Sincerely yours,
Philip Eugene Lilienthal.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 435
The next letter is from Claude A. Buss, professor of history at Stan-
ford University, dated April 1, 1950, and addressed to me :
yiv. Ai:k Foutas.
I'lir Rhtij Building, Washington, D. C.
.My Dear IMr. Fortas : I am easier to place on the record some impressions
which I have iraiiied about ^Ir. Owen Lattimore during an association which
has continued for ahnost I'O years.
Thn)ugh conver.sations with him, and througii careful study of his books and
articles, 1 respect him as one of our most profound and original American
thinkers about the situation in Asia. Whether he has seen tit to support or
criticize any particular aspect of our policy in the Far East, I have always noted
that tills attitude has stennned from his fundamental regard for our national
welfare aiul our national interest. Wlienever I have disagreed with him, I have
never doubted the sincerity of his conviction that his ideas were best for the
United States.
I liked to think that I worked closely with him in the Ofiice of War Informa-
tion. When I succeeded him as director of the San Francisco office, I found the
office permeated with a spirit of contributing whatever we could to the winning
of the war. We all — British, Chinese, and Americans — cooperated against a
common enemy. No one was more jealous of American rights — wherever threat-
ened — than Mr. Lattimore. Our broadcasts to China were dedicated to the help
of our ally and it was deemed essential to stiffen the morale of the armies of the
Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek. Most of our Chinese employees were natu-
rally sympathetic with the Kuomintang, and the Chinese consid general and the
head of the official Kuo Min News Agency were always accorded both the most
cordial welcome at our office and the most liberal use of our facilities.
I hope that a careful study will be made of our policies and directives, because
they will show an unswerving loyaiLy to the cause of American victory. The
fundamental contribution which we could make — as we saw it at that time — was
to strengthen the sources of power in China and to add to them, for our own
sakes, with every means at our command.
Very sincerely yours,
Claude A. Erss,
Professor of History.
Dr. Lattimore. Xow, gentlemen, I believe that I have dealt with
each and every one of the specific charges that Senator McCarthy has
made against me relating to my alleged actions and activities. I have
not, liowever, specifically discussed the Senator's statement that a
witness will. testify that I was a member of the Communist Party, a
member over whom they had disciplinary powers. The Senator says
that this alleged witness is trusted by the Department of Justice and
has been used as a Government witness; that this witness has been a
member of the Communist Party for a number of years; and that it is
part of his work to distinguish between party members and fellow
travelers.
I do not know the name of tliis alleged witness. With full and com-
plete realization of the serious implications and consequences of what
I am to say, having in mind the advice of counsel that a member of the
Communist Party may presumably decline, on constitutional grounds,
to state whether he is or has been a member of the Communist Party ;
realizing the possibility that pei^jured or mistaken testimony may be
used for purposes of entrapment — whether innocently or not : I rnake
to vou on my solemn oath the following statement :
I am not and never have been a member of the Communist Party.
T have never been affiliated or associated with the Communist Party.
I have never believed in the principles of communism nor subscribed
to nor advocated the Communist or Soviet form of government either
within the United States, in China, in the Far East, or anvwhere in
the world. I have never consciously or deliberately advocated or
436 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
participated in promoting the cause of communism anywhere in the
'' For many years, the situation in the Far East has been such that no
person could study its problems without undertaking to acqiiamt him-
self as thoroughly as possible with the facts about the Communist
position and plans in the various countries of that area. I have made
it mv business, both as a scholar and as a journalist to accumulate as
mucii information on this as possible, and the results of my studies
have all been published. t .- n i. i j.
