Changes

==Early writings==

==Early writings==

In the years between 1928 and 1945 Owen Lattimore wrote eight books about Asia and China. In his first book, ''Desert Road to Turkestan'' (1928), Lattimore wrote, "I should be inclined to say that a very strong case can be made out for the Soviet position."<ref>''Desert Road to Turkestan'' by Owen Lattimore (Boston, 1928), pg. 247.</ref> In a later book, ''Manchuria, Cradle of Conflict'' (1935), Lattimore writes, "Russia appears to be the only nation of the modern world that is 'young' enough to have 'men of destiny' It creates its [[Lenin]] and its [[Stalin]]. . . . Russia, more than China and more than any nation of the West, is launched upon a career of growth"<ref>''Manchuria, Cradle of Conflict'' by Owen Lattimore (Rev. 1935), pg. 293.</ref> China, which was to become the victim of this communist "growth," is characterized by such adjectives as "[[aggressive]]," and "[[expansionist]]."

In the years between 1928 and 1945 Owen Lattimore wrote eight books about Asia and China. In his first book, ''Desert Road to Turkestan'' (1928), Lattimore wrote, "I should be inclined to say that a very strong case can be made out for the Soviet position."<ref>''Desert Road to Turkestan'' by Owen Lattimore (Boston, 1928), pg. 247.</ref> In a later book, ''Manchuria, Cradle of Conflict'' (1935), Lattimore writes, "Russia appears to be the only nation of the modern world that is 'young' enough to have 'men of destiny' It creates its [[Lenin]] and its [[Stalin]]. . . . Russia, more than China and more than any nation of the West, is launched upon a career of growth"<ref>''Manchuria, Cradle of Conflict'' by Owen Lattimore (Rev. 1935), pg. 293.</ref> China, which was to become the victim of this communist "growth," is characterized by such adjectives as "[[aggressive]]," and "[[expansionist]]." Lattimore depicted China as an aggressor in Manchuria, writing that the [[Soviet Union]], China and [[Japan]] all had ambitions in Manchuria, but that the Soviet Union had more right there than China or Japan.

In 1934, in ''The Mongols of Manchuria'', Lattimore put forward the idea that [[Sinkiang]], [[Mongolia]] and [[Manchuria]] might be made into a separate empire under Soviet influence, and he claims the people of Manchuria are not Chinese at all, but Mongolian. In 1935, in his ''Manchuria: Cradle of Conflict'', Lattimore wrote that the [[Soviet Union]], China and [[Japan]] all had ambitions in Manchuria, but that the Soviet Union had more right there than China or Japan. It was in this book that he pictured China as an aggressor in Manchuria. In 1942, Lattimore wrote a Foreign Policy Report (September 1, 1942) called ''Asia in a New World Order'' after the [[Pearl Harbor attack]]. Japan had taken Manchuria. Lattimore altered his picture of Manchuria. He abandoned his old line that Manchuria was not Chinese but Mongolian, asserting that it was "95 per cent Chinese" and that it was a mistake, merely because the country is called Manchuria, to think that the people are not Chinese.

In 1934, in ''The Mongols of Manchuria'', Lattimore had put suggested that [[Sinkiang]], [[Mongolia]] and [[Manchuria]] might be made into a separate empire under Soviet influence, and claimed that the people of Manchuria are not Chinese at all, but Mongolian. But in 1942, after Japan had taken Manchuria, Lattimore reversed himself. In a Foreign Policy Report dated September 1, 1942, titled ''Asia in a New World Order, '' Lattimore abandoned his old line that Manchuria was not Chinese but Mongolian, asserting that it was "95 per cent Chinese" and that it was a mistake, merely because the country was called Manchuria, to think that the people were not Chinese.

In 1940, Lattimore characterized Soviet policy in Mongolia as "in the interests of the Mongol people as a whole"; from Moscow in 1960, he was taken on an extensive tour of the (Communist) Mongolian People's Republic, toward which he adopted a "completely uncritical attitude." By the late '60s, Lattimore openly affirmed the position that the United States was pursuing an imperialist strategy as against the progressive stance of the Soviet Union.<ref>James Cotton, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=gH-7AAAAIAAJ Asian Frontier Nationalism: Owen Lattimore and the American Policy Debate]'' (Manchester University Press, 1989) ISBN 0719025850, pp. 159-160</ref>

In 1940, Lattimore characterized Soviet policy in Mongolia as "in the interests of the Mongol people as a whole"; from Moscow in 1960, he was taken on an extensive tour of the (Communist) Mongolian People's Republic, toward which he adopted a "completely uncritical attitude." By the late '60s, Lattimore openly affirmed the position that the United States was pursuing an imperialist strategy as against the progressive stance of the Soviet Union.<ref>James Cotton, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=gH-7AAAAIAAJ Asian Frontier Nationalism: Owen Lattimore and the American Policy Debate]'' (Manchester University Press, 1989) ISBN 0719025850, pp. 159-160</ref>

