both sides in the war in Europe. He called the war in Europe one —
I quote — "between the established master races and the claimant master
In this article, he casts general discredit on the democratic side,
said it was merely defending its possessions, not the concept of de-
mocracy and equality and ascribed responsibility for the war equal
to both sides.
The cause of the war, he wrote, and I quote, "were the wrongs done
to China, Ethiopia, Spain, Czechoslovakia, and Albania — not by
Japan and Italy and Germany alone, but by Britain and France and
the United States as well. It was because they attempted to escape
the shortcomings of the old order without sacrifice to themselves at
the expense of the rest of the world, including the huge territories like
China and Russia, as well as the geographicall}^ small nations, that
tliey are now fighting each other."
Nor, is this the only evidence that Lattimore followed the party
line in denouncing the war in Europe prior to Germany's attack on
Russia, as an imperialist struggle in which both sides were equally
While Lattimore was one of the editors of Amerasia, in 1939 to 1910,
following the Stalin-Hitler pact, it published articles directly echoing
the Communist Party line, for which Mr. Lattimore must assume
paitial, at least, responsibility.
Senator Tvdixgs. Do you know whether or not they published at
tlie same time any articles that showed a contrary point of view ?
Mrs. Un.KY. No. I will state that almost categorically, but in the
time at my disposal, I have had no time to read every article in
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 743
It abused Italy and France and nr<»ed America not to be drawn into
the European war, wliile nrj^inir that it take action a^jainst Japan.
Folk)wing Germany's attack on Kussia, in June 1J)41, it switched over
to the opposite side, like all Communist organs, and urged American,
participation in the war against Germany.
I have here several pages of extracts from Amei-asia and I feel that
my testimony will be far too long if I read tliem all.
Senator Tydixgs. Put them in the record at this point.
I would like to ask a couple of questions.
Does this appear over Mr. Lattimore's signature?
Mrs. Utley. No.
Senator Tydikgs. Did they appear over anybody's signature?
Mrs. Utley. Yes. The particular articles I have mentioned, one
Avas by William Brandt, entitled "The Embargo Threat — A Diplo-
matic Maneuver," was published in the March 1940 issue of Amerasia.
Senator Tydixgs. Read the others, and identifv them.
]\Irs. Utley. Next is one by Harry Paxton Howard which explained
and justified the Stalin-Hitler pact.
I don't want to impose on your time by reading it all.
Senator Tydixgs. Don't read it, but let me ask you another
During the period to which you refer, evidently you have had some
opportunity to read these magazines, is that right ?
;^Irs. Utley. During that period ?
Senator Tydixgs. Have they been handed to you, or did you read
them yourself, Mrs. Utley ?
Mrs. Utley. I have been looking them up now, in the last few daj's.
Senator Tydix'gs. Looking them up in the Amerasia magazine?
iSIrs. Utley. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Plave you found any articles in there that were
published in there by people other than Mr. Lattimore, that presented
any contrary view ?
Mrs. Utley. No.
Senator Tydixgs. Nothing in the magazine at all except articles of
one kind during this period ?
Mrs. Utley. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. How many of these articles to which you refer
were over the signature, or over the masthead of the editor of the
magazine w'ho, as I understand it, was then ISIr. Lattimore, is that
Mrs. LTtley. Mr. Lattimore was only one. The managing editor was
Frederick Vanderbilt Field.
Senator Tydixgs. Who was the managing editor?
!Mrs. Utley. I think that was Frederick Vanderbilt Field.
Senator Tydixgs. How many other editors were there — I have not
Mrs. Utley. About a half a dozen. I cannot recall all their names.
One was Lillian Peffer, wife of a professor at Columbia Uni-
Senator Tydixgs. Why attribute all of that to Mr. Lattimore if he
was onlv one of six, and wasn't the manaffinof editor?
Mrs. Utley. Senator Tvdings, if vou are on the board of a majrazine
that continually publishes only one view — actually ]Mr. Lattimore got
off the board in 1941, when he took up Government service.
