Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10173-10134.pdf — page 12]
-7-for the fate to which he and his wife were condemned.I ask you to recall the whole period of the organisa-tion and activities of the China-League for Civil Rights,from December, 1933, to June, 1933, in which I took annotive part. I gave full play to this hybrid League andits work without once publishing the basic criticismswhich I often voiced to you and which in the end werewholly confirmed by what happened after the Kuomintangmurdered Yang Chien in June that year.I ask you to recall the views I set forth in Augustand Sentember, 1933, on the subject of the "anti-War Con-gress" which at your specific request I did not publish.Instead, to my regret, I published the foul rot of Mar-ley & Co., without freely giving play to the true factsabout that farcioal junket which had convinced me thatthe policies which gave it birth do not one single whitadvance the international struggle against imperialistwar.On one occasion and this at least I can take com-fort in I passively resisted when you requested me towrite and publish a slanderous attack on Chen-Tu-holuwhen he was condemned to 13 years imprisonment by theKuomintang. Your request was specific. I was not todeal with the issues which had brought Chen Tu-hsiu frombeing the leader of the C.P. in 1927 to being leader ofthe Chinese Opposition in 1933. I was only to string to-gether a vile series of labels in an effort to explainwhy the Kuomintang even imprisoned the leader of theLeft Opposition. As you know, that attack was neverwritten or published.Again in December, 1933, upon my return from Fukien,you specifically demanded that I set aside the results ofmy own personal investigations in Foochow in order towrite on your behalf (but over my signature!) an utterlybaseless and slanderous attack on the Left Opposition.You will recall that you charged at that time that theTrotskyists were prominently identified with the newgovernment set up in Fukien by Chen Ming-shu and TaalTing-kal. You lumped the Left Opposition with the ThirdParty and the so-called Social Democrats among the pettybourgeois satellites of the Fukien militarists. It wasas much to satisfy myself on this very point as to per-form a mission for you that I went down to Foochow andspent two weeks there and learned through direct contactwith dozens of people prominently concerned that the LeftOpposition were stoutly and clearly opposed to the Foochowregime. I haven't place bare to discuss the relations ofthe C.P. to the short-lived Fukien Government or the char-acter of the "negotiations which were going on down there..The important thing here is that on my return you demandedthat I write clanders which flew in the face of everythingI myself had learned. It is interesting, as a sidelighton your methods in factional strife as you conceive it,that your representative in Poochow sent back a report,through me, ironically enough, that one of the most prom-inent of the youthful pseudo-radicale in Foochow, BuChi-yuen
[104-10173-10134.pdf — page 13]
-8-Chi-yuen to be exact, was a leading "Trotskyist". It so happened that I met and had several lengthy interviews with Hu and by the time I left Foochow I understood his position and his personality exceedingly well. He was as much a Trotskyist as Mei Lan-fang is! Yet you actually demanded that I ignore my own knowledge of the man and in my article on Fukien set him down as a "Trotskyist". I was faced on the one hand by your demands that I write falsehoods to suit your policies and on the other by my deep desire to set forth the actual facts about the Opposition's attitude towards the Fukien regime. But once more, to preserve the shreds of our relationship, I drove a middle course and did neither, leaving the whole question out of my article.Despite the facts that these issues weighed more and more heavily upon me, despite the fact that events in China and abroad were pressing themselves sore and more imperatively on the concerns of every sincere revolutionary, I still tried to keep the Forum balanced on its ribbon-like path, concentrating on the anti-Kuomintang, anti-imperialist struggle, and in so doing fulfilling at least a partial function as a revolutionary organ. I deeply felt, however, that I was betraying my readers by avoiding these issues. How could I write of Germany and avoid all the implications of that disaster? How could I write of America's recognition of the U.S.S.R. and still fail to