Truman

This Washington Post editorial discusses Truman expressing annoyance at his Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau in his diaries. Morgenthau was apparently something of a Johnny-One-Note nag regarding Jewish emigration to Palestine. Though I've linked to his editorial, I'm not too interested in the Media Whore Freddy Hiatt's opinion anymore. But I am interested in DU people's opinions on Truman.

Was he a good Democrat?

Do we admire or despise his role at the start of the Cold War?

How do we feel about his decision to bomb Hirshima? Nagasaki? (Personally, I understand the decision to drop the first bomb, but I think the decision to drop the SECOND bomb earned the man a place in hell.)

Was he an anti-Semite who nevertheless helped establish Israel? Since he was a help is it okay he was an anti-Semite? Or was he even an anti-Semite?

Was he a racist who nevertheless helped break down segregation and Jim Crow? Since he was a help, was it okay he used the n-word? (Same could be asked of LBJ, I guess) Or was he even really a racist?

Did he run too far to the right in '48 to try to prevent Thurmond from taking votes away from him?

Did the buck really stop on his desk? Or was that just convenient White House tough-guy talk?

Anyway - thanks for taking the time to comment on one of the most controversial characters in party history.

Edit: revised poorly phrased implication that Truman started the Cold War

He makes any Republican President look like a Pee-On! If you really want to know about Truman then go out and buy David McCullough's autobiography about Harry Truman....

BTW: I love how the Dubya worshippers are chimming in and trying to discredit this great man... The latest being his "Buck stops Here" quote. It did stop there with Harry unlike the dipshit who now occupies the White House!

n/t

"Plain Speaking" by Merle Miller. "This is the
most refreshing book that has ever been written
about an American president." Christian Science
Monitor. It is folly indeed to think that the
present occupant of the White House would ever
have the ability to create a "Marshall Plan" or
the courage to sign an Executive Order equal in
magnitude to end racial discrimination in the
military services. This book is a great read for
anyone who has even the slightest interest in the
history of this great country and underlying political
actions that affect our history.

Truman's wartime friend, was Jewish. They opened a men's clothing store together (which ultimately failed). They were close, but he could not bring him home to dinner, as his mother in law would never approve.

I have met very few people from the era that didn't like Harry Truman. Was he perfect, no. Neither was Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincoln, etc. I defy anyone to find one president, one leader, one person who did not make a controversial decision. Truman did what he thought he had to do in a very difficult time. I cannot respond to all your questions, but here are a few thoughts.

I am not sure a what a good democrat in the 1940's would be defined as. After reading some posts here, I am not sure what a good democrat would be defined as today. That was the era of the Dixiecrats, and I don't think too many of today's dems would consider the Dixies "good democrats".

The Cold War -- it was coming whether we liked it or not. Truman did not "start" it. Churchill wanted to go into Russia at the end of WWI because all he saw was trouble. Stalin was a very bad man. Russia or the USSR, if you prefer was an aggressor nation. I admire Truman for fighting the first phase of this war with the Marshall Plan. It kept western Europe stable, created jobs at home for the returning soldiers. We had failed to due that in all previous wars.

I have not read enough about his antisemitism so I will not comment about that.

I have read much about his decision to use the bomb. Looking back we can all say how horrible it was. We can do that because have seen what the bomb lead to, the devastation in Japan. But a year or more of war would have also been horrible. I also think that by using it the it prevented the use of even more devastating bombs later. Truman said he regretted the second attack and if there were two things he would change about his presidency that would be one of them, the other was he would not have created the CIA.

Did the buck stop at his desk -- yes. He took full responbility for the use of the bombs. He fired one of the most powerful and popular military commanders in history, a decision that was very unpopular, but he did it for the right reasons.

We must be careful when assessing people throughtout history. There is a strong leaning these days to judge from our current time rather than look at what was surrounding these people during their times. Time does change who we view people and events because we can see how these events and people effected the road in front of them.

DODI, thank you for your thoughts.

I meant to ask about his role at the start of the Cold War, not to imply he started it himself. Thanks for catching this poor turn of phrase. I'll go edit.

Concerning the Cold War, Stalin was not a figment of Truman's imagination. A confrontation with the Soviet Union following World War II was inevitable. The United States and the Soviet Union had differences before the war that were put aside in the mutual interest of defeating Hitler. There would have been a Cold War regardless of who was President.

The decision to drop the Bomb is one which I consider morally ambiguous. I can forgive Truman for not realizing what he had. Marshall McLuhan said we drive into the future looking through a rear view mirror. It should be no surprise that Truman didn't think of the Bomb as a new kind of weapon but as a bigger and better fire bomb. The killing of civilian populations as a tactic of war was acceptable in 1945. It was the horror of World War II, both Hitler's death camps and the use of the Bomb, that led to an international movement to protect the rights of noncombatants in war. The deliberate targeting of civilian populations is now condemned as a war crime.