G8970 — 50 — pt. 1 48
744 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Wliy give liim the responsibility when you say
there were six on tlie board? Do you know whether or not they ap-
proved these articles? Do you know whether or not tliey disap-
proved these articles? Do you know whether or not he saw the
articles before they were published; because if he was only one of
seven editors it would appear to me that in getting up a newspaper
or magazine like Amerasia, or the Saturday Evening Post, that some
of the articles could be published in there that might not be known
to all of the editors on the board, and I am asking as to information —
whether or not you can show any connection between this Mr. Latti-
more and these particular articles, or do you just surmise it?
Mrs. Utley. Senator Tydings, I have already read out an article in
Mr. Lattimore's own
Senator Tydings. I am not asking about that.
Mrs. Utley, Which says the same kind of things as Amerasia •
Senator Tydings. There is only one fact I want to ask you now —
whether or not you know that Mr. Lattimore sponsored, directly or
indirectly, these articles for publication in Amerasia?
We have had a lot of opinion evidence here. I would like to get a
few facts woven into it.
Mrs. Utley. The point I am making, Senator Tydings, is that Amer-
asia echoed almost exactly the same language I read you from Mr.
Secondly, surely, if one is in disagreement with the total line of a
magazine, it is the duty of one to get oif the editorial board.
Senator Tydings. I don't think tliat always follows, but your obser-
vation can stand.
Mrs. Utley. I would say that if Mr. Lattimore, in Amerasia, had
continued to write along these lines following Hitler's attack on Rus-
sia, his views could really be considered honest and consistent. But,
once the Soviet Union was at war with Germany, you could find no
more articles by Mr. Lattimore, saying that the war in Europe was
one between two lots of master races, as he said previous to Germany's
attack on Russia.
Senator Tydings. Of course, I don't want to take advantage of your
opportunity to testify, but let me point out, Mrs. Utley, that even in
our own Congress, when Britain and France were at war with the
Fascists, the Axis, and Avhen Russia was invaded, we had lend-lease
even before we got into the struggle, to give our money and substance
to Russia and all the other countries, so that everybody who then took
that particular side of the controversy would not necessarily be a
Communist, because a good many of my colleagues in the Senate would
be under very serious charges if that were true.
Mrs. Utley. May I make very clear, on that point. Senator Tydings,
that I personally was against American intervention in the European
war, because I considered it would lead to the domination of Stalin.
I want to make clear, I want to make that a clear distinction, and one
which I think the Attorney General made several years ago, and which
was to tlie eifect that you could tell a Communist as distinguished
from an isolationist, or whatever word you use, noninterventionist, by
his attitude before and after Germany attacked Russia. The people
who went on consistently opposing American intervention, and kept
on saying tlie usual things about the European war, and people who
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 745
<lid not change their line after Russia attacked Germany can be per-
fectly honest peo})lo and are perfectly entitled to that opinion; but,
those who switched directly the moment that Russia was involved in
the war, the Attorney General said, he thought you could spot them
Senator Tydixgs. Thank you for that enlightenment. Proceed with
Mrs. Utlky. As further evidence of the fact that Mr. Lattimore fol-
lowed the party line, it is to be noted that little, if any, criticism either
of the Stalin-Hitler pact, or of the Russo-Japanese pact of April 1941
appeared in his writings.
Pacific Affairs under his editorship, published instead articles ab-
solving the Soviet Government of all blame or evil intent, and re-
peated the Communist argument that these pacts were victories for
peace or for the Japanese masses, and so forth.
When, in April 19-11, Russia and Japan signed their first pact, the
Chinese Communist Party welcomed it, saying that it "strengthened
peace on the eastern frontiers of the U. S. S. R. and guaranteed the
security of the development of socialist construction," so that "is in
keeping with the interests of the working people and oppressed na-
tions of the whole world."
Owen Lattimore similaily welcomed the pact saying, in the June
issrie of Pacific Affairs, that if the effect of the Russo-Japanese neu-
trality^ pact were to increase the isolation of China, it would lead to
more democratic and representative methods of government in China.