For years, I have been doing my very best realistically to evaluate
the position and prospects of the Communists m Asia I have pub-
licly stated the weaknesses of their position as I saw them, aiid also
the points that added to their strength and that I feared would enable
them to make progress with the people of Asia t 1.0..0
I have tried to avoid wishful thinking and self-delusion. I have
tried as emphatically as I could, to warn the people of this Nation
that the Communist threat in China and other countries of the l^ar
East is very real indeed; that some of their appeals to the peop e ot
Asia are profound. I have tried to point out that it is our task it
we are to stem the advance of communism, to make an appeal to the
people of Asia which is not merely equal to that of the Communists,
but so far greater that these people would have no doubt as to who
are their true friends. . 1 • i t u i
For the purpose of acquiring the information u]wn which 1 based
my studies and conclusions, I talked and corresponded with mtormecl
people all over the world, without regard to whether they were Com-
munists, anti-Communists, politicians, or scholars. Since the middle
thirties, communications even with scholars in Cominunist countries
have been more and more cut off. All the more for that reason, like
any other student who is worth his salt in this field, I have eagerly
seized upon every opportunity to obtain information through chinks
and crevasses in the wall of 'fear and suppression that communism
builds around its informed people. For instance, while I was on the
Pauley reparations mission to Japan in 1945 I made an eftort to see
some Japanese Communists because I thought their future activity
in Jai)anese politics was going to be important and succeeded m see-
ing Tokuda, one of their two top men. In 1947 I made aii attempt to
get to Outer Mongolia but was completely baffled. 'Way back m 1936,
when I was about to return to China, I even paid a call on Earl Brow-
der, hoping I might open up a lead to information about the (^hmese
Communists. , . „ ^i • t- • i i
During the war, of course, on the instructions of Chiang Kai-shek,
I had several conversations with Chou En-lai. None of these contacts,
or attempted contacts, however, provided me with access to perinanent
or reliable information from within the iron curtain m which each
individual Communist wraps himself. . ■„ ,, 1-1
I believe that the obvious refusal of Communists all oyer the world
to supply information except through their own controlled press and
publications extends to all scholars and research workers from the
non-Communist world. It is possible, however, that m my particular
case the barriers have been strictly maintained and tightly policed.
For many years, I have been the subject of the usual type ot Com-
munist abuse and hostile Soviet action. I have been m Moscow only
once This was in 1936 on the visit that I have described. At this
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 437
lime I was given a transit visa. In 1!);]T I was denied a transit visa
even alt]ion<>h I merely wislied to take my family out of China via
the Trans-8iberian. In i;)47, as I have related, my request for per-
mission to visit Outer Mono-olju was igiiored.
In 1!)4(; a newspaper friend of mine was refused permission to take
with him into Russia a copy of Solution in Asia — one of the books
that Senator McCarthy says is so pro-Comnnniist that it proves that
J am a Soviet aij^ent.
In April 1J)49, a Soviet maijazine, Voprosy Istorii, published an
aiticle called American Falsitiers on the Policy of the U. S. A. in
Relation to the Chinese Revolution of 1025-^27.' Senator McCarthy,
Avith his vast knowledge of Russian, should know that I was honored
by being listed as one of the chief falsifiers. The article referred to
me as a "learned lackey of imperialism.''
The Daily Worker, in a review of my book Situation in Asia—
which the learned Senator apparently believes is Communist propa-
ganda—says that I go "completely off the beam'' in my effort to explain
political and social forces in Asia. The Daily Worker says that my
.â– .l)])roacIi to American-Soviet relationships "obscures the truth."
In an article published by the State Social and Economic Press of
Moscow m 1985 there is a phrase denouncing me which Senator Mc-
Carthy unaccountably failed to use. The Soviet spokesman in that
article said that "Mr. Lattimore's scholasticism is siiniLar to Hamlet's
madness."
I do not mean by this to belittle Senator McCarthy's talent for
extreme statement distortion. His characterization of my writings,
his summaries and quotations, are sufficiently perverse and twistedlo
mjike my Communist critics green with envy. Rather than prolong
this statement by a discussion of the Senators distortions, however I
have prepared three documents which I should like to file as part of
the record. I will enumerate these first, if I may, Senator.
First, appraisals of my views by distinguished scholars who have
read my books and articles, which perhaps the learned Senator
McCarthy considered unnecessary.
Second, statements by various other persons wdio are familiar with
me and my opinions.
