35 replies to this topic

[changsham]

Instead of just name dropping people who were not employees of the State Department, can you just provide the facts to your allegation there were two Chinese spys working in the State Department and associated with Lattimore. Were the persons employed by the State Department exposed, charged or convicted of spying for China? And can you provide their names?

Edited by changsham, 23 February 2009 - 11:00 PM.

[ahxiang]

Instead of just name dropping people who were not employees of the State Department, can you just provide the facts to your allegation there were two Chinese spys working in the State Department and associated with Lattimore. Were the persons employed by the State Department exposed, charged or convicted of spying for China? And can you provide their names?

"To justify the rise of Mao, Owne Lattimore was talking about Mao being Tito on daily basis from 1948 to 1949.

Two assistants of Owen Lattimore who had an office in State Department were Chinese communist agents who joined CPUSA since mid-1920s."

Owen Lattimore had a office in State Department. That's my point. His linking Mao to Tito was the adopted buzz word of the time for the State Department to implement the pro-Mao policies.

I mentioned somewhere else that there was in deed an ethnic-Chinese American at the US Army Procurement office, who stopped the shipping-out of China Aid Act goods till Oct/November 1948 - after Chinese officials threatened him with report of his deliberate procrastination.

In US State Department, what you have is a bunch of cohorts of Chinese spies - who worked together and wrote together propaganda against Chinese nationalists since mid-1920s. They married each other, too. The example of Chi Chao-ting and his American wife.

[changsham]

Thank you for the clarification. A slight gramatical slip that can be read both ways. However it must be noted that Owen Lattimore was never an official employee of the State Department but rather a consultant or advisor on Chinese affairs. In his position he was trying to influence American policy and not in a position to make it. You cannot portray his actions as being representative of the American Government.

As to the State Department being riddled with Chinese spies, I only know of one who got into trouble for possible spying activities connected with China and who may had links with Amerasia. That is Emmanuel Larsen who was convicted of being in possession of State Department Documents in 1945 and fined but not imprisoned. He was only an employee of the State Department for a short time, perhaps a year. A sum total of one person and far less than a bunch of cohorts.

Edited by changsham, 24 February 2009 - 01:16 AM.

[ahxiang]

Thank you for the clarification. A slight gramatical slip that can be read both ways. However it must be noted that Owen Lattimore was never an official employee of the State Department but rather a consultant or advisor on Chinese affairs. In his position he was trying to influence American policy and not in a position to make it. You cannot portray his actions as being representative of the American Government.

As to the State Department being riddled with Chinese spies, I only know of one who got into trouble for possible spying activities connected with China and who may had links with Amerasia. That is Emmanuel Larsen who was convicted of being in possession of State Department Documents in 1945 and fined but not imprisoned. He was only an employee of the State Department for a short time, perhaps a year. A sum total of one person and far less than a bunch of cohorts.

Emmanuel Larsen was a tiny, tiny fish. There were dozens of State Dept and Treasury Dept guys who came from the same den, where they worked together for 5, 10, 20, and 20+ years, before converging onto government positions, either coming together or serially. Much bigger fish could be in the Supreme US Justice, something you would never fully understand but could get a hint, knowing that who was the person to intervene to make sure Amerasia case was to be dropped for technicality.


For you, I would say that a person could take a different path for good or bad. Lattimore, a kid so innocent as playing soccer with Chen Lifu in 1910s, could go to the Russian path. Similarly, Shi Zhe and Zhang Lingfu, classmates, went different paths, with former to be a OGPU agent and latter a national hero. Hope you will see what I mean here and take the path that could benefit China and the Chinese people for hundreds of years to come.

[changsham]

Agree, Larsen was a small fish. But he was the sum total of any alleged Communist spy caught in the State Department. Not much at all.

Good or bad paths I would disagree. This was a time of intense moral, cultural and idealogical struggles. Politcal views were polarised in all stratas of society. There were no good or bad but sympathies and struggles for different values. To consider as bad those who disagree with your views is dehumanising and then gives licence for one to follow up with bad acts. You cannot dehumanise people because they are at the opposite political and idealogical spectrum and not expect the same to happen to you. If you choose that path then you and your descendants will suffer payback in kind and thats what happened in China on both sides and will continue to happen to those that continue the cycle to dehumanise others because they think differently.