Pacific Affairs, June 1941, at page 152, said :
* * * the second is that in China a right-wing government can stand if
it has a certain amount of foreign support and approval; but if foreign attack
overweighs foreign support, it m-ust get on with the revolution or it will find that
the revolution can get on without it.
The second of these lessons applies particularly to China. It will become more
obvious if the effect of the Russo-Japanese neutrality pact is to increase the
isolation of China, forcing the government to rely less on foreign support and to
come to terms with the people by making the methods of government less authori-
tarian and more representative and more democratic * * *.
This is about the only reference either to the 1941 or the 1944 pacts,
Russo-Japanese pacts, which I have been able to find in Lattimore's
writings. Nor have I been able to find any reference to the effect in
them of the Soviet -Hitler pact, and of the statements of the Chinese
Communist leaders showing that they not only now favored Germany
in the European war, but that they were also preparing for the eventu-
ality of Russian intervention in China in alliance with Japan.
Omissions of vitally important facts can be as effective in mis-
leading the public as direct falsehoods. The effect of the Stalin-Hitler
pact and of the Russo-Japanese pact of April 1941 was, naturally,
to make the Chinese National Government fearful of receiving the
same stab in the back from the Communists as Poland had received.
There was an acute danger that, if it suited Moscow's convenience,
the Chinese Conmiunists would be instructed to turn against Chiang
and help Japan. Fear of this naturally cau.sed Chiang Kai-shek to
distrust not only the Communists but also the liberals who had rallied
around the Communists and were pressing for the same measures.
Thus the fear of treason led Chiang to rely more and more on the
•conservatives, or what the Comnmnists call the reactionaries.
746 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Lattimore never once takes into account the effect of Russia's
pacts with the Axis Powers.
According to him, the Kuomintang just got reactionary while the
Communists kept on getting more and more democratic.
Soviet Russia, in all of Lattimore's writings, is always sinned
against and is always represented by Lattimore as standing like a
beacon of hope for the peoples of Asia, even when she is collaborating
with the Nazis or agTessing on her own account. Russia is never in
the wrong and if he is forced to take cognizance of a few slight mis-
demeanors on her part, he excuses them as onlj^ a reaction to American
imperalism or some other country's misdeeds.
Senator Tydings. Mrs. Utley
Mrs. Utley. I am coming to my quotes now.
Senator Tydings. May I say
Mrs. Utley. An outstanding example of the wondrous way in which
Lattimore is able to attribute blame to others for Stalin's worst crimes
is the following quotation from his book "The Situation in Asia,'*
in which he writes, on page 89, that the Russians — and I quote:
"* * * were afraid that Manchuria, if its industries were left a
going concern might be turned into an American stronghold on the
doorstep of Siberia, so they gutted the factories of Manchuria as
Before proceeding to give other quotations to show how replete
Lattimore's writings are with Communist propaganda about the
Soviet Union, I should give a few proofs of how consistently, albeit
subtly and cleverly, he has followed the Communist Party line in
his writings on China.
At the same time Mr. Lattimore is his own worst accuser for what
he writes in one place can be contradicted by what he has written
in another place, in conformity with the party line at any particular
Senator Tydings. Are you going to read about the statements that
support your point, your point of view, and those that are in con-
tradiction to it, or those that suport your view only ?
Mrs. Utley. No; I am reading, Senator — in my statement I have
analyzed Mr. Lattimore's writings. I was preparing to read the dif-
ference in his views of the Chinese Communist Goverimient before and
after Soviet Russia turned against China. I realize, if I may say —
I don't want to apologize, but I will say that it has to take a certain
amount of time, because this is an intricate question, because Mr.
Lattimore is a very brilliant person, and because it is not just easy
to pick out 1, 2, 3, and 4, and then it is finished, and you can under-
stand the import and effect that Mr. Lattimore's writings and in-
fluence on American opinion and American policies, where one has
to go into a certain amount of detail of the background. I hope that
this committee Avill bear with me, although I am trying to make it as
short as possible.
Take, for instance, Lattimore's views of the Chinese National Gov-
ernment and Chiang Kai-shek.
