A70 Mr. Flynn found a courageous publisher fn young Devin Garrity, head of the frm of Devin-Adair, that up to then had special- feed chiefly in Irish books and other fine works in the general fleld, They published Mr. Flynn's book; and he was dodging the dead cats and over-ripe fruit of scurrilous and vicious critictam for months thereafter. Nothing daunted, he wrote another book, The Road Ahead. In this work Mr. Flynn says: “The real enemy we must identify and fight at every crossroad and at all points ts the American edition of the British Fabian So- Ctalist, who is engaged in a sneak attack here, as his comrades were in England, who denies that he is a Socialist and who operates behind a mask which he calls national plan- ning” Mr. Flynn is eminently qualified by experience and study to hold and cxpound such views. There are not many Americans who know more about our history and poli-+ tics than Mr. Flynn. And few of those who qualify can match him for his intellectual honesty. He believes, with millions of others not £0 articulate, that communism is merely socialism in a hurry. And he has not hesi- tated to say so and to fight this threat to our established American system. This is the key to his book, a warning that whereas the Communists aye numerically weak here, mil- Mors who say they hate Communists are actually helping them at every turn. The Communist Party has been able to use the professional Mberals tu do their dirty work. Mr. Flynn's book, The Road Ahead, by all the criteria applied to books should have had the widest attention from reviewers, espe- cially in the nationally circulated Sunday book review supplements. At this point Mr. Devin Garrity reports: “We published the book and waited for the reviews, especially the Sunday New York Her- ald Tribune After 2 months, when it seemed fairly certain there would be no review, I instituted some inquiries and learned that the review copy had been received and was on file, but that it had been marked for the silent treatment. No review was scheduled for it. We then bought advertising space in the Herald Tribune's Sunday book section and ran the excellent and fair review of Mr. Flynn's book which had been written by John Chamberlain and published in Human Events, a small Washington, D. C., publica- tion of exceptionally high standing but lim- ited circulation. The ad was set up pure posely and deliberately, on our orders, to look like a legitimate review—which it was, although from another paper—and legal re- quirements were complied with by printing ‘Advt’ at the bottom. We paid, I believe, $700 for the ad. “The Herald Tribune then changed its position, probably as # result of the ad, be- cause in 3 weeks, just barely enough time to hire someone to read the book and write a review—-a roview did appear—a smear job to counteract the effect of the favorable Cham- berlain review we had bought the space to run.” THE ALL-OUT JOB ON WHITE For a perfect example of the all-out, four- alarm attack on an anti-Communist book by another well-known anti-Communist author, W. L. White’s Report on the Russians is probably the classic example. W. L, White is the son of the William Allen White, the “sage of Emporia.” an American newspaper editor in the best tradition of our country and his craft. Bill White has in- herited the fighting heart of his father and his crusading apirit for Justice and right. To his inheritance of craftsmanship, he has added a rich talent of his own that has grown with the years. He is the author of several books, among them the poignant Journey for Margaret, the stirring They Were Expenda- ble, and Queens Die Proudly, all successful War books, widely read and acclaimed. In the summer of 1944, when Soviet Russia was fighting Hitler and Nazi Germany, and we were fighting Nazi Germany and Japan, Mr, White, accompanied Eric Johnston, then president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, on a 6 weeks’ trip to Russia. It was decidedly to Russian advantage to put aside its long-standing rule of secrecy and allow these American visitors to go about the country. It was wartime; Russia was being hailed as our great ally, and a real and extraordinary effort was being put forth by all Americans, even those of vast and bitter experience with the Soviets, to be fair and impartial in their judgment. Wasn’t Russia fighting Hitler, too? Forgotten, far too quickly and easily by most, was the Hitler- Stalin pact, that cynically political marriage of convenience between two totalitarian despots. Forgotten were the bloody Moscow purges, the long record of sinister events under Stalin. The White Book, recounting his trip through Russia, was published by Harcourt Brace, after condensation in the Reader’s Di- gest, in March 1945, Where the publishers had confidently expected and with good rea- son, that it would sell 120,000 copies, the total was some 40,000 less. The book was first attacked by David Zaslavaky in Pravda and sniped at by the local American leftist press incessantly before publication. Before the review copies were out, Bennett Cerf predicted in the Saturday Review of Litera- ture, that it would be the woret book of the year, It was then covered for that publica- tion by a symposium of five writers. Three of these reviews, according to Mr. White, were amplifications of the line laid down by Com- rade Zaslavsky and Mr. Cerf. The other two reviewers, Louis Fischer and William Henry Chamberlin, both of whom had spent more time in Russia than the other three, not