It was very hard to know who is a spy within any sensative facility. Actual sympathisers would greatly outnumber a true spy during those times. In the US because of its freedoms there would have been sympathisers and agents working for both the KMT and Communists and almost certainly they were in the State Department. Disloyalty is hard to prove and harder to prove where ones true loyalty lies. John Paton Davies was accused of being both a Communist and KMT sympathiser and/or agent. Anyone connected with China's interests for the previous 30 years were tainted because they would have crossed paths with dodgy characters from both sides. Just having a history of being involved in China affairs was enough to have aspersions cast. In such an atmosphere of mistrust and fear it was just best for those in power to move on whom they suspected because there was no way of finding out the truth. The best spies are the best because they are never caught.

Edited by changsham, 24 February 2009 - 07:18 PM.

[ahxiang]

Agree, Larsen was a small fish. But he was the sum total of any alleged Communist spy caught in the State Department. Not much at all.

Good or bad paths I would disagree. This was a time of intense moral, cultural and idealogical struggles. Politcal views were polarised in all stratas of society. There were no good or bad but sympathies and struggles for different values. To consider as bad those who disagree with your views is dehumanising and then gives licence for one to follow up with bad acts. You cannot dehumanise people because they are at the opposite political and idealogical spectrum and not expect the same to happen to you. If you choose that path then you and your descendants will suffer payback in kind and thats what happened in China on both sides and will continue to happen to those that continue the cycle to dehumanise others because they think differently.

It was very hard to know who is a spy within any sensative facility. Actual sympathisers would greatly outnumber a true spy during those times. In the US because of its freedoms there would have been sympathisers and agents working for both the KMT and Communists and almost certainly they were in the State Department. Disloyalty is hard to prove and harder to prove where ones true loyalty lies. John Paton Davies was accused of being both a Communist and KMT sympathiser and/or agent. Anyone connected with China's interests for the previous 30 years were tainted because they would have crossed paths with dodgy characters from both sides. Just having a history of being involved in China affairs was enough to have aspersions cast. In such an atmosphere of mistrust and fear it was just best for those in power to move on whom they suspected because there was no way of finding out the truth. The best spies are the best because they are never caught.

John Paton Davies and Joseph Stilwell, two guys who attended Cairo Conference, completely influenced Roosevelt and his son in regards to policies on China and Chiang Kai-shek. The two guys here, who were at most called "fellow travellers", were definitely what you call the traitors of America in carrying out a policy that hurt the interests of the United States [and the Republic of China] and enhance the interests of Russians and the enemies of ROC and USA, even though the two guys were not communists per se.

Why the two guys committed crime against USA and China?

The two guys, called "field representatives" to China, directly fed Roosevelt with reports about China and Chiang's "reactionary" regime. At Cairo, the two guys, plus Roosevelt and his son, first discussed the "regime change" and the assassination scheme, at a time when China was fighting Japanese, responsible for entangling 1 million IJA in the quagmire.

What's the motive? Directly helping the Chinese communists and INDIRECTLY helping the Russians, as well as Japanese - you will say.

While George Marshall was directly helping Russians with the plans of southern France invasion and Italy invasion in lieu of Balkans or elsewhere, Stilwell, Marshall's crony, took the task of indirectly assisting the Russians without knowing the true purpose of Marshall's mandate.

If you google "blue whale" in Chinese, Stilwell, Dorn, assassination, Chiang Kai-shek, you would hit 100 websites with talks about assassination of Chiang Kai-shek.

What was rarely known was that the assassination originated from Cairo talks, while Chinese websites talked extensively about a coup scheme to topple Chiang during Cairo conference. There were apparent rumours spread about the coup during the visit to Cairo, with contribution by the "Americans" - Davis et al, of course, who cohorted with Anna Wang [German communist], Gong Peng and other non-Chinese and Chinese communist women. More, the assassination was attempted. Sometime in 1944, Chiang Kai-shek averted the fate of assassination death at the last minute when he received a call from a patriotic American officer, with a hint not to ride on the American plane.

Edited by ahxiang, 27 February 2009 - 01:28 PM.