Changes

In 1934, in ''The Mongols of Manchuria'', Lattimore had claimed that the people of Manchuria are not Chinese at all, but Mongolian, and suggested that [[Sinkiang]], [[Mongolia]] and [[Manchuria]] might be made into a separate empire under Soviet influence. 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 claimed that the people of Manchuria are not Chinese at all, but Mongolian, and suggested that [[Sinkiang]], [[Mongolia]] and [[Manchuria]] might be made into a separate empire under Soviet influence. 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.

During the [[Nazi-Soviet pact]], when the Soviet and Communist Party line was that the U.S. should not interfere in Hitler and Stalin's joint invasion and bloody division of Europe, because the Allies were no better than the Axis, Lattimore agreed. In June 1940, when the UK was fighting for its life virtually alone under the Nazi Blitz, he wrote in ''Political Affairs'' that the war was merely "between the established master races and the claimant master races," and was caused by "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." But after Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded Russia, the party line reversed course, demanding immediate U.S. intervention, and Lattimore flip-flopped as well, becoming fanatically pro-war, even joining the U.S. Office of War Information to propagandize for the Allies.

During the [[Nazi-Soviet pact]], when the Soviet and Communist Party line was that the U.S. should not interfere in Hitler and Stalin's joint invasion and bloody division of Europe, because the Allies were no better than the Axis, Lattimore agreed. In June 1940, when the UK was fighting for its life virtually alone under the Nazi Blitz, he wrote in ''Political Affairs'' that the war was merely "between the established master races and the claimant master races," and was caused by "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." But after Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded Russia, the party line reversed course, demanding immediate U.S. intervention, and Lattimore again reversed himself, becoming fanatically pro-war, even joining the U.S. Office of War Information to propagandize for the Allies.

In 1942-43, when the Soviet and Communist Party line was to support the Chinese Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, in order to keep the Japanese pinned down in China and unable to attack the Soviet Far East, Lattimore found Nationalist China to be "democratic," and Chiang a "genius." In a 1942 lecture at Claremont College, Lattimore said, "we have in Asia a statesman of real genius, in Chiang Kai-shek." In 1943, in ''The Making of Modern China,'' he wrote, "China is a democratic country in the sense that the [KMT] Party and the government represent what the vast majority of the people want." But after the war, when the Party line reversed, labeling the KMT "fascist" and the Communist rebels "democratic," Lattimore reversed too. In 1949's ''The Situation in Asia,'' he denounced "the Kuomintang, a party which owed nothing to elections or to representative forms of government," writing that Chiang Kai-shek was influenced by "Fascist" theories.

In 1942-43, when the Soviet and Communist Party line was to support the Chinese Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, in order to keep the Japanese pinned down in China and unable to attack the Soviet Far East, Lattimore found Nationalist China to be "democratic," and Chiang a "genius." In a 1942 lecture at Claremont College, Lattimore said, "we have in Asia a statesman of real genius, in Chiang Kai-shek." In 1943, in ''The Making of Modern China,'' he wrote, "China is a democratic country in the sense that the [KMT] Party and the government represent what the vast majority of the people want." But after the war, when the Party line reversed, labeling the KMT "fascist" and the Communist rebels "democratic," Lattimore flip-flopped yet again. In Solution in Asia (1945), he wrote that the Communist Party had enacted "the most positive step yet taken in China by any party away from dictatorship and toward democracy." In ''The Situation in Asia'' (1949) he denounced "the Kuomintang, a party which owed nothing to elections or to representative forms of government," writing that Chiang Kai-shek was influenced by "Fascist" theories.

From Moscow in 1960, Lattimore 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>

From Moscow in 1960, Lattimore 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>