only liked the book, but dared to say so in their reviews. However, the book was 80 abused and the Stalinist operation against it so comprehen- sive, that reviewers for libraries and church organizations were suggesting, “Don’t read this; it’s a prejudiced book.” The National Council of American-Soviet Fr'-ndship, Inc., a Red outfit subsequently declared subversive by the Attorney General of the United States, led the attack with an elaborate, expensive, 82-page two-color brochure, which boldly purported to be “‘the truth.” Ironically, the only paid advertise- ment this publication carried was ‘an official United States Treasury advertisement—pre- pared under the auspices of the Treasury Department and the War Advertising Coun- cil.” Thus, the taxpayers’ money helped pay for this widely distributed attack on a dis- tinguished American author for his effron- tery in telling the truth as he saw it on his tour of Russia. The brochure itself merits close examina- tion. It is black with a 2-inch margin of red down the right side. The cover is par- ticularly interesting, A great blob of white with jagged edges like a burst of ght, is overprinted with the legend, ‘The Book the Nazis Like,” and all this is superimposed on a@ facsimile of the dust jacket of White's book, exposing it only enough to identify it and reveal his name clearly. Underneath this is another facsimile—a reproduction of part of the front page of Der Westkampfer (the West Front Fighter), the issue of Janu- ary 30, 1945, with a dispatch from Lisbon about White’s description of forced labor in the Soviet Union. Now the interesting thing about all this fs that Der Westkampfer was the front journal of Hitler's army-~the German equiv- alent of the Stars and Stripes, which we circulated to our soldiers at the front. This was January 1945——the date is plainly seen on the facsimile—and the German paper ‘was barred in the United States at the time. How was it that a copy of this publication was available to the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship for just this kind of propagandizing in the United States? APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD GANGING UP TO KILL A BOOK The booklet is also noteworthy for the fact that on page 3 it carried the petition signed by 16 correspondents, newspaper, magazine, and radio, excoriating White for writing the book. Never before, to my knowledge, have writers joined in public condemnation of & colleague. Curiously enough, several weeks befure the book was published, the National Council for American-Soviet Friendship cabled the Anglo-American Correspondents’ Association in Moscow, asking them as a body, to join in a petition denouncing the book. George Moorad, who died in the 1949 plane disaster in India which took the lives of 18 newsmen, wrote to White from Moscow in March 1945 and sent the letter via diplo- matic pouch so that it would be safe from inspection and confiscation by the Russian censor. In it he detailed the story of that cable. Here it is as he told it: The corre- spondents in Moscow met after receiving Ed- win Smith’s telegram from the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship (hereinafter referred to as NCASF) and voted down the request—an action which considering their situation (they knew the Soviet Foreign Office nad read the cable) took real courage. However, of the 18 corre- spondents present at the Moscow meeting, 7 cabled their individual willingness to sign a denunciation of a book they had not read. By writing, telephoning, and cabling all over the world to each of the many scores of cor- respondents who at some time had been in Moscow since the war began, the NCASF was able to collect 9 more names and released the list as 16 American Moscow correspond- ents” who denounced the book. Of the 16, several were British, Canrdian, or New Zea- landers. Others were journalistic curiosities who wrote sporadically for obscure Commu- nist or fellow-traveler publications and could be called war correspondents only by stretch- ing the term considerably. However, also on the list were several well-known names, in- cluding Edgar Snow and Richard Lauterbach, of whom more later, The book was even reviewed by the Rev- erend Dr. William Howard Melish in the Churchman, although it is difficult to see what powers of clairvoyance the Dr. Melish, of Brooklyn, possessed that would enable him to judge the accuracy of reporter White's facts from trained first-hand observation in Russia. This is the same Dr. Melish who is notorious for his support and defense of Red fronts and fronters. He was assistant to his father, the elderly rector of the Episcopal Church of the Holy Trinity in Brooklyn, N.Y. Recently the vestrymen demanded the resignation of the Melishes. The rector, Dr. John Howard Melish, was removed by the Bishop of Long Island, James P. de Wolfe, after he had concurred; but the Melishes re- fused to obey the bishop’s edict and have been stubbornly resisting the ouster in a series of legal moves in the courts and extra- legal ones outside. White’s book was immediately followed by @ spate of reporters’ books on Russia, all ballyhooed either by their publishers or the NCASF, the Daily Worker, or the authors themselves as the answers to the dreadfully prejudiced White book. MR. SNOW WIELDS THE AX One of the hatchet men on Mr, White's book was Edgar Snow, long-time writer-edi- tor for the Saturday Evening Post, and a signer of the petition condemning White's book. Mr. Snow has long been on good terms with the left. He was chief correspondent in the Far East in 1938 for the London Dally Herald (official daily newspaper of the Brit- ish Socialist Party). The Saturday Review of Literature chose Mr, Snow to do the job on George Creel’s latest book, Russia's Race for Asia, and Snow produced a highly unfair teview,. Mr. Creel reports on his experience: “I took the matter up with the SRL and they