Third, a meager sample of the distorted and inaccurate quotations
of my works m which Senator McCarthy freely indulges.
Fourth, a few quotations from my owii writings.
Those will be rather long, Senator, and rather than read them I
offer them for the record.
Senator Tydixgs. Without objection, thev will be inserted in the
record without reading, as exhibit 7:5.
Dr Lattimore. As a matter of fact, gentlemen, I am not unaccus-
tomed to yigoi-ous and even violent criticism of my works and views
Ihe tact IS that my comments and interpretations have always been
so independent that I have in my time been criticized by Chinese
Japanese, Germans, Russians, and Mongols, as well as by intemperate
American writers. The criticisms run all the w^ay from calliiw me
an arch-imperialist to calling me a Red. But I assure von that none
or this criticism has prevented me from writing the truth as I see it
And not even Senator McCarthy's criticism will prevent me from
stating the tacts and my views with all the honestv and vigor of which
1 am capable. I feel that this is peculiarly my obligation at this time,
438 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and the oblifjation of every other student and specialist wlio has the
Nation's interest at heart.
We face a crisis in Asia as well as m Europe. Our policy— or
rather our lack of a united policv and of a strong, determined push
to effectuate that policy— has resulted in the loss of China to the
Communists, at least for the time being.
No man can state with absolute assurance Avhat the future holds
with respect to China. Various alternatives are apparent: First,
some people still tliink it is conceivable that the Nationalist Govern-
ment in Formosa may reconquer China from the Communists. Sec-
ond it is possible that a middle-of-the-road or democratic group m
Chiiia not necessarilv part of the Nationalist Government— those
whom General Marshall rightly called "a splendid group of men"— can
still maintain their strong position in the confidence of the Chinese
people unless we drive them completely into the hands of the Com-
munists. Third, it is possible that the Chinese Communists will es-
tablish a regime which is Communist but substantially independent
of the Soviet Union— what people loosely call Titoism. Fourth, it is
possible that the Chinese Communist Government will be drawai more
and more completely into the orbit of the Soviet Union and will become
r> satellite state.
There is one thing, and ])erhaps only one thing, that is perfectly
clear. That is, that the fourth possibility— namely, complete and abso-
lute absorption in fact of China by the Soviet Union— would be an
unrelieved catastrophe for the United States and for the Chinese
people. That means that our national policy must be to do evervthmg
that we can to bring about one of the otlier possibilities that I have
stated ; namely, to assist the Nationalist Government to reconquer
China ; to preserve China's independence of the Soviet Union even at
the distasteful price of accepting a government of independent Chinese
Communists; or to encourage the survival of the strong but unor-
ganized middle group in China— not necessarily connected with the
Nationalist Government— which might still be able to limit the power
of the Communists and keep China on a road at least parallel to
democracv in its internal life and its relations with the outside world.
It is, of course, not inevitable that the Government of the United
States should sharply and completely choose one of these alternatives
to the complete exclusion of the others. It is possible that policies
might be adopted which would be based upon the encouragement of
all three of these developments to checkmate the Soviet Union. This
would, of course, require a nice and judicious decision as to the relative
extent to which we would distribute assistance and encouragement m
the three channels. .
Now, gentlemen, as I have said, I know of nothing that would be
more helpful to our Nation and our Government than full and free
debate on this most difficult and vitally important problem. I would
myself exclude the first alternative altogether. It is my view that
the Nationalist Government in Formosa cannot hope to recapture
China, and that the large commitment of United States resources m
the Formosa adventure w-ould not merely be wasteful but would be
of positive assistance to the Soviet Union because it would make it
possible and perhaps inevitable for the Chinese Communists to mvite
increased participation of the Soviet Union in the conflict.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 439
Let me illustrate this. As tlie air assaults increase, with United
States ])lanes launched by the Nationalist forces from Formosa upon
the mainland of China, there is danger — if it is not already a fact — -
that the Chinese Connnunist Government with the backing of many
of the Chinese people, will invite the Soviet Union to establish air
bases and to engage actively in the air war. I personally believe that
if the Soviet Union establishes air bases in China they will not be
dismantled when the Nationalist forces are defeated. To me this is
an a])palling prospect. To me, this would make it probable if not
certain that the die is cast — that the Chinese Government and the
Chinese people will be subordinated to the Soviet Union for a long
time to come.
