To those making accusations and expressing their disappointment in President Harry S. Truman's surprising "anti-semitism" as a result of his diaries... kindly do some real research, take a deep breath, and give it a rest.
Yes, an explanation is deserved. Since Truman is dead, someone else will have to do it. I nominate me. Let's start with the quoted passages from the Washington Post article:
"[M]ost surprising . . . were Truman's remarks on Jews, written on July 21, 1947, after the president had a conversation with Henry Morgenthau, the Jewish former treasury secretary. Morgenthau called to talk about a Jewish ship in Palestine -- possibly the Exodus, the legendary ship carrying 4,500 Jewish refugees who were refused entry into Palestine by the British, then rulers of that land. "He'd no business, whatever to call me," Truman wrote. "The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement [sic] on world affairs. Henry brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed." Truman then went into a rant about Jews: "The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as DP(Displaced Persons) as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes."To which I say, not one word of this is even exceptional, let alone anti-semitic. Especially to people familiar with Harry's personal history, which included his life-long relationship with Eddie Jacobsen - and also brave acts like telling a Klan meeting off to their face as fools and cowards. Or desegregating the Armed Forces. This man was no bigot. So how do we explain the quotes? As the words of a legitimately exasperated President and Commander-In-Chief, who knew something about the patterns of history and the bigger picture before him. Let's review. I understand why Morgethau did what he did. I'm glad he did it, and in his place I would have done it too. The kicker is this: in Truman's place, I would have made similar comments about Morgethau. The President was preoccupied with stuff like trying to forestall a Soviet takeover of Europe, trying to keep millions of Europeans from starving (a real risk at the time), and dealing with literally millions of refugees worldwide. not to mention massive demobilization of U.S. troops at home. Morgethau was calling the President of the United States, without invitation, about a minor matter in the global scheme of things at the time, and on a matter that wasn't even in his purview when he had been a political appointee. This is called being way, way, outside normal procedure or chain of command. If you work for a large company, try this sort of thing with your CEO some time and see where it gets you. Of course Truman was exasperated with Henry. Was Morgethau explicitly acting as a Jewish representative? Yes, solely so. Could he expect his methods to reflect on his cause as a whole? Like any lobbyist, yes he should. Which brings us to the "underdog" quotes. Part of the key to understanding this lies in understanding the global context Truman was dealing with. The rest comes from understanding Truman as a