say that the Communist International had virtually been murdered at Washington? How could I warn against the dangers of imperialist intervention in the U.S.S.R. and still not point out that Soviet foreign policy was in fact daily heightening the danger of such intervention? Yet I somehow did so and sought in whatever way possible to retain some basis for our continued collaboration.IV.Nevertheless, abruptly in January of this year you forced an ultimatum upon me and subsequently forced the break in our relationship because I could not and would not, at your demand, devote the China Forum to policies which I could not and do not believe compatible with the interests of the Chinese Revolution and the international proletarian revolution. I could not, at your demand, set aside the convictions to which I had literally been driven by the stinging lash of catastrophic events in China, Germany and the world over. Particularly my deep interest in Chinese events during the last three years made it impossible for me, finally, to give active support to policies and tactics whose disastrous effects were being a thousandfold confirmed for me by the tragic events of every swiftly-passing day. I could not ignore questions which strike at the roots of our work and the whole structure of our hopes for a revolutionary future.Despite the fact that these questions are rocking the entire International today, you denied my right toraise
[104-10173-10134.pdf — page 14]
-9-raise them in print. You demanded more. You demandedthat I attack anybody who did so - primarily the peopleyou call "counter-revolutionary Trotskyists" the onlypeople who are facing these problems today in a fearless,revolutionary way. You demanded that the China Forumbecome a stereotype for the policies and vulgar faction-al slanders which I could neither then nor now be partyto. In reply to my questions on China you simply quotedback to me the lies and half-lies I've been so used toreading in Inprecorr. You even declared: "For propa-ganda purposes a certain amount of exaggeration is neces-sary... and went on amasingly to say: "but we know thetrue facts and we base our policies on them, not on theseexaggerations! A new slant on modern-day C.I. tactics!Facts, you said, are curious things. They have to beturned around and around and around and examined closelyuntil their true nature becomes apparent. The trouble 18you turn them so far and so quickly that they turn intosomething like a dizzily turning top of fancy - or atbest wish - fulfilling misrepresentations.To my questions on Germany you quoted Heckert,Piatnitsky, and the E.C.C.I.'s famour resolution declar-ing that the collapse of the German party and the slaughterof the German workers were based on the past, present andfuture correct policies of the C.P.O.! You declared I hadno right to offer critical comment on the dangerouslyopportunistic foreign and domestic policies of the U.S.S.R.,most notably on the entry of the U.S.S.R. on a straightnationalist basis into the disgusting corridors of im-perialist intrigue. To the contrary, I was to lovinglyfawningly fondle and hail the policies which have meantdisaster in China, Germany and elsewhere and are rapidlyleading the U.3.3.R. into the vacuum of nationalist is00lation from the world wide proletarian movement. This Iwas to do, to begin with, by publishing Stalin's face onthe front page and columns of the customary panegyricsto his infallibility. Above all and before all, I was totake un cudgels against "counter-revolutionary Trotskyism".That was to be the main point of my reformation - to raiseno questions myself and slander anybody else who did so.In reply to your demand that I submit to an editorialboard in order that these editorial policies should be.effectively put into practice, I offered (1) to continuepublication strictly as before, meanwhile arguing out mydifferences with you in discussions on the side; (2) tothrow the columns of the Forum open to a general discus-sion of all basic revolutionary question, with free playto unorthodox as well as orthodox views. If your viewswere correct, I argued, it would be a distinct advantageto you to have such an opportunity to display their br11-liance alongside the puny efforts of your critios; (3) topublish orthodox news and views but to reserve for myselfthe right to comment and criticise.These repeated offers you repeatedly refused. Youoffered to discuss these questions with me verbally if inthe
[104-10173-10134.pdf — page 15]