Accordingly it is my view that the major American effort must be in
one of the other two directions; namely, to encourage a nationalism,
even if it is Communist nationalisln, capable of standing up to the
Soviet Union and maintaining independence in its dealings with us,
or to encourage in eveiy possible way the conditions that will make
possible the survival of a so-called third force, a democratic group
within China, that can change the character of the government. It
seems to me that our long-term objective should clearly be the latter,
to build up conditions that favor a democratic group, including such
elements of tlie Kuomintang as may be available and suitable. But it
may be that in the short run, while working at this long-term objec-
tive, our first objective will iiave to be to avoid closing the trap on the
Chinese so that they feel they have no alternative but Eussia — even
if it means temj)()ri;>:ing with Titoism.
Now, gentlemen, my analysis of this may be partly or wholly wrong.
But if anybody says that it is disloyal or un-American, he is a fool
or a knave. But it is exactly this analysis which, I am sure, has pro-
voked the current attack in which I have been called tliese preDosterous
and villainous names that have been uttered by Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy, without, I am sure, knowing what he is about,
has been and is the instrument or the dupe of a bitter and implacable
and fanatical group of people Avho will not tolerate any discussion
of China which is not based upon absolute, total, and complete sup-
port of the Nationalist Government in Formosa. They do not hesi-
tate at — they even insist on — policies that potential allies of ours in
India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and other countries will call ruthless im-
perialism. Their conclusion — that is. that the United States should
put all of its eggs in the Nationalist Government's basket — may be
right or wrong. I think it's wrong.
But I am su)e that the n.iethods of that faction of these people who
are McCarthy's Edgar Bergen are wrong — as wrong as wrong can
be. Their methods are to intimidate persons like me and even officials
of the United States Government from expressing views that are
contrary to their own. Their weapon of intimidation is McCarthy's
machine gun: namely, accusation of disloyalty and traitorious con-
duct. I got a certain amount of wry amusement out of the fact that
some of these people are acknowledged ex-Connnunists. Perhaps
that status gives them a special right to criticize those of us who
do not happen to be Communists, ex or otherwise. Certainly, it pio-
vides them Avitli ideal training and unique skill for the kind of cam-
paign of viliiication and distortion that tlie so-called diina lobby is
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 29
440 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
conducting through the instrumentality of the Senator from
Wisconsin. . ^. . ,. . ,
I do not, by what I have said, want to indicate a feehng of despair
about the possibility of democratic success in China. I think I know
the Chinese people" reasonably well. I have not only great attection
but o-reat admiration for them. Despite the relatively backward
state of their countrv, the Chinese people have a strong and rugged
sense of individualism and democracy. If they accept the restraints
and repressions of communism, it will be because they feel that they
have no alternative for national and individual survival. It they
accent the iron dominion of world-wide communism, it will be because
w-e, the democratic nations and peoples of the world, have failed.
It will be because we, by reason of ignorance or incompetence, have
rot presented them with an effective choice. . -i i •
To date, that is exactlv what has happened. We have failed in
China. Senator McCarthy does me the honor of saying that I am
the architect of this policv which has failed. Let me point out that
even if this were so, it would not be disloyalty. It would mean that
I am a poor architect. The fact of the matter, however, is quite the
contrary- . . . , tt -^u i c^. +
The fact is that I have never held a position m the United htates
Government in which I could make policy. The fact is that I have
been very little consulted by those who do make policy— before Pearl
Harbor, during the war, or since the war. I think I can fairly claim—
with great regret— that I am the least consulted man of all those who
have a public reputation in this country as specialists on the Far East.