In all these books Lattimore emphasized that Americans were reluctant to admit that the Soviet Union had any valid claim to be called a [[democracy]], "even when democratic procedures are as plainly stated as they are in the [[Stalin Constitution]]."<ref>''Asia in a New World Order'', by Owen Lattimore, Foreign Policy Report, September 1, 1942.</ref> Lattimore placed the three principals of [[Sun Yat-sen]], Soviet [[collectivism]] and the [[New Deal]] as all akin to one another. In the September 1938 issue of ''Pacific Affairs'',  Lattimore described the [[Great Purge|Moscow purge trials]] as "a triumph for Democracy,"<ref>Subcommittee on S. Res. 231, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 81st Cong., 2d sess., [http://ia341005.us.archive.org/2/items/statedepartmente195002unit/statedepartmente195002unit_bw.pdf State Department Employee Loyalty Investigation: Hearings, Part II, Appendix] (Washington: U.S. GPO, 1950), p. 1532 (PDF p. 36)</ref> concluding that this orgy of mass murder "sounds like democracy to me."<ref>Paul Hollander, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=rhkswwoTg7MC Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society]'', 4th Ed. (Transaction Publishers, 1998), ISBN 1560009543, p. 165</ref>

In all these books Lattimore emphasized that Americans were reluctant to admit that the Soviet Union had any valid claim to be called a [[democracy]], "even when democratic procedures are as plainly stated as they are in the [[Stalin Constitution]]."<ref>''Asia in a New World Order'', by Owen Lattimore, Foreign Policy Report, September 1, 1942.</ref> Lattimore placed the three principals of [[Sun Yat-sen]], Soviet [[collectivism]] and the [[New Deal]] as all akin to one another. In the September 1938 issue of ''Pacific Affairs'',  Lattimore described the [[Great Purge|Moscow purge trials]] as "a triumph for Democracy,"<ref>Subcommittee on S. Res. 231, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 81st Cong., 2d sess., [http://ia341005.us.archive.org/2/items/statedepartmente195002unit/statedepartmente195002unit_bw.pdf State Department Employee Loyalty Investigation: Hearings, Part II, Appendix] (Washington: U.S. GPO, 1950), p. 1532 (PDF p. 36)</ref> concluding that this orgy of mass murder "sounds like democracy to me."<ref>Paul Hollander, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=rhkswwoTg7MC Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society]'', 4th Ed. (Transaction Publishers, 1998), ISBN 1560009543, p. 165</ref>

In July of 1938 IPR obtained a grant of $90,000 (equivalent to about [http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Data/US-Inflation/inf_calculator.cfm?first=90000&year1=1938&year2=2012 $1.5 million today]) from the [[Rockefeller Foundation]] to perform a study of Asia. Dr. [[Edward C. Carter]] was managing it. Lattimore wrote to Carter, “I think you were pretty cagey to turn over so much of the China section of the inquiry to Asiaticus, Han-seng and Chi.<ref>Hans Moeller, Chen Han-seng and Chi  Chao-ting. Source: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Report on the Institute of Pacific Relations, Washington 1952.</ref>. They will bring out the essential [[radical]] aspects, but can be depended upon to do it with the right touch!” Lattimore went on to say "my hunch is that it will pay to keep behind the official Chinese Communist position, "  and  "as for the USSR&mdash;back their international policy in general, hut without using their slogans, and above all without giving them or anybody else the impression of subservience."<ref>United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security Hearings, July 26, 1951.</ref>  Lattimore recommended highly ''Challenge of Red China'', written by [[Guenther Stein]], a member of [[Richard Sorge]]'s Soviet spy ring in Japan. Of [[Israel Epstein]]'s ''Unfinished Revolution in China'' he said: "When he pleads his case the arguments pile up like a wedge." When Lattimore resigned as editor of ''Pacific Affairs'', he was succeeded by [[Michael Greenberg]], a Communist Party member. Lattimore then became a member of the editorial board of the notorious ''[[Amerasia]]'' magazine.

In July of 1938 IPR obtained a grant of $90,000 (equivalent to about [http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Data/US-Inflation/inf_calculator.cfm?first=90000&year1=1938&year2=2012 $1.5 million today]) from the [[Rockefeller Foundation]] to perform a study of Asia. Lattimore wrote to IPR President [[Edward C. Carter]], “I think you were pretty cagey to turn over so much of the China section of the inquiry to Asiaticus, Han-seng and Chi.<ref>"Asiaticus" was the pen name of a veteran German Comintern agent in Shanghai, Hans (or Heinz) Moeller (or Mueller), alias M. G. Shippe. Lattimore frequently published articles under this pseudonym in the IPR journal Pacific Affairs'' during his tenure as editor in 1934-41. (U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, [https://ia801406.us.archive.org/8/items/instituteofpacif1952unit/instituteofpacif1952unit.pdf Report on the Institute of Pacific Relations], Washington 1952, p. 119</ref>. They will bring out the essential [[radical]] aspects, but can be depended upon to do it with the right touch!” Lattimore went on to say "my hunch is that it will pay to keep behind the official Chinese Communist position,"  and  "as for the USSR&mdash;back their international policy in general, hut without using their slogans, and above all without giving them or anybody else the impression of subservience."<ref>United States Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security Hearings, July 26, 1951.</ref>  Lattimore recommended highly ''Challenge of Red China'', written by [[Guenther Stein]], a member of [[Richard Sorge]]'s Soviet spy ring in Japan. Of [[Israel Epstein]]'s ''Unfinished Revolution in China'' he said: "When he pleads his case the arguments pile up like a wedge." When Lattimore resigned as editor of ''Pacific Affairs'', he was succeeded by [[Michael Greenberg]], a Communist Party member. Lattimore then became a member of the editorial board of the notorious ''[[Amerasia]]'' magazine.

==Policy subversion==

==Policy subversion==