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD printed my letter along with another col- umn of rebuttal by Snow. Although the hook was seliing fairly well, the publishers went panicky and would not put out another edition.” What Mr. Creel ‘vrote to the editor of the Saturday Review of Literature follows: “Edgar Snow, in what purported to be a review of my hook, Russia's Race for Asia, started off w.t’ an ugly sneer at my conduct of the Committee on Public Information in the First World War and then proceeded to berate me for ‘errors of fact, judgment, and understanding,’ the ‘use of quotations out of context,’ and othcr dishonesties. * * * I have always assumed it was the right of an author to have his work reviewed objectively, or gt least with some reasonnble degree of im- partiality and dispassion. Also, that the pur- pose of a review was not controversy but critical assessment, with oriticism based on firmer and higher ground than prejudice. If these are justifiable assumptions then what could be more unfair than to turn a book over to another author whose own writings give plain warning of a bias that will impel him to use his own review either for attack or attempts at rebuttal? “When you handed Russia’s Race for Asia over to Mr. Snow, you cannot have been un- aware that for years, both in books and arti- cles, he has specialized in presenting a favor- able picture of the Chinese Communists. You must have foreseen the violence of his diecent to my charge that the Chinese Com- munist party was organized and financed by Ruesian agents, and that for a full 30 years it has been under Moscow's direction and control for the conquest of China and the subsequent communigation of Asia. “It could have been no secret to you,” Mr. Crecl continued, “that he would particularly resent my denunciation of those ‘credulous Uberals and fellow travelers’ who have la- bored sv faithfully to persuade American opinion that the Chinese Communist party is a purely native movement, led by agrarian reformers and born of a people's spontaneous revolt against corruption and oppression. All propaganda that I branded as the ultimate lie. “True, certain metropolitan dailies have made a practice of this type of reviewing; the New York Times, for example, put Gen. Claire Chennault's book at the mercy of Annalee Jacoby, coauthor of Thunder Out of China.” (Another apologia for the Chinese Communists.) Mr. Creel in his last sentence, as much as in his entire letter reveals a common prac- tice in book reviewing circles—a well-known Communist technique whether the practi- tloners know it or not. It is the double-ac- tion attack, the double-jointed double-croas, logrolling on the one hand, logjamming on the other. In short, a pro-Communist au- thor geta a friendly, even fulsome review by a pro-Communist reviewer who may him- self be an author, or by a fellow-traveling professor or self-styled expert. The author who is not in that company, who ie writing against the Communist line, will usually be subjected to a reviewer who sneers, belitties, derides, and generally macerates both book and author. REVIEWERS FOR THE NEW CHINA Mr. Creel had another sample of this when the New York Times turned his Russia's Race for Asia over for review to Professor Nathaniel Peffer, of Columbia University, a frequent contributor to the Times Sunday magazine section and its Sunday book sec- tion. Professor Peffer has been an unremit- ting foe of Nationalist China and Chiang Kal. ahek in virtually everything he has written since the Japanese surrender, in 1845. The New Republic gave Mr. Creel’s book for re- view to the late Richard Lauterbach, former ‘Times-Life correspondent and a consistent apologist for Russia. ‘When it became apparent to patriotic, clear-headed Americans who have made & lifetime study of communism that our hard- won victory in the Pacific might be lost by defaulting to propagandists, they tried to sound a warning. The war which China had waged alone against Japan from 1931 until our entry in 1941, was one which cost the United States the lives of thousands of young men and millions of dollars, which the young men who survived will be paying for during the whole of their lives. The Commie-hep American writers and others knew that the Chinese Communist lenders were Moscow-trained and Moscow-directed stooges bent on delivering their country over to Communist domination in return for the gauleitering privileges, if they could get them. These anti-Communist writers began to talk and write the warning. But the organized Communist opposition got there first. All the resources of the Cominform were thrown into the battle for China. It was a battle that was waged in every country with cells, grouping into units, regrouping into cadres, moving relentlessly - and purposefully, with diabolically effective propaganda to blanket the truth and kidnap the American mind, the anti-Communist mind, wherever it showed and smother all opposition by any and every means. No better fllustration of the effectivencsas of that campaign can be found than a look backwards at China now from the