of one faction, and I had been pointing out my conviction from public
statements and so on that that was not the case, and that we were
hoping that there would be a settlement in China, accommodation be-
tween the two parties resulting in some sort of unification or Avorking
arrangements between the two. I had mentioned, for instance, there,
that the Chinese were obviously avoiding any oifense to the Rus-
sians in the hopes that they would be able to make some sort of
arrangement with the Russians which they thought would also lead
toward a settlement of the internal problems.
As refutation of what I believe was Jaffe's reasoning, I mentioned
I think during this interview a statement which had shortly before
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTV'ESTIGATIOlSr 1407
been repeated to me by n Avriter on the Far East who had interviewed
President KooseveU shortly before his deatli.
Mr. Morris. Wliat was his name, sir?
JMr. Skrvice. His name was Snow, sir — Edgar Snow. He was
writinof at that time, and is still writing, for the Saturday Evening
Post, Snow had asked President Roosevelt some questions about our
policy in China, whether or not we were committed exclusively to
one faction, and President Roosevelt had replied "Certainly not.
We have been doing business witli both sides, and we expect to con-
tiiuie doing business Avith both sides."
And I think that in the conversation with Jaife I may have Used
as an example of the fact that we were tryino- to avoid complete com-
mitment the fact that thinking in Chungking, in the headquarters
there, was that we would probably have to expect as a matter of prac-
ticality that if we landed, although I never knew whether or not we
were, we would probably have to cooperate with whatever force we
found organized and able to be effective in assisting us.
Now, I don't recall ever having seen any military plan. I do have
a hazy recollection that a staif officer or staff officers in Chungking
consulted me at one time in regard to drawing up a memorandum
reconnnending the policy that shoidd be taken. I also had written
several memoranda on the same subject which are included among
the documents that have been presented to the Loyalty Security
Board of the State Department, and it is quite possible that I may
have mentioned to Jaffe that the headquarters thinking is, "As a
matter of practicality we are going to have to work with whoever we
find if we do that."
Mr. Morris. That is not a military plan, is it, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. No, sir: it is not a military plan, and I do not know
whether that memorandum was ever approved formally. I think it
is obvious from the second page there that there were several different
alternatives drawn up, and that this was one of the alternatives.
Mr. Morgan. You see, ]Mr. Service, why this is very significant to us,
because here on our record is this admonition to Jaffe: "Well, whati
I said about the military plans is, of course, very secret." Now mani-
festly you must have said it to Jaffe, and manifestly what has gone
before, at kast in this conversation, does not enlighten us much on
what you said about military plans. That is why I would like for you,
as much as you can. to help us on what you did tell Jaffe, apparently
prior to this admonition, which we apparently don't have.
Mr. Service. I am trying to explain as well as I can, or to reconstruct
as well as I can, the only kind of statement that I could have made,
and the one which seems to be logically consistent with the content of
this memorandum. I think that it is quite possible that I may have
mentioned to him that a memorandum had been drawn up suggesting
among our various alternatives that we would have to work with
whatever forces we found on the ground. I was not in position in
headquarters in Chungking where I had access to or had knowledge
of the military plans. The only contact I had with that was when I
was consulted by one of the officers drawing this particular
memorandum up.
Mr. ]\IoRGAX. Would you have regarded a discussion with Mr. Jaffe
of this memorandum and its contents as being military plans, in con-
templation of this admonition ?
1408 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. I don't understand why I used the word "plan," because
so far as I knew, it was not a final plan.
Senator Lodge. Wliy did you use the word "military" ?
Mr. Service. Well, everything military and political was tied up,
but this was in a sense predominantly a military plan, although the
decision would have been made here in Washington, not in Chungking,
largely on political grounds, as to whether or not we would cooperate
with one faction or the other.
Senator Lodge. I understand that the military and the political
were mixed up at that level of the command in all the theaters of the
war, but still you did use that word "military," and you must have
used it for the purpose of drawing a distinction, and 1 am trying to
see if you can tell me why you used that word "military" rather than
using the word "political" or rather than using no adjective at all
and just saying "plans."
