Changes

In the years between 1928 and 1945 Owen Lattimore wrote eight books about Asia and China. In Lattimore's 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 Lattimore's 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 1934, in ''The Mongols of Manchuria'', Lattimore again puts 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 points out that the [[Soviet Union]], China and [[Japan]] all have ambitions in Manchuria, but that the Soviet Union has more right there than China or Japan. It was in this book that he pictured China as an aggressor in Manchuria. Through these books runs a strain of admiration for the Soviet Union.

In 1934, in ''The Mongols of Manchuria'', Lattimore again puts 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 points out that the [[Soviet Union]], China and [[Japan]] all have ambitions in Manchuria, but that the Soviet Union has more right there than China or Japan. It was in this book that he pictured China as an aggressor in Manchuria. Through these books runs a strain of admiration for the Soviet Union. 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 alters his picture of Manchuria.  He abandons his old line that Manchuria is not Chinese but Mongolian and asserts it is "95 per cent Chinese" and points out that it is a mistake, merely because the country is called Manchuria, to think that the people are not Chinese.  

In all these books Lattimore emphasizes that Americans are reluctant to admit that the Soviet Union has 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 places the three principals of [[Sun Yat-sen]], Soviet [[collectivism]] and the [[New Deal]] as all akin to one another.  Lattimore described the Stalinist [[show trial]]s of the [[Great purge]] as "evidence of democracy."<ref>''Pacific Affairs'', September, 1938.</ref>

 

In all these books he emphasizes that Americans are reluctant to admit that the Soviet Union has 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 places the three principals of [[Sun Yat-sen]], Soviet [[collectivism]] and the [[New Deal]] as all akin to one another.  In 1938 Lattimore wrote of the [[show trial]]s during the [[Great purge]] as "an evidence of democracy."<ref>''Pacific Affairs'', September, 1938.</ref>

In July of 1938 IPR had a grant of $90,000 from the [[Rockefeller Foundation]] to make a study. 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—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 a member of the [[Richard Sorge]] ring in Japan—[[Guenther Stein]]. 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 he was succeeded by [[Michael Greenberg]], a Communist Party member. Lattimore then became a member of the editorial board of another IPR organ, the notorious ''[[Amerasia]]'' magazine.

In July of 1938 IPR had a grant of $90,000 from the [[Rockefeller Foundation]] to make a study. 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—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 a member of the [[Richard Sorge]] ring in Japan—[[Guenther Stein]]. 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 he was succeeded by [[Michael Greenberg]], a Communist Party member. Lattimore then became a member of the editorial board of another IPR organ, the notorious ''[[Amerasia]]'' magazine.