-10-the seanwhile I throw the Forum oven to your editorialboard. My other proposals were unthinkable! Give theForia's readers a chance to hear counter-revolutionary"viewcoints? Never that! I could only display my revo-lutionary purity by acceding to your demands. We wouldtalk things over until Spring, then if all went well (1.e.,if I showed a satisfactory adaptability to your view-point) I could pack up for an educational trip to theSoviet Union where I would certainly become convincedof the error of my ways. In other words you wanted mysignature on a promissory note with the amount leftblank for you to fill in. You put this in the form ofan ultimatum and you told me that if I did anything butaccept I would forthwith enter the camp of the "counter-revolution".I had to refuse these terms. I had to refuse tolend myself to a slanderous and baseless struggle against-the International Left Opposition. I had to refuse tolend space to the nauseatingly fawning praise of Stalinand uncritical reception of Stalinist policies whichcharacterise the Communist Party press the world over.I had to refuse to take shelter in the cold and draughtyempty spaces which stretch behind the impressive facadeand early tradition of the Communist International. Iwould like to go to the Soviet Union for a vist someday -but I had to refuse your offer on your terms. I had torefuse, in short, to become a hack prostitute in the nameof the Revolution.In the end, too, I had to refuse to turn over to youthe printing plant I had built up with so much pain andstruggle because I considered it not your property butthe property of the working class movement. Because Icould not carry on the Forum myself, for lack of finan-cial resources and because of heavy debts contracted, Idisposed of the plant and turned every farthing of theproceeds over to where I now consider the true interestsof our movement lie. It was with a deep and abiding bitterness that I had considered comrades, when for two yearsit had fought off all its many enemies on the outside.Yet with it came the realisation that we have tobuild anew over the ruine you have wrought. The revolu-tion and the building of our future moves forward andwhen we trample down the defenses of our enemies we shallcrush underfoot everything and everybody that stands inour way. No sycophantic, blind allegiance to a name, anempty facade, a torn and shredded prestige can lead usforward. Only unswerving fidelity to our goal and activestruggle towards this end with the weapons of a correctand tested political line will lift us from defeat to ul-timate victory. To this struggle I shall continue todedicate all my energies.Harold R. Isaacs.Peiving, ChinaMay 30, 1934.(Covied by RD)
[104-10173-10134.pdf — page 16]
EUR COMUNIST ACTIVITIES FILESDate: July 6,1950 SOURCE: DAILY WORKERFile No. 9100 Isaaca# POST WRITER ADMITS ALL KOREA' OPPOSES INVASIONThe Korean people aro united honest headline: "S. Koreans Dont know Why Help Has Come". The Korean people are united behind the Liberation Armies from Know Why Help Has Come".the North and are hostile to the (In lato editions the Post in- American troops sent there by dicated its own awareness of theTruunans interventionist order, the phoniness of this headline by drop- New York l'osu's Far East expert. ping it. The new and complained:Harold R. Isaacs, adınitted yester "Weak S. Korean Regime Hana day. pers Cls at Front.Isanes articlo gave the lie to But Isaacs made clear that "if the Post's own editorial line of in China during the Japanese war support to the police-state regime the Americans fuad a friendly pop of Synglaman thee and the Truulation on their side, this is by man attack on Korea as an act to no means the case now in Korea,defend "democracy." He concludes: "Even if the war Isaacs declared that the U. S. remains localized, even a victoryhas "much more reason to count won in due course will be a ten- on general Korean hostility than porary one, and such a victory willon hervic, support." He admitted not be easily won.that "South Korean civilians have!been infinutelv harder hit by theAmerican action so fư than bytheir lellow-Koreans from thenorth.The South Korean government was an "uopopular one in the elec- tion held only four weeks ago,Isaacs said, "the regime of Presi- dhrit Syngman Rhee was decisively zejmediated.Ikaar's 'declared that the guerilla movements in South Korea "could have operated only with a con- siderable measure of popular sup port, and he acknowledged the"intense desire of all Koreans for reunification of their disnemberelCumintry.To top this story, bristling with exposure of the imperialist nature of the Truman attack on Korea, and with evidence of the Korean people's awareness of their real enemy, the Post concocted the dis.> RECORD COPYH/W ATT 05 TO 35786 201-15446