Mr. Service. I have no definite recollection of the conversation,
even. I can't answer that right now. I did feel more qualified to talk
about the political background in China than I did about anything
away from the strictly political field. Certainly if I had mentioned
even for background information such as this, for the sake of argu-
ment, telling this man in general what our policy was, if I got away
from strictly the Chinese political scene, I would have cautioned the
man against taking what I said as authoritative, or using it in any
way, because I wasn't qualified to talk on those matters.
_ Senator Lodge. But, of course, these words of yours do not give the
impression that what you were saying about military plans was not
authoritative. It gives the impression that you were telling him not
to reveal what you said about military plans because they were secret.
Ihat is an entirely different thing, as I am sure you will recognize.
Mr. Service. I recognize that, and I chose my words in what I was
saying very unwisely, because I was not revealing any military plans
1 had no knowledge of the military plans.
Senator Lodge. You tliink you misspoke?
Mr. Service. I think I misspoke; yes.
Senator Lodge. Was this material here available to the Board in
the State Department that cleared you immediately or soon after the
Amerasia incident? Do you know?
Mr. SER\acE. I do not know, sir.
(Discussion was had off tlie record.)
^ Senator Lodge. I would like to just ask you what your best guess
is as to what you specifically had in mind when you used the word
"military."
Mr Service. Well, this is just a guess, sir, an attempt to recon-
struct what I might have meant by that phrase. I think that what I
meiint was material not connected with the purely political situation
in China. ^
Senator Lodge. Specifically, what?
Mr Service. Such as the niaterial I have just described earlier, that
the thinking of at least some of the officers in the headquarters in
Chungking was that we should preserve freedom of action by being
in a position to cooperate with whatever military forces we mio-ht find
in a position to help us. However, my information on that was not
authoritative, it was not final ; I did not know what definite plans
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1409
were. In any case, that would be background information wliicli I
would caution any man on very rigidly.
Senator Lodge.* You think that is as far as you could have gone m
a military way ?
Mr. Service. I am sure, sir, that is as far as I could have gone.
Senator Lodge. You do not think you gave them any locations of
units or phase lines or troop movements or anything of that sort?
Mr. Service. Let me sav. Senator Lodge, that I did not have such
knowledge, and I think that can be confirmed by people who were
associated with me in the headquarters in Chungking. . .
Senator Lodge. Have you ever had any military training?
Mr. Service. No, sir.
Senator Lodge. You would not understand what a lot of those things
meant even if vou saw them? , ^, ,. i j
Mr. Service. I was not used as adviser in the Chungking head-
quarters on military matters. I was not a member of the staff confer-
ences that dealt with military matters.
Senator LoD<iE. Did you have access to the war room at head-
quarters? . , . ^ . 1
:Mr. Service. I attended occasional morning briefing sessions, where
we saw the situation maps.
Senator Lodge. You did? How often did you do that?
Mr. Service. I only remember attending a few. Generally they
gave a summary of the situation in the Battle of Iwo Jima or Okinawa.
That was going on at the time. "China" seems rather inaccurate.
Senator Lodge. I am not talking about the general situation they
gave you for information, like Iwo Jima or the battle in eastern
Germany.
Mr. Service. Those are the sessions I went to.
Senator Lodge. I am talking about the war room and the situation
map insofar as it regarded the theater in which you were serving.
Did you attend meetings in the war room at which actual tactical
dispositions on the ground were discussed in the theater in which
you were serving?
Mr. Service. I remember one meeting that I went to where there
was some discussion of the very small-scale fighting going on in north
Burma. That would be in the theater. But it was just a day-to-day
briefing of tlie dav's situation.
Senator Lodge.* Did they talk about the disposition of the Air Force^
of the United States Air Force that was out there, and did you see a
map showing where their fields were?
Mr. Service. Well, certainly there were plenty of maps of fields.
Those were well known.
Senator Lodge. I am trying to get at the question of whether you
were present at these conferences that were held in every military
area in which the actual operations on the map in that area were
discussed. I am not talking about background lectures about what
was going on in Iwo Jima or wliat was going on along the Khine.