Senator McCarthy has stated that United States Far Eastern policy,
and especially China policy, has followed my recommendations step
for step." The record shows the exact opposite to be true. Before the
war, I was in favor of a much tougher policy toward Japan than the
State Department was willing to follow. During the war, I warned
that we must be prepared for a period of very rapid change throughout
Asia. No attention was paid to this warning. The last chapters of
mv book, Solution in Asia, published in 1945, a few months before the
end of the war, are a crowded catalog of unaccepted recommendations.
Since the war, my recommendations have had equally little mtluence
on the State Department. The most i-ecent example of this is my
memorandum of last August to the State Dei^rtment committee
headed by Ambassador Jessup, whom Senator McCarthy has called
«a Lattimore front." In this I warned that we cannot expect to suc-
ceed with little Chiang-Kai-sheks where we failed with the^big Chiang
Kai-shek. But we are still supporting a little Chiang Kai-shek in
South Korea and we have since taken on another one m Indochina.
I warned that we cannot coerce China by cutting off trade ; but by our
feeble attitude toward the blockade of Shanghai we have allowed trade
to be virtually cut off. I warned that by indecision m recognizing the
facts of life in China we were heading for another set-back m A.sia
without even the compensating advantage of hampering Kussia^s
ability to maneuver in Europe. That is exactly what has happened.
I warned that reliance on Japan as an instrument of American pohcy
is a bad bet, but Japan is still our most risky bet m Asia. 1 7«™ed
that countries in the Far East must not be made to suspect that the
real aim of the United States is to use them against Russia, but all of
them are now convinced that this is just what our real aim is.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 441
^ly reconimenclations ma}'- be right or wrono;. I may be accused of
liavino^ given bad advice by anyone who disagrees with my opinions.
AVhat I cannot bo accused of is advice tliat has influenced the policy of
tlu' United States in the Far East. I wish that I had in fact had moi-e
iiifhience. If T had, I think that the Comnnniists woukl not now con-
trol China.
The very fcnnidation of my views toward China is a firm belief that
the United States and the democratic nations of the world — if they
are willing to abandon the mistaken policies of the past and face the
])roblems of China and the Far East realistically — can help to bring
about the establishment of strong democratic governments in the Far
East that will work harmoniously with the western powers. Despite
Senator JNIcCarthy, my books and articles witness that my basic be-
liefs are the absolute antithesis of the ]\Iair^ist doctrine. The Com-
inunist line applied to Asia may be easily summed up : Capitalism is
in decay and, because it is in decay, the' European empires are fall-
ing apart; capitalist nations in Europe and America are incapable
of any nonimjjerialist relation with these former colonies which can,
therefore, look for hope only to the Soviet Union.
In my view, this is nonsense. I believe that both capitalism and
political democracy have immense vitality and adaptability. If they
fail to survive, I believe it will be because of dogmatic or uninformed
men who insist on policies of coercion, repression, and inequality — ii(;t
becau.se of inherent defects in capitalism and democracy.
But I want to em])hasize with all my heart that we ourselves, if we
are so foolish as to destroy our own democracy, can make the Marxist
dream come true. We ourselves can cause the decay of capitalism
and democracy. The sure may to do this is to permit the destruction
of the basic wellspring from which capitalism and democracy derive
their vitality : namely, freedom of research, freedom of speech, and
freedom for men stoutly to maintain their diverse opinions.
I say to you, gentlemen, that the sure way to destroy freedom of
speech and the free expression of ideas. and views is to attach to that
freedom the penalty of abuse and villification. If the people of this
country can differ with the so-called China lobby or with Senator
McCarthy only at the risk of the abuse to which I have been sub-
jected, freedom will not long survive. If officials of our government
cannot consult people of diverse views without exposing themselves
to the kind of attack that Senator McCarthy has visited tipon officers
of the State Department, our governmentarpolicy will necessarily be
sterile. It is only from a diversity of views freely expressed and
strongly advocated that sound policy is distilled. He who contributes
to the destruction of this process is either a fool or an enemy of his
country. Let Senator McCarthy take note of this.
Xow. gentlemen, I shall be glad to answer any questions that you