Communists. Children are
rewarded for si)ying on their parents and, if anyone is believed to be guilty of
ranti-Communist remarks, a terror gang swoops down at midnight and the
chances are the unfortunate victim will be discovered next morning buried alive
outside his home. This sort of secret police and terrorism combined has been
â– so universal in Red China that if ]Mr. Lattimore doesn't know about it he knows
â– extremely little of Chinese communism.

As far back as 1945 the predominant sentiment everywhere in Red areas was
fear, universal fear, fear at every instant, according to an official report of a
Frencliman, a formei' university professor from Tientsin who spent the years
from 1941 to 1945 in Red territory, and had been hailed before both Japanese
;iud Red tribunals. "It is not terror," he says, "for terror is a fear which shows
itself exteriorally. Here one must not allow his fear to be seen ; he must appear