I aui talking about lectures about the theater in which you were
working. Did you hear discussion of tactics, plans and phase lines,
and all that sort of thing?
Mr. Service. Not being a military man, perhaps I don't understand
your question. I went occasionally to the daily briefing sessions which
1410 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
discussed the situation, wliicli included discussion of the daily situa-
tion in the theater, which was very inactive. I was never in any ses-
sion where plans were discussed or future operations. It was sim-
ply a summary of the day's news.
Senator Lodge. General briefing ?
Mr. Service. That is right, with indications on the map where the
lines were, and so on, but I have never been present at nor have I
taken part in any discussion of future plans.
Senator Lodge. The theater was very inactive; wasn't it, in which
you served?
Mr. Service. It was most of the time ; yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. Insofar as the ground warfare is concerned, it was
almost totally inactive; was it not?
Mr. Service. It was in the spring of 19J:5 ; yes, and of course for
the most of the time I was in China in 1945 I was up in Yenan and
completely separate from Chungking and had no knowledge of what
was going on in Chungking.
Senator Lodge. That was just before you came over here?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir, a month before I came back here.
Senator Lodge. Are you married ?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. How long have you been married ?
Mr. Service. Almost 17 years.
Senator Lodge. When you came here in 1945 where was your family ?
Mr. Service. My family was in California, where they had been
during the war. I was separated from my family for almost 6 years.
Senator Lodge. Wlien you came here, did you bring your family
here?
Mr. Service. There were some technical problems of bringing them
here— questions of assignments and orders. They could not order my
family here because I was only here temporarily, and I did not have
a permanent assignment until in May, when it was possible for the
State Department to bring my family here.
Senator Ttdings. I would like to ask two or three questions.
At any time did you have in your possession while you were in the
Unitecl States any military plans on paper or memoranda devoted
exclusively to military matters on paper?
Mr. Service. No, sir; I did not have any papers of either one of
those categories.
Senator Tydings. Did you at any time give to Mr. Jaffe any other
papers than those which you have generally described heretofore in
your testimony?
Mr. Service. No, sir ; I did not. The only papers which I gave him
were my personal copies of descriptive memoranda concerned with the
situation and political developments in China.
Senator Tydings. To what extent were you reasonably intimately
informed about military matters, either in China or on your return
to the United States here in Washington, apart from the political side
to which you were generally assigned and to which you occupied your
talents, following Senator Lodge's general interrogation there as to
whether or not you were reasonably well informed when you got
home by any departments here about military matters ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1411
Mr Service. I would say that while I was physically in Chungking
I was reasonablv well informed concerning the actual military situa-
tion, the dav-to-day developments, because I was permitted——
^^nator Tydings. Do you mean yoa had general knowledge, or
sDBcific militarv planning knowledge? . -^ ^- i
%r. Service.^I had general knowledge of the situation-situational
knowledge, and not planning knowledge. After 1 left Chungking,
sir, and Was in Yenan, I had no knowledge except what we picked up
over the radio news broadcast. When 1 returnexl to the United States,
I had far less knowledge than I had in China. I really had knowledge
onlv of that which I gained from reading ne\yspapers, because as an
officer on consultation 1 was not assigned any regu ar duties m the
Department of State. I did not even see the daily flow of telegrams
and other communications which came in. I was simply spending my
time beincr interrogated, being questioned, talking to peop e about
China and imparting to them whatever knowledge they wished to gam
from me about China. -n ^^ t m
Senator Tydixgs. I want to ask you this very specifically: 1 would
assume from your testimony that from time to time you had contact
with a irreat many newspapermen, magazine writers, ancl people gen-
erally who were concerned with the business of transmitting public
information. Is that a correct assumption ?
:Mr. Service.' That is correct, sir. That was a very large part of my
assignment. ^ ^ . x i i
Senator Tydixgs. T would assume that these conferences took place
both in China and in the United States when you were here; is that
correct ?
Mr. Service. Continually in both places.
