| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | ==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> Lattimore characterized China, which was to become the victim of this communist "growth," 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> Lattimore characterized China, which was to become the victim of this communist "growth," 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 1940, Lattimore characterized Soviet policy in Mongolia as "in the interests of the Mongol people as a whole." |
| | | | |
| | 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. They will bring out the absolutely essential radical aspects, but can be depended on to do it with the right touch." | | 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. They will bring out the absolutely essential radical aspects, but can be depended on to do it with the right touch." |
| Line 12: |
Line 12: |
| | | | |
| | In the September 1938 issue of ''Pacific Affairs'', Lattimore described the bloody [[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 the September 1938 issue of ''Pacific Affairs'', Lattimore described the bloody [[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 1940, Lattimore characterized Soviet policy in Mongolia as "in the interests of the Mongol people as a whole."
| |
| | | | |
| | Lattimore argued that the Soviet Union had a valid claim to be called a [[democracy]], but that Americans were reluctant to admit it, "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. | | Lattimore argued that the Soviet Union had a valid claim to be called a [[democracy]], but that Americans were reluctant to admit it, "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. |