chairman of the editorial board. Equally familiar is the name of Jhillip J. Jaffe, managing editor of the magazine, who was indicted and convicted for having illegal possession of secret State Department documents. The committee will note that there follows a list of eight members of the board of this pro-Communist magazine. It will also observe that 50 percent of the editorial board of this magazine, whose editor was convicted of possessing State Department secret documents illegally, have been or are now highly placed officials of the Department of State of the United States.

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

In the June 6, 1946, issue of the Washington Times-Herald there appears an article, entitled "How Come?" written by Mr. Frank C. Waldrop, editorial director of that newspaper.

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 conference 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 be of interest to Secretary of State Jimmy Byrnes who is doing his 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 'Orientation Conferences and Training Programs for Personnel of the Foreign Service 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.

"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 up. It concerns You too, because the State Department is supposed to look out for the interests of the United States between wars and you live here.)

"Of 57 instructors listed to give the developing diplomats the real dope on their business, all but three are Government officials.

"The three 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 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Prof. Frederick L. Schuman of Williams College, Williamstown, Mass.

"Lattimore is a bosom pal of Henry Wallace, the 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 persons less well known, to an extent that ought to give J. Byrnes some pause.

"Just an item: He was formerly on the editorial board of Amerasia, the proSoviet magazine that got caught in possession of confidential State Department documents in 1944 with result that an editor and a State Department employee 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.

"Most people have the impression that on the record and the evidence the welfare of the United States is better looked after in Japan with Gen. Douglas

MacArthur 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 hour-long 'na-a-a-a-ah, it's lousy.' His line is that the Japs have outsmarted MacArthur 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 bother 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 something?

"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 flash by turning to page 582 of his latest book, 'Soviet Politics At Home and Abroad,' wherein he states:

"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 U. S. Soviet relations sums up Stalin's behavior and the almost 28 bloody years of Communist 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 Columbia 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? 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 grammar school students could grasp it. Having explained it to grammar students, I know. Here it is, expressed in monosyllabic words: "If the Reds win out there, we lose. If they lose, we win. Well, for all practical purposes, the Red 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 believe, though, that no Americans deserve more credit for this Russian triumph and Sino-American disaster than Owen Lattimore and a small group of his followers.

"Owen Lattimore, confidant of two United States Presidents, adviser to our State Department, author of 10 books about the Far East, 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 Switzerland, then in England, and returned to China as a newsman before taking up exploration, particularly in Manchuria and Mongolia. He then studied in Peiping, first on a fellowship from the Harvard Yenching Foundation and later on a John Simon Guggenheim 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 1937, a year later he became director of the Walter Hines Page School of International Relations of Johns Hopkins University, a post he still holds. In 1941 he was for 6 months President Roosevelt's political adviser to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, then returned to the States to enter the OWI, becoming Deputy

Director to the Overseas Branch in Charge of Pacific Operations. In June 1944, he and J. Carter Vincent, 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 that 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 hesitate to criticize former Ambassador Joseph C. Grew's plan, adopted by MacArthur, to govern the Japanese people through the Emperior. He believed that the Emperior 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 former 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 That 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 campaign; I helped to plan it. # The number one end was a Chinese coalition government in which Chiang would accept the agrarian reformers-at the insistence of the United States. 串 We could work through legitimate Far East organizations and writers that were recognized as Orienal authorities. Frederick V. Field emphasized 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 States, spread to certain policy-making 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 p'anting 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.'"

* *

(Apparently the writer did not realize that this organization had been cited as a Communist front by the California Committee on Un-American Activities. 1948 Report, page 168.)

"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 China 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). In her Lost Illusion (p. 194) she refers to the same 1936 Moscow meeting: The whole staff of our Pacific 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. 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 London how he had almost lost his position 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, Mr. 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 appeal to Chiang Kai-shek to free himself from the galling yoke (of the Kuomintang) and to set free the democratic forces which have proved effective in northwestern China,' i. e., the Chinese Reds. That book is again referred to in an article by ex-Communist Max Eastman 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 conception.

"Mr. Lattimore praised the net result of the Moscow trials and the blood purge by which Stalin secured his dictatorship in 1936-39 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 practises, such as the ones they can see in action across the Russian border, than they are in the fine theories of AngloSaxon democracies which come coupled with ruthless imperialism.' Does that sound as if Mr. Lattimore, a top adviser 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 democracy (i. e., United States style) in Asia is lost. As is well known, these tentacles need not include invading Soviet troops, but only the native Communist parties now giving allegiance to the Soviet Union and taking their directives from Moscow. When these Communist Parties get control of a neighboring state the Moscow dictatorship and its fellow travelers call that a friendly government. It is by means of these Communist-controlled friendly governments-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 Fairbanks, 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. A moment's reflection should make it clear that the very last thing a real Chinese nationalist would do would be to swallow hook, line, and sinker the doctrine of Karl Marx, a German Jew, who besides being a foreigner has a system that goes counter to every Chinese instinct and every tradition in the Chinese concept of society.

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

"If anyone is still puzzled by the contention that 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 bourgeoisie.' That, I believe, shows us what 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 workingmen 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 Communists in their international relations. They never question the Russian line. They follow every twist and turn 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 pseudo-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 Amer

ica. They likewise agree that while Mao might possibly become an extreme nationalist at some future date, another Tito, there is absolutely no evidence that this is a factor to be seriously reckoned with for a long time, Mr. Lattimore to the contrary notwithstanding. Spencer Moosa, latest newsman out of Peiping, confirms 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-Russian? And so, instance after instance shows the very close connection between Moscow and Chinese Communism that has been witnessed throughout the last 28 years by intelligent observers who have lived in Red China-where Mr. Lattimore has never lived.

"To the average American, whom pro-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 Foster, or Dennis, or Earl Browder. After all, remember, a real Communist has no country. And surely Mao has proved he is a 100-percent Communist. 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 Situation 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 Negroes 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 Asiatic matters but unfortunately, if we are to take his written words as an index of his knowledge of China's Reds, he 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 3-years' correspondent assignment in China. I asked him why it was that practically all 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 corrupt opposite number.

"It is probably of such men that Mr. Lattimore, in his book Situation in China (p. 177), 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 were allowed the freedom to observe the limited activities of KMT secret police, while they weren'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 chuang 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 hear what is being said inside the family about the Communists. Children are rewarded for spying on their parents and, if anyone is believed to be guilty of anti-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 so universal in Red China that if Mr. Lattimore dosn't know about it he knows 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 Frenchman, a former university professor from Tientsin who spent the years from 1941 to 1945 in Red territoy, and had been haled before both Japanese and Red tribunals. 'It is not terror,' he says, 'for terror is a fear which shows itself exteriorily. Here one must not allow his fear to be seen; he must appear satisfied and approve everything that is said and done. It is a hidden fear, but a creeping, paralysing fear. The people keep quiet. They do