Senator Tidings. Was it a customary thing for you, when you dis-
cussed background of the kind you have before alluded to m your
testimony to say to those with whom you were talking. You must
keep this confidential" or "This is, of course, off the record," or "This
is secret " or whatever connotation you would use at the conclusion ot
the imparting of such information as you deemed to be a part of your
job to these "writers, either newspaper people, magazine people, or
otherwise ?â– Did you have an general statement that you made ?
Mr. Service. I don't think I had any general statement. It de-
pended on the circumstances. It was quite common, in discussing
backcrround, to caution a man that this was something which he had to
keep^nder his hat; that he could not use; that was still secret, or
something of that sort.
Senator Tydings. I suppose— and correct me if I am wrong— that
you o-ave them background so that they could project the events that
were^happening and about which they knew more accurately because
of the backgiTjund you would give them against which those events
would be evaluated. . . -, ^ â– ,-
Mr. Service. So they could have a perspective m understanding
the daily events. . .
Senator Tydings. In how many conversations with newspapermen,
either in China or at home, do you think you, at the conclusion of
whatever you may have transmitted, made some cautionary state-
ment ?
1412 STATE DEPARTMEJSTT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. Well, a very great number of such conversations, I
couldn't hazard a guess, sir, because I talked to so many people in the
same general sort of way.
Senator Tydings. Did you treat Jaffe in more or less the same cate-
gory as a man connected with a magazine that you treated the other
people to whom you have background information and who were
writers, or did he have some special consideration ?
Mr. Service. The level of a man's conversation with a writer or
journalist depends on several considerations, of course. An agency
reporter interested in day-to-da}^ news you are not apt to be discussing
background information with to quite the same extent as you are
with the man who is writing a book or who is writing a magazine
article or doin^ what was really a background article. Jaffe, of
course, was, so far as I knew, and I treated him as such, an editor of
a specialist magazine, and he was also in process of completing a book
on the Far East.
Senator Lodge. Was he in good standing with the State Depart-
ment Press Bureau?
Mr. Service. Well, I can't answer that question specifically. I
don't know that he was not in good standing, but I would say, and
"we have had testimony at Loyalty Board hearings to this effect, that
most contacts between the State Department officers and — I use the
word "correspondents" as against spot-news men — most of those con-
tacts with the correspondents, background people, do not go through
the Press Bureau, the Press Section.
Senator Lodge. But their opinion would be worth something. Mr.
McDermott's opinion as to whether Jaffe was a reputable, dependable
fellow would be of interest; would it not?
Mr. Service. Yes; it would have been of interest.
Senator Tydings. Let me put it this way : Do you yourself know
what Jaffe's standing was with the State Department, as to whether
lie was a reliable disseminator of news information from where they
sat, or whether he was not; whether he was trustworthy or whether
he was not ? Had you received any information ?
Mr. Service. I had not received any information. I knew he was
acquainted with various people in the Department, and in other
Departments.
Senator Lodge. Who?
Mr. Service. He was acquainted, of course — my first introduction
to him was through a naval officer. He was acquainted with a man
who was working in Lend-Lease.
Senator Lodge. I thought you said he was acquainted with people
in the State Department.
Mr. Morris. Who was the naval officer ?
Mr. Service. Lieutenant Roth. And I knew he was acquainted with
several other people over there.
Mr. Morris. Who were they ? Do you mind mentioning the names ?
Mr. Service. He was acquainted with a man named Da vies, Donald
Davies.
Mr. Morris. John Davies' brother ?
Mr. Service. I knew he was acquainted with Larsen, who was work-
ing in the State Department.
Mr. Morris. Did you have a high opinion of Larsen ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1413
Mr.' Service. At that time I had no reason for any h)w opinion of
him. All I knew of him was that he was a research analyst working
in that Division of Territorial Studies.
Mr. MoRiiis. And you would take his judgment on a man; would
you ?
'Mr. Skkvtce. I certainly would not now, sir.
Senator Lodge. He is answering your (juestion as to whom he knew
that spoke well of Jall'e. Itis very important.