In late 19'42 and 1943, when Russia was still backing the Chinese
National Government on account of the Soviet Govermnent's fear of
Japan, Lattimore paid high tribute to Chiang Kai-shek. For in-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 747
Stance, in a lecture given at Claremont Colleges, and published by
them early in 1043, Lattimore said :
Perhaps the situation will be larsely saved for us by the Chinese. Many people
talk of the dantrer of civil war in China at the end of this war, but I think that
tlie dani-'er of civil war in China is probably lt>ss than the danger of civil war
in many countries in Europe. One reason is that we have in Asia a world states-
man of real genius, in Chiang Kai-shek.
One of the oldest historical controversies turns on the question of whether
grejit men create the events of their time, or are created by them. The career
of Chiang Kai-shek shows that the problem cannot be limited to such narrow
terms. The truth is that great men and great events interact on each other in a
subtle and close way that results in creating history. This is as true of Roose-
velt, Churchill, and Stalin as it is of Chiang Kai-shek.
I have here another two pages of quotations from Mr. Lattimore,
not only in praise of Chiang, but saying very definitely that China —
and I quote again :
China is a democratic country, in the sense that the party and the Government
represent what the vast majority of the i>eople want. When we want to make up
our minds whether we are to call another country democratic and so forth, we
quite naturally begin by comparing it wicli our own democratic country.
Then he says :
This v\ay of looking at things can often lead to misunderstanding. The most
important standard by which to measure progress in a country like China is not
how near they have got to our way of doing, but how far they have got ahead of
the way things used to be done.
He goes on to say that China had made such very great progi-ess and
that the present rulers of China are not revolutionary, but they are
the sons and disciples of the Chinese and so forth.
Here is a long list of those extracts which the committee may want
to examine. I am trying to cut this down as much as possible.
Senator Tydings. That article you just finished is evidently an en-
comium of some length on the virtue of Chiang Kai-shek, is that
Mrs. Utlet. That is correct.
It goes on to finish up, it goes into great detail about the develop-
ment in China and how, although they are not elected in our sense
of the word, nevertheless they do have representation of all parties.
Here are these papers.
Now, I want to just contrast that with only a few lines of what Lat-
timore writes in Situation in Asia in 1945, which directly contradicts
his favorable view of all wartime China. He is not referring to the
China that came afterward, when it had degenerated. He is referring
to the same China and the same Chiang Kai-shek, and the same period
to which he was giving these high compliments at the end of 1942 and
He says in Situation in Asia : I
In 10.37. when the struggle for survival against Japan began, China was con-
trolled by the Kuomintang, a party which owed nothing to elections or to repre-
sentative forms of government, and which itself appointed not only the National
Government but provincial governments and even the administrative officials of
counties. In parts of the country where its power was unchallenged, the Kuo-
mintang made such appointments without consulting anybody. In regions where
its power was weaker, it accepte<l and confirmed appointments made by whoever
was in power locally ; but the local power was also of a self-appointed kind,
under control by no process of elected representative government.
There is a lot more here that I could read if you like, Senator, or
I can put it in the record.
748 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Ttdings. It will be entered in the record at this point.
(The material referred to is as follows:)
Wbat may be called the functional test of the historical importance of Chiang
Kai-shek is" the fact that, thrcnghout an already long piilitlcal career, he has
gi-own steadily greater and greater. The greater the crisis through which he
has led his people, the greater he has become as a symbol. The greater the deci-
sions he has made, the greater the decisions he is able to make. In this he is a
part of the contemporary history of all Asia. In China and India and the
Pliilippines today the machinery for selecting representatives of the people i*
crude and inefficient. The leaders are to a large extent self-selected. Yet they
are leaders, and the direction in which they are leading their people is demo-
cratic, because what gives a Chiang, a Gandhi, a Nehru, a Quezon his power over
the minds of millions is his ability to make decisions and indicate courses of
action which those millions will support and follow. Unless they continue to
make such decisions, the people will not continue to follow them. There can
be no doubt that this is a phase of creative energy leading to the emergency of
true democracy out of the Asiatic societies. * * *
Mrs. Utley. And again, in The Makinir of ^Modern China, written
by Owen Lattimoi'e and his wife Eleanor and piiblislied in 194o the
following tribute is paid to Chiang Kai-sliek and the National Gov-
ernment of China :
From 1928 to 1937 the Chinese Government had two main lines of policy ; to
achieve uniformity of political structure and administrative control within China
and to strengthen and modernize tlie country. This was the decade in which
the western-trained Chinese had their greatest opportunity. They had unlimited
things to do, and a strong government backing them. This made possible China's
greatest and most rapid advances in industrial growth, mining. l>anking, engineer-
ing, education, and medicine and puldic health. The whole people felt that
China was becoming more modern and progressive, because they could see it
happening. At the same time the whole nation was conscious of one great dan-
ger ; that Japan would not allow it to go on happening.