Was Truman a racist or an anti-Semite? It would be surprising if one born into a white middle class Missouri family in 1884 did not have at least a nebulous conviction of white supremacy and the attendent anti-Semitism that goes with it. Truman may have never overcome these feelings at a personal level. However, he knew they were wrong and acted contrary to them. In this respect, Truman must be given credit for being a remarkably good democrat. He acted on bright democratic principle, not the dark superstition that may have laid deep within his soul. The US military was integrated and civil rights acts proposed. The right and power of the federal government to act on democratic principle and promote the equality of all American citizens regardless of race or creed was brought into play. It has been with us since. We are better for it.

I agree with your point about use of the bomb up to the point of using the first one. After he used the first one, he knew what he had and still dropped the second one. Can't forgive him that. And apparently, according to DODI above, he couldn't really forgive himself either.

I completely agree with your point regarding small-d democracy. We have to give him the same props as LBJ in this regard. All in all, I view him to be a mixed bag, just like Johnson, BTW.

Going back to the original diary material... Do you think there was a kernel of truth to his outburst of frustration with Morgenthau? Certainly, attributing such tendencies to ALL Jews is wrong and sounds racist. But this material tells me that Truman had to deal regularly and disproportionately with persistent, politically powerful and obviously aggravating (to him) advocates of Israel and Jewish refugees who pled their case loudly to the exclusion of all other struggling nations and refugee groups. Maybe the frustration came from an inkling that being less than evenhanded in this area would lead to disaster someday?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=60724&mesg_id=60724&listing_type=search#61000 in post # 10 from a thread in GD a few days ago on the same subject.

He used a broad brush, that's for sure and should not have but I wouldn't consider that an epiteth.

Also, I did a google on this and found a lot of amplifying information. Seems Truman foresaw what a mess the entire premature creation of Israel could cause and didn't like getting pushed around, lobbied, and having heavy handed tactics used against him until he gave in.

I am also confused as to why the media is saying this is 'recently discovered' information when it's been available for years. What's going on here? I'm really perplexed and curious about the timing of 'recently discovered' information which isn't that recent! Something stinks about this release and particularly the timing of this release!

It would behoove us all to pay close attention to where they're trying to take us with this!

******

Truman was as yet averse to the idea of a Jewish state despite his support for immigration, primarily out of concern that it would require excessive US resources to defend it. This concern was to surface again and again and influence policy in the months ahead. He wrote to Senator Joseph Ball of Minnesota on November 24, 1945:

"I told the Jews that if they were willing to furnish me with five hundred thousand men to carry on a war with the Arabs, we could do what they are suggesting in the Resolution - otherwise we we will have to negotiate awhile.

It is a very explosive situation we are facing, and naturally I regret it very much, but I don't think that you, or any of the other Senators, would be inclined to send half a dozen Divisions to Palestine to maintain a Jewish State.

What I am trying to do is to make the whole world safe for the Jews. Therefore, I don't feel like going to war for Palestine."

<snip>

Truman's support for a Jewish state remained cautious and conditional. He was especially irritated by the torrent of support for a Jewish state from Zionists, and became more so as time went on. On October 17, 1947, Truman wrote to Senator Claude Pepper regarding mail he received during the deliberations of UNSCOP:

"I received about 35,000 pieces of mail and propaganda from the Jews in this country while this matter was pending. I put it all in a pile and struck a match to it -- I never looked at a single one of the letters because I felt the United Nations Committee was acting in a judicial capacity and should not be interfered with."

<snip>

Zionist pressure continued. An American Zionist delegation met with Truman in January 1948 at the White House and demanded immediate help for the thousands of homeless Holocaust victims seeking refuge in a Jewish state. Truman's response was not satisfactory, and the visitors became adamant. Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland, Ohio pounded on the President's desk. Truman was outraged. "No one, but no one, comes into the office of the President of the United States and shouts at him, or pounds on his desk. If anyone is going to do any shouting or pounding in here, it will be me."

Truman had them ushered out of the Oval Office, and said to his staff. "I've had it with those hotheads. Don't ever admit them again, and what's more, I also never want to hear the word Palestine mentioned again." Truman had developed an aversion to Rabbi Silver, and once remarked that many of the problems of Palestine were due to terror and Silver.

<snip>

"The Jews are so emotional, and the Arabs are so difficult to talk with that it is almost impossible to get anything done. The British have, of course, been exceedingly uncooperative. .. The Zionists, of course, have expected a big stick approach on our part, and naturally have been disappointed when we can't do that."

<snip>

What is not generally understood is that the Zionists are not the only ones to be considered in the Palestine question. There are other interests that come into play, each with its own agenda. The military is concerned with the problems of defending a newly created small country from attacks by much larger and better trained Arab nations. Others have selfish interests concerning the flow of Arab oil to the U.S. Since they all cannot have their way, it is a perfect example of why I had to remember that 'The Buck Stops Here.'"

<snip>
((and later))

"I ...stressed that it was extremely dangerous to base long range policy on temporary military success. There was no doubt that the Jewish army had gained such temporary success but there was no assurance whatever that in the long range the tide might not turn against them. I told Mr. Shertok that they were taking a gamble. If the tide did turn adversely and they came running to us for help they should be placed clearly on notice that there was no warrant to expect help from the United States, which had warned them of the grave risk they were running."

http://www.mideastweb.org/us_supportforstate.htm

The entire article is an interesting read and puts his quotes into a badly needed context.

Peace