[104-10173-10134.pdf — page 17]
No. 1480.SECRET:7100-Isaacs, Harold.December 2, 1932.MEMORANDUM.sith reference to R.A. memorandum No. 1305 of December 4, 1931, regarding Harold ISAACS and his connection with Silaire NCULENG, it has just been learned that one Viola ROBINSON arrived in Shanghai on August 28, 1932, by the C.... S.S. MASS OF ASIA. On August 29, Miss ROBINSON, together bith Harold ISAACS of the CHINA FORUM, gave notice to the United States Consulate General of their intended marriage, which actually took place on the 14th September. In his marriage application, ISAACS particularly requested that no publicity be given to the forthcoming ceremony. It appears that Miss ROBINSON is a follower of the suffragette, Lucy STONE, who, some fifteen or twenty years ago, advocated among American women the retention of the maiden name after marriage. According to officials of the United States Consulate General, Viola ROBINSON, therefore, will not be known as Mrs. ISAACS.In connection aith Viola ROBINSON's activities in China, in a letter, dated Szechuen, July 24, 1931, Harold ISAACS wrote to Viola ROBINSON as follows:> "You are in the swim, Viola. I'm coming back to dive in and swim alongside. That do you think? It is all extremely fortuitous from our standpoint that I should have seen the light at last. Your work with UGG and the future in it is far more important than anything you could do out here or anywhere else for that matter. I'll get back - no matter a possible delay - no matter how - there will be a job to be done and by our gods I'm going to get into it..."Attention is called to the name UGG mentioned in the above extract.![A TRUE COPY OF THE SIGNED ORIGINAL stamp]![RECORD COPY stamp]
[104-10173-10134.pdf — page 18]
No.019ConfidentialAMERICAN CONSULAR SERVICE.American Consulate General,Shanghai, China, December 10, 1931.Subject: Harold H. Isaacs.THE HONORABLETHE SECRETARY OF STATE,WASHINGTON,Sir:I have the honor to report that an American citizen named Harold R. Isaacs has been reported to this office by the police of the International Settlement as a communist suspect. The facts regarding Mr. Isaacs are briefly as follows:Mr. Harold R. Isaacs called at this office in December, 1930, and stated that he would be for a few months in Shanghai; at that time he exhibited passport No. 177026, issued by the Department of State on March 17, 1930. He stated that he expected to leave Shanghai in June, 1931; that his home was in New York City and that his local address was in care of the American Express Company.According to Police reports Isaacs arrived in Shanghai from Manila as a first-class passenger on the S. S. PRESIDENT JEFFERSON on December 17, 1930. He was employed by the SHANGHAI EVENING POST AND MERCURY and later by the CHINA PRESS but apparently lost both positions.H/W ATT 07 To XAA2-33656201-15446
[104-10173-10134.pdf — page 19]
positions. He has resided with a British subject named C. Frank Gluss at 129 Hothaiwel Road and made a trip with Class to Srochuen during June, 1931. The police file contains a copy of a letter written by him to a Miss Viola Robinson, cure of the American Consulato, Dresden, Germany, dated July 24, 1931, at Chongtu, Szoshuen. This lotter, it is stated, was roturne! unoponed to Shanghai frem Dresden, addressed to Nerold R. Isaacs in care of the American Express Company, Shanghai, and was opened by the Post Office Consor at the request of tho Commissioner of Fosts. The letter is very long and shows that Icasos, although previously holding com- munistic vious, only decided definitely to turn "Red" during July of this year. He states that he was in- fluenced in this decision by certain converentions with 0. Frank Glass, above referred to, during their trip to Szoohuen.In conncetion therewith it may be of interest to state that according to a police report dated cotobor 17, 1931, information regarding this letter was given by the Shangai Municipal Police to an officer of the local British Consulate Coneral, who apparently sadlad information regarding it to London. The police report otates that a reply was subsequently receive the glet of which is as follows!"Viola Hobinoma arrived in the United States about the middle of September. The whole family aro corsunists in touch with Joanos family."The police atate that Harold . Isaces in November, 1031, established a nova aceroy under the name of the"Par