tragically clear perspective of hindsight; and at our terrible adventure in Korea, all the more heartrending because it should never have been necessary. And while we're looking at the wreckage, let’s take a look at the battle of the books, a battle which the Communists won through thelr involuntary helpers as much as through their dedicated party com~- rades. The American people had no real knowl- edge of China. The leftists filled the vacuum with their own books, reviewed favorably by each other; and by deriding and denouncing all others who had a kind word to say for the lawful Nationalist Government of China or its lender and sworn enemy of commu- nism, Chiang Kai-shek. Who are some of these authors and re- viewers? We have just seen George Creel’s estimate of Edgar Snow. In 1944, even before the war was over, Mr. Snow wrote People On Our Side, which Random House brought out. He is the author of severa) other bouks and numerous magazine articles all tuned to the same note, one he has played for years since hig journalistic tour de force when he went into Red China and emerged with the manuscript of Red Star Over China which Random House published in 1988. Another of these authors 1s Guenther Stein, who in 1945 brought out the Challenge of Red China. This book was reviewed in the New York Times by the aforesaid Nathaniel Peffer. It was a glowing review. Thus: “The distinguishing characteristic of Communist China 1s not ideological, political or economl- cal but psychological. There is something in Communist China that captures the imagi- nation of all sorts and conditions of men. Emotional radicals, objective intellectuals, neutral correspondents, diplomatic officials, military officers, hardly given to excessive sympathy for radicalism regardless of occu- pation or class or previous attitudes and social convictions, they all come away from Yenan (then the capital of Communist China) ardent defenders if not enthusiasts. There is no record of any Occidental visitor who came away hostile.” That is the effu- sive review; covering three columns in the Sunday book section of the New York Times for October 28, 1945, which Peffer gave a book written by a man who, with the recently deceased Agnes Smediey, was named by Gen~- eral MacArthur's intelligence officer in Japan as a spy for the Soviet Union. A71l As for the late Agnes Smedley, who wrote numerous flattering reviews of comradely books, she herself delivered a hefty volume which Knopf brought out in 1943 titled “Battle Hymn of China.” The Chinese Come munists were glorified in this one, not only in the text, but in artful juxtapositions of photos-and-captions. On one page, for in- Stance, 18 a heart-moving photograph of a Chinese war orphan and a flattering por- trait of Chu Teh, captioned “Father of the Red Army.” It was not until after the war was over, however, that the bumper crop of books on China and the Far East appeared, most if not all reviewed in a way that must have been highly pleasing to Moscow. THE PROFESSOR FROM HARVARD There was John K. Fairbank, Ilarvard pro- fessor, for instance. In 1948, Professor Fair- bank wrote a book titled “The United States and China,” published by the Harvard Uni- versity Press. On the Jacket of this book are comments that were secured by the pub- shor before publication for use in impress- ing the public with advance views of the experts. B'urbs such as these are aimed at knocking over the prospective reader. The publisher’s hope and intent is that the casual browscr will be awed into buying the work. This is 8 common technique for heavy or serious books. On the jacket of P-ofessor Fairbank’s tome was Theodore H. White's assertion that this was "the best one- volume job on China I've ever read.” Mr. White, formerly Time-Life correrpondent, was only 32 years of age at the time, with 9 years’ residence in wartime Chungking and no time at all in China when it wasn’t at war. With Annalee Jacoby, a young women who was given a job in China after the death of her husband, a Time-Life man, he wrote Thunder Out of China. This was the first all-out attack on Chiang Kal-shek and the Nationalist Government and the first big victory for Communist propaganda. Through almost 300 of {ts 325 pages runs the red streak of bias. As soon as the authors charge that “America’s war had cut blindly across the course of the greatest revolution in the history of Asta,’’ the bias is apparent. Professor Fairbank’s book was praised equally highly by the late Richard Lauter- bach with a really fulsome statement, and by Owen Lattimore, with more brevity but with the same enthustasm. Now for Fairbank the reviewer, as we log- roll along. He was given three books on China to re- view for the Sunday book section of the New York Times. He returned the White- Jacoby compliment when he reviewed their book, Thunder Out of China. This was given the lead spot in the issue of Octotber 27, 1946. Harvard Professor Fairbank thought the au- thors stated the issue very well when they said that if China were to go Communist, it would be because “Chinese Communist de- mocracy” had succeeded in appealing to the people more effectively than the Kuomin- tang. Bitterly hostile to Patrick Hurley, our wartime Ambassador to China, and an ad- mirer of the Jate Gon. Joseph Stilwell, Fair- bank stated it as his opinion, in agreement with the Thunder authors, that the issue was not one of communism, but merely of good government. “Readers who believe that communism is an uncalled-for conspiratorial subvereion,” Mr. Fairbank wrote, “will have apoplexy from Thunder Out of China.” Ob- viously, Mr. Fairbank ts not one of those. Further, he says, “‘we have let our fears of Russia and communism, on which the right Kuomintang plays so skillfully, drive the Chinese revolution further into dependence on China and communism.” This book, in- cidentally, waa given very high praise as well by Edgar Snow, which should be enough to finish the description of it and make one