In the same period China's heavy and light industry expanded with unprece-
dented rapidity. In all kinds of enterprises which had once been possible only
under foreign ownership or management, ihe Chinese began to show more and
more competence and versatility. * * *
Of conrse, evon in this book in which he was following the 1941— to
party line of siii)porting the Chinese National Government. Lattimore
found it necessary to slip in a few lies about Russia for Communist
propaganda i^urposes. Thus, on pages 181-182, he wrote:
China's system of politics and governmenr is as difficult for most people in
democratic countries to understand as the Ilussian system, but it resembles
that system as it existed in Russia 15 or 20 years ago rather than as it exists
today. It does not have such democratic features as wide participation by non-
party members in Government affairs, factory councils, and responsible func-
tions of all kinds; wide use of the secret ballot: actual equality of women
in all kinds of activities instead of nominal, legal equality, and so on. which
the Russian system has been developing.
I ask you whether anyone but a Communist sympathizer would try
to delude his readers into believing that Soviet Russia has, had, or is
developing any such freedoms as those Lattimore specifies.
However, my main point here is that Lattimore at this period was
saying the exact opposite about the Chinese Government and the
Kuomintang of what he has been saying since the Communist Party
line changed to hostility ar.d denunciatio'i of the ''Fascist'' Chiang
Kai-shek and the "reactionary,-' "feudal,"' and what-not National
Government. On page 185 of The Making of ]Modern China the
Lattimores had written:
China is a democratic country in the sense that the party and the Govern-
ment represent what the vast lua.iority of the people want. Wlien we want to
make up our minds whether we ought to call another country democratic, we
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 749
quite naturally be^in by coni[iarinsr it witli our own democratic country. Has
it got the same institutions that exist in our own country? Has it got the same
kinds of procedure for seeinj; that the will of the majority is carried out, and
the same safeguards for seeing tliat the rights of minorities are protected? If it
has not, we histiate to call it a democracy.
This way of looking at things can often lead to misunderstandings. The most
important standard by which to measure progress in a country like China is
not 'iiow near they have got to our way of doing things'' but "how far have they
got ahead of the way things used to be done?'' Judging them by this standard,
the Chinese have made very great progress ; they have made so much progress
that they certr.inly will not slip back into the old condition from which they
were slowly lifted by the long struggle of the Chinese revolution — weakness,
chaos, disunity, and tryainiy enforced by independent regional military chieftains,
combined with foreign control of a large part of their Government revenue and
foreign domination of their economic life.
The present rulers and leaders of China are not revolutionary in the sense that
they have suddenly and recently seized power. They are the sons and disciples
of the Chinese revolutionaries of 20 and 30 years ago. It is because they repre-
sent the tradition and process of the revolution as a whole that they so con-
fidently feel that they represent the jieople and the nation as a whole.
The People's Political Council is an example of the way in which the Kuo-
mintang has begun to permit political expression through channels other than
those of the Kuomintang itself. Formed during the war, the People's Political
Council contains a Kuomintang majority, together with representatives of other
political parties, including the Comnuuiists. This i)roduces the curious phenom-
enon of recognized representation for parties which conduct unrestricted public
campaigns for membership. Parenthetically, it may be pointed out that the
Communists, who dominate both politically and militarily a restricted area in