[104-10173-10134.pdf — page 20]
-3-"Far Easterm Press Correspondence," cable address Yenprecop, P. O. Box 1926. On October 8th Isaacs and C. Frank Glass moved from 120 Weihaiwei Road to House No. 6, Passage No. 177, Avenue Dubail. The police state that this address was formerly known as Number 25 Avenue Dubail and is the boarding house at which Agnes Smedley resided from May, 1929, to May 1930. The police report that Agnes Smedley frequently visits Isaacs and Glass at this address.In my monthly political report for November, on page 15 it was stated that the bodies of numerous members of the family of a certain Kou had been murdered, allegedly by communists in retaliation for Kou's turning traitor to the communist cause. In connection with this matter Isaacs addressed an open letter to the various newspapers of Shanghai, under date of November 24, 1931, in which he scored them for branding those alleged murders as "horrible" and "dastardly," while at the same time they did not raise their editorial voices against the whole-sale murders committed by Chiang Kai-shek, the Garrison Commander of Shanghai and other Chinese militarists. None of the papers saw fit to publish this letter but I[^1] have received a copy thereof, and copies are enclosed. I have also received a photostatic copy of the last page containing the signature of Mr. Isaacs.Respectfully yours,Edwin S. Cunningham,American Consul General.Enclosure:2010/06[^1]: /
[104-10173-10134.pdf — page 21]
-4-Enclosure!1/- Copy of open letter from Narola R. Isaacs, dated November 24, 1931.![Stamp: A true copy of the signed original. PJ Ban CCCB 8]In QuadruplicateNo Copy to Location.
[104-10173-10134.pdf — page 22]
Enclosure No. 1 to despatch No. 2019 of Edwin S. Cunningham,American Consul General at Shanghai, China, dated December10, 1931, on the subject: "Harold H. Isaacs."COPYAN OPEN LETTER TO THE FOREIGN NEWSPAPERS OF SHANGHAIYour publication of the "ghastly" (Shanghai Times),"horrible" (China Press), "ghastardly" ("vening Post andNorth China Daily News) murders allegedly committed byChinese Communists in the French Concession bringsforcibly to mind certain other aspects of the Chinesescene whose chastliness and barbarity find their wayinto your columns only at rare intervals - and thenonly in brief cool paragraphs.There can be no attempt to "justify" these allegedmurders, if the tale be true. We all hate the guts of atraitor. But we cannot all condone a system of vendettawhich exacts as the price of betrayal the innocent livesof a traitor's family. That, however, involves thequestion of differing social customs to which no abstractmoral a solute can possibly be applied.Betrayal has its price under any social norm,whether we turn the dirty work of vengeance over to theineffable mercies of the Lord or employ the less aestheticbut more effective instruments of the gallows, electricchair, lethal chamber, the guillotine or the more refinedweapons of social ostracism; whether we consider thetraitor himself responsible for his actions - or exactsretribution from his blood relations as well. (Jehovah,too, visits the sins of the father upon his children,yea, even unto the third and fourth generations!)But you reporters, whose typewriters quiveredwith the horror of these alleged deeds of murder inFrenchtown can still without a qualm condone and evenexpress satisfaction at mass murders a thousand timesmore revolting, a thousand times more barbarous - butless so in your journalistically judicious eyes onlybecause officially perpetrated.You city editors - at the moment sending your menout to run down the last threaded folds to this particularstory - why don't you send them out to Lunghua come finesunny morning? Why don't you give them an opportunityto witness the torture and murder of young men and womenwhose only crime is a realistic appreciation of thesocial and economic factors at work in the world anda demand for their readjustment?You editors, who wield your editorial powers soself-righteously, why don't you consistently examine andlogically expose a government that maintains itselflargely by desperately slaughtering the flower of itsprotesting youth and the backbone of its peasant masseswho attempt protest against its venality and corruption?Only