I^Ir. Service. I didn't say who spoke well of him. It was who i
knew knew him. He knew a man in Lend-Lease named Ray ; he knew
a man in FEA named Barber. I knew he knew a man in the Division
of Chinese Affairs named Friedman.
Senator Lodge. But you didn't know what Mr. McDermott thought
about him ?
Mr. Service. No, sir.
Senator Lodge. You know :Mr. McDermott, don't you ?
;Mr. Service. Yes. He was in San Francisco at the time.
Senator Lodge. Mr. McDermott has been in the State Department
for 30 years, and he has as current a knowledge of members of the
American press as any one living man.
Mr. Service. Yes. But in the far eastern field the magazine was
well known, and there was nothing, so far as I knew, that was deroga-
torv that was known about it at the time.
For instance, when Mr. Jaffe wanted to get a copy of this radio
broadcast, I said, "Well, come on over to the State Department and I
will introduce you to the man who handles that. I don't have anything
to do with that, and I don't know whether or not it is available," and
I took him to the man in the Division of Chinese Affairs in the State
Department and he knew of Jaffe, he had no hesitation in giving it to
him. He said, as a matter of fact, at the time, that it was available to
writers and specialists.
Senator Lodge. I have another question, but I have interrupted
Senator Tydings. -r ^ , i i i
Mr. SER^^CE. Also I knew at this time that Jaffe had had an inter-
view with Mr. Grew, for instance.
Senator Ttdings. I would like to get back, if you don't mmd— and
1 welcome the interruption because it brought out some matters that
I would like to see brought out— to this military thing for a minute.
You have conveyed the impression by your testimony that you were
not well informed on what was going to take place militarily, any
more than general information. You had no specific information.
You handled no plans. You came in contact very remotely with any-
thing in the military line. That has been the tenor of your tesiniony.
Your testimony has been that your field of endeavor was the political
side.
j\rr. Service. The political background.
Senator Tydings. What I want to ask you is this, and I want you to
think before you answer it: As you think back on your conversations,
refreshed in part by this memorandum, together with the chance to
reflect further as questions have been put to you, was your conversa-
tion with Mr. Jaffe at this time devoted just exclusively to the political
field, the matter of general knowledire which cA-erybody had of the
military field, or did you go beyond that perimeter into specified or
secret or other parts of the military picture?
1414 STATE I>EPARTME]STr EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
•
Mr. Service. It- is my belief, sir, that I was trying to orient him,
and as I remember it, arguing with him to try and correct a misappre-
liension of his as to what general over-all policy was.
Senator Tydings. Politically or militarily ?
Mr. Service. The two cannot be entirely separated. The question
of whether or not we were going to exclusively play with one crowd
was intimately tied up with the question of what we would do if •
Senator Tydings. Let me rephrase the question, because that is
what I am after and I probably did not make it specific enough.
I want to ask you whether, refreshed as you are by that memoran-
dum, in that conversation, you did discuss with Mr. JafFe any secret
military plans per se.
Senator Lodge. Of a tactical nature, is that what you mean ?
Senator Tydings. Of a tactical nature, thinking primarily of opera-
tions of troops.
Mr. Service. I say to you, Senator Tydings, in all honesty andj
sincerity, that I could not have discussed any military plans of that
nature with him, because I knew none.
Senator Tydings. I understand that. I think you have said you
were not given that kind of information in the first place, but I think
it is important for the record to show whether or not in spite of that
you attempted to discuss it.
Mr. Service. I did not.
Senator Lodge. In furtherance of your question, in the European
theater they would use the word "bigot" in the technical sense, mean-
ing those who had been cleared for the very highest military secrets.
Were you in that group ? I think we ought to know whether or not
you were cleared for the very highest types of military secrets. I
think it IS very pertinent.
Mr. Service. May I go off the record? I would like to make an
explanation off the record.
Senator Tydings. For a moment, off the record. We will go back
on. What is the purpose of going off?
(Discussion was had off the record.)
Senator Lodge. Were you cleared for the very most secret types