Changes

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.

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 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.

In 1942, 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 ''The Making of Modern China'' (written in 1942) 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 in 1943, when it became apparent that Japan was losing its foothold in China, the Party line reversed, labeling the KMT "fascist" and the Communist rebels "democratic." According to former Politburo member Louis Budenz:

 

{{cquote|In 1943, at a regular meeting of the political bureau, at which Mr. Browder was present, it was again officially reported that Mr. Lattimore, through Mr. Field, had received word from the apparatus that there was to be a change of line on Chiang Kai-shek. It was decided that the line was to attack Chiang Kai-shek; an article was discussed, to be put in one of the organs of the Institute of Pacific Relations, and it did so appear, by T. A. Bisson, declaring that Nationalist China was feudal China, and Red China was democratic China.}}

 

In ''Solution in Asia'' (1945), Lattimore 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. He added:

 

 

 

 

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>