A72 wonder why it got the favored treatment It did in the New York Times. PHILIP JABFE ON STAGE On February 9, 1947, Mr. Fairbank reviewed two other books for the Times: Ohina’s Des- tiny, by Chiang Kai-shek, an edition author- iged by the author; and an edited, unauthor- ived edition of the same book prepared by Philip Jaffe. Fairbank reviewed these to- gether and managed to say nothing about Jaffe’s known bias for the pro-Communist case in China, nor of his involvement in the Amerasia case in which Jaffe was fined for participation in the theft of secret docu- ments from the State Department. The quality and political tone of the review 1s set by Fairbank’s remark that what dis- tinguishes the Communists from others in China is the former’s emphasis on a better life. Por more log jamming Mrs. Jacoby ap- peared in the New York Times Sunday book section on December 16, 1946, as the reviewer of My Twenty-five Years in China, by John B. Powell, an American of unquestioned integrity who lost both his feet in a Japa- nese prison. Here she takes sharp issue with the author, who persists in calling the Chinese Communists “bandits.” Mrs. Ja- coby berates the author as a “reactionary” and insists that peace in China's civil war depends on “progress in negotiations be- tween the Kuomintang and the Commu- nists.” She is especially contemptuous of Mr. Powell's suggestions that there is a “Red menace,” When another non-Communist book, this time on Japan, Japan and the Son of Heaven, by Willard De Mille Price, was re- viewed in the Times of October 14, 1945, the reviewer was none other than Owen Latti- more, who criticized the book unfavorably. When Lattimore's own book, Solution in Asia, was reviewed in the February 25, 1945, issue Edgar Snow was given the task. Be- tween them they sold the readers of the Times book section the perfect appease- ment-of-Russia program. Snow found the pook “penetrating and comprehensive, yet a succinct and logical exposition of the main dilemmas which face us.” Two weeks later, in the issue of March 11, 1048, the Times again lent the book-review columns to that annoyingly persistent com<« bination: a pro-Commite book on China re- viewed, of course, by Edgar Snow. This time more than a full page was devoted to Harrison Forman‘’s book, Report From Red China. This was obviously nothing but a propaganda pamphlet for the Soviet Union, which Snow calmly treated as a serious and Objective report. Harrison Forman, the au- thor of this book, is an explorer, lecturer, and newsreel man who has made films of the Chinese Communists. Typical of Snow's review of it was this appraisal of the Chinese civil war-—‘‘an internal struggle be- tween the Kuomintang one-party regime of Chiang Kai-shek and all the anti-Japanese and anti-Fascist people’s organizations * « © under the general leadership of the Chinése Communist Party.” Typical of the book’s bias was Forman's “testimony” that he had seen nothing to link the Chi- nese Communist Party with Russia. Snow could then declare the book to be of “con- Biderable historic as well as contemporary value” and consider it a good day's work well done. Neglected almost entirely, when it wasn't slammed and damned, was Freda Utley’s Last Chance in China, which attempted to awaken the American people to the dangers that would face us if communism succeeded in capturing China, Mrs, Utley, as a very young woman, was @ member of the British Com- munist Party and lived in Moscow for 6 years as the wife of a Russian citizen who was not a Communist. She worked as a specialist on far eastern questions at the Moscow Institute of World Economy and Politics. Her rapid disillusionment and why she came to regard the Soviet Government as a tyranny as bad if not worse than Hitler's, is related in her book, The Dream We Lost. Needless to say, the book was equally, if not more, lost than her later one on China. Is it possible that Mrs. Utley is getting & “treatment”? As one who knows intimately and at first-hand the viciousness of the So- viet system, and the broad reaches of their policy for world domination, she represents a potent enemy to Communists, Russian and home-grown. EUGENE LYONS KNEW TOO MUCH As a matter of fact, the studied practice of ignoring, neglecting, or damning with faint praise books that sought to show the danger from Communist infiltration, began far back, the Red Decade, by Eugene Lyons, published in 1941 and mentioned earlier in this article, was the first really authoritative and infor- mative book on the Stalinist penetration of America. At the time he wrote it, Mr. Lyons was editor of a national magazine and had - pehind him a successful record of best sellers in books and an equally distinguished record as a foreign correspondent and magazine writer, He speaks Russian, worked in Moscow for the United Press, and was the first Amer- ican newspaperman to interview Stalin. The Red Decade, even more than his earlier work, Assignment in Utopia, earned the title of “Red baiter” for him and got him damned high and low by the intellectuals, the ib- erals, and the Russophiles. Most reviewers were displeased because Mr. Lyons’ probing in the Red Decade revealed the infection among their friends, the intellectuals. The fact that the New York Times book reviewing activities have been specifically examined at some length in this article should not be construed as an indictment of that paper alone. The New York Herald Tribune in both its dally section and in its Sunday supplement, Books, presents abun- dant evidence of favoritism of the left. In the late summer or early autumn of last year there appeared a perfect instance of the misuse of its columns to get over two gratuitous comments that are strictly Com- munist party-line propaganda of the hit- and-run variety whether the reviewer, the editor, or the untortunate author realizes it or not. (The current party-line is to sneer at all ex-Communists, to deny and insult their re- pentance, This is particularly necessary to the Communists because they must try to offset the damage done their cause by such sincere and repentant men as Whittaker Chambers, who testified against Hiss, and Louis Budenz, whose testimony helped con- vict the 11 top Communists in the United States. Another section of the current line, one which is always current as a matter of fact, is to encourage disrespect for simple morality; to glorify attacks on decency and suggest it is bourgeois and old-fashioned and 80 to be avoided.) Buried back in the Sunday Book Section of the Herald Tribune was a review by an obscure reviewer, one Edgar L. Acken, of David Loughlin’s novel, A Private Stair. In a 50-l{ne review these two bits appear: “at first we think we understand De Gastro, the seaman-electrician. After all, he is only trying to make some money in a slightly illegal way, a project an American reader can understand and even sympathize with.” And this: “As for Allpike, the able seaman, except for his pathological lying, in which he reminds us of an ex-Communist who has seen the light, there is nothing about him which we can identify,” Or for another example, the Herald Trib- une book section on September 38, carried a review of Public Opinion in Soviet Russia, by Alexander Inkeles, published by the Harvard University Press. The review was written by Clyde R. Miller, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD NO RACIAL PREJUDICE IN RUSSIA Miller is known for his pro-Soviet views. The most revealing passage in the review is this: “Racial prejudice, once exploited in the propaganda of the Czarist regime (and of course. later by Hitler) has no place in the Soviet Union. This, in large measure, ex- plaing the fanaticel zeal of the North Ko- reans and the Soviet’s exr'oltation of the Korean situation among the colored peoples of the world.” This off-hand acceptance of the myth of race equality in the U. 8. 8. R. is a dead give-away. The supremacy of the Russian people in the racial melange of the country is by this time an article of faith; Russian culture and the Ruasian language are musts for other nationalities; excessive national sentiment on the part of any of the minor racial groups is treated as counter-revolu- tionary separatism. Actually, there has been a notable growth of antisemitism, under the official label of cosmopolitanism. In any case, why did Miss Irita Van Doren, who runs the Herald Tribune book section, pick on Miller, of all people, to deal with a book on Russia? There are any number of American writers who have lived in Russia and are better able to appraise a book on Soviet propaganda. Lewis Gannett, the book review editor and literary critic of the Herald Tribune, is him- self an excellent writer, an experienced re- viewer who is also an influential voice in the expression of Herald Tribune policy and a protagonist of many causes. He is men- tioned 17 times in appendix 9 in the records of the Congressional Committee on Un- American activities. Apropos of that it is interesting to read Mr. Gannett in his regular space in the Herald Tribune for January 1, 1948. In an easy mood, reviewing the literary scene at year’s end, he says: “Meanwhile, I hope that the old year has seen some competent talents—not geniuses— at work on two books which I should like to read in 1948. One would be a study of the history of congressional committees—how and when they arose, how they came to be outside the ordinary rules of law, what good—-or evil—they have accomplished un- der what circumstances. I would also like to read a careful study of the invasions of civil liberties in and after World War I—the oust- ing of the Socialists, the deportations, the Pulmer raids. It would give us a standard by which to gage our present mocds. It would also be a colorful study. It could include the occasion when a noble senator shook his finger at a witness, Louise Bryand, and re- fused to let her tell what she had seen in Russia until she first swore that she believed in his ‘God.’” THE RUSSIANS GO FOR HOWARD FAST On March 1, 1948, Mr, Gannett wrote: “They read American books even in the Rus- sian zone of Germany. Eva Putnam reports in the New Republic that Howard Fast's Freedom Road, is being serialized in the Russian-licensed Berlin Vorwdrts and that in response to an inquiring reader, the editor recommended other examples of ‘progressive American lterature’.” Mr. Fast is the red frontist who drew 3 months and a $500 fine for contempt of Con- gress not too long ago for refusing to state whether he was or was not a Communist Party member. Fast is “must” reading, the Dally Worker says. Last year he was in Paris at one of those phony Communist peace rallles telling the French that “the reign of terror is only beginning in America.” Mr. Gannett has never reviewed Seeds of Treason, the Victor Lasky-Ralph de Toledano book on the trials of Alger Hiss, although its value and importance and distinct literary merit and interest are unquestioned and its prepublication publicity was extraordinary.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The book has been on the beat-seller lists despite this and other attempts to keep ft out of the public eye. On the other hand, Ordeal by Slander, by Owen Lattimore, a quickie done by the man Senator Jon McOarruy accuses of being the chief architect of our disastrous far eastern policy, got extra-special treatment from both the Herald Tribune and New York Times. The two papers published on two succes- sive days, Sunday, July 80, and Monday, July 31, a big blast of favorable publicity vindi- cating Mr. Lattimore and damning Jo McCartuy. This was not done in the news columns; the book columns obliged. Both gave Ordeal by Slander all of page 1 of their Sunday book review section, plus a break. over; and each followed this with a lavish plug for the defense with another burst of cheering next morning in the dally review columns. The Herald Tribune Sunday review was done by John K. Fairbank, whom we have discussed before. His choice to review Ordeal by Slander is particularly brazen, because on page 203 of the book Lattimore related how Fairbank aided him in advance of his ap- pearance before the congressional committee, “John Fairbank of Harvard sent out tele- grams to a long list of far-eastern experts all over the country suggesting that they write Senator Tydings, the chairman of the com- mittee,” protesting naturally. In any discussion of Communist tnfiltra- tion of the book trade, the name of the Bos- ton publishing firm of Little, Brown & Co. inevitably arises. The Lattimore book is ad- vertised as an ‘Atlantic Monthly Press Book,” but beneath this line is another, as follows: “Little, Brown & Co., Boston.” The two are the same. They are the publishers of Howard Fast, and Albert Maltz, another well-known leftist, a8 well as others. The editor in chief 1s Angus Cameron, listed in Who’s Who in the Hast as Donald Angus Cameron but bet- ter known simply as Angus Cameron. Since 1938 Mr. Cameron has been associated with Little, Brown, first as their New York editortal representative and then moving along into other jobs with them until today he is not only the top editor but a member of the board of directors and secretary of the corporation. Mr. Cameron was a member of the Na- tional Committee for Wallace for President in Merch 1948, when Wallace had the back- ing of the Communists. The program of the Progressive Citizens of America which launched the Wallace candidacy, dated Octo- ber 25, 1947, names Cameron 48 a sponsor, The New Masses, a Communist magazine, in its issue of October 14, 1947, reports that Cameron was a speaker at a protest meeting on behalf of Howard Fast. Cameron was named in the 1945 catalog of the Samucl Adams School for Social Studies in Boston as one of the trustees, This school was cited on the official list of the Attorney General as Communist and subversive. He was a sponsor of the March 1949 conference of the National Counct] of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. He was also a sponsor of the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt (anti-Communist) Bill as late as April 1950. Recently, Little, Brown & Co. added to its staff one Edwin Seaver, a real pink soulmate, Mr. Seaver was head of a department of the Sunday edition of the Daily Worker, the official Communist newspaper in New York, in 1935. Sarlier in that year he had been managing editor of Soviet Russia Today, Mr. Seaver’s Communist ties go away back, as far as May 19, 1980, when the New York Times listed him as one of the signers of a protest circulated by the John Reed Clubs. This makes him a pioneer in the Communist movement in America. Like Mr. Cameron, Mr. Seaver was a sponsor of the March 1949 conference of the National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions, Like Mr, Oameron, he was publicly for Henry Wallace when Wallace waa the Communists’ darling. @ the. lesson for the thoughtful reader? Report on Europe EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLIFFORD R. HOPE OF KANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. HOPE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I am including herewith an outstanding address delivered by W. H. Jasspon, of Memphis, Tenn., before the Memphis Rotary Club on September 12, 1950, Mr. Jasspon is an able and experienced ob- server and long familiar with European conditions. This speech was made upon his return from a European trip of sev- eral weeks duration during which he had access to many sources of information not ordinarily available. I regard this address as a very con- structive criticism of our past and pres- ent European policy, and although made 4 months ago, it is still pertinent and up- to-date. I believe that every Member of Congress will find something of value in this address and it is for that reason that I am inserting it in the Recorp. REPorT ON EUROPE We are exposed today to two deadly perils— Russian imperialism and internal inflation. Korea dramatized the danger of the one, but we have not been shocked as yet into taking effective action to avoid the other. I men- tion it only because the two are tied to- gether, and in its own way, each can be equally disastrous. Since the war we have given away billions of dollars in credits and grants in a sincere desire to speed recovery everywhere. Wo played no favorites. We sought no exclusive- ly selfish benefit, except to the extent that we, like everyone everywhere, would gain from @ rebuilt world at peace. We wasted billions in China and the Philippines. Even Russia has so far refused even a token settlement of its 11,000,000,000 lend-lease obligation. We loaned England nearly $4,000,000,000 upon the mistaken assumption it would restore thelr economic health, only to find that a large part of these funds were absorbed in Mquidating old sterling balances, having little or no bearing on their own postwar recovery. Then came BCA. Even with all this help and other assistance besides, we have failed to make friends or influence people, anywhere in the world. I am to speak to you today about my reactions as to the position of Europe. My major interest over the postwar years has been mostly with the commercial consequences of all this postwar turmoil, but in view of existing conditions, I shall adhere largely to the political and social aspects which, at this moment, are of greatest sig- nificance. The Marshall plan was 8 historic milestone in international relations. On the whole, it has been well administered, considering the political limitations to its operations. It assisted the rebuilding of industry which provided jobs for idle men and women. It distributed food in huge quantities to people who were hungry. Its efforts gave how once more to millions who had lost hope. It real- A73 ized the weaknesses of age-old and out- moded customs of trade, and the implications inherent in unenlightened employer-to- worker relations, 80 common in Burope. It urged certain desirable and essential eco- nomic, social, and political reforms, in ac- cordance with our own expertence, only to be met with the insurmountable barrier that we were interfering with national sover- eignty. Even the Communists joined in this political opposition. It played into thelr hands at that time. ECA aid did buy some breathing space. It deserves the credit for having arrested the growing spread of communism, and halted its political progress. Unfortunately, this time has been wasted, insofar as building a de- fense against subversion, or in trying to cor- rect the underlying causes which bring it about. In the United States, communism is as yet only an embarrassing nuisance, which has to be policed and held within strict Mmits. If can become a menace here only if and when our free institutions become crippled and impotent as a result of unwise management at the top political level. It is a real and continuing threat, however, in many countries of Europe. There are many reasons for this. Vested interests exercise selfish and un- warranted power in many governments. They control production and prices through the cartel system, which eliminates com- petition while it maintains low wages, high prices, and higher profits at the expense of all the people. Very little social welfare and agrarian reforms have been undertaken. Tax evasion is often the rule rather than the exception, by those most able to pay (in some areas), again at the expense of the masses. Public office is too often a private, rather than a public, trust. Political leadership is frequently unstable, vascillating, and without the courage to make the changes they know are vital. It ts not difficult, there- fore, to understand, under such conditions, why poverty and low living standards exist and supply the fuel to feed the fires of com- munistic propaganda. Empty stomachs make poor political advisers. It is neither new nor novel in history, where such cir- cumstances have prevailed, for a people to surrender their political freedom for the promise of economic security, only to find that they have lost both In the end. Wood- row Wilson once said, “The history of liberty is the history of limitations of government power, not the increase of if.” When I left Europe at the end of July, I saw very little change in the attitude of the average citizen, or among government of- ficials, from what it was before the outbreak in Korea. If anything, there was a thicker atmosphere of hopelessness, but there seemed to be no particular alarm. There waa cer- tainly no evidence anywhere of a will to fight. In the First World War, France had a magnificent army and a great spirit. The soldiers were fighting for freedom and a bet- ter life. In the Second World War, there was a tragic and strange reversal of form. It began at the top, and filtered down through the ranks. The people had become disillu- stoned. Their status had not improved in the interval; if anything !t had deteriorated, Today, 5 years after this second struggle, the workers are still the forgotien men, They want no part of another war. They cannot be good soldiers if they are forced to fight. They do not know who is for or against them, within their own ranks, thanks to Commu. nist infiltration. It is well to understand their present frame of mind, in order to know why their lethargy continues even in the face of possible invasion. Yes, we constructed in- dustry and made jobs, as I have said, but we could not rebuild the sptrit of the men and women. This has to come from within. It is not strange, when you have seen all of this, ta appreciate why our contribution to recovery