Changes

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 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 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 1934, in ''The Mongols of Manchuria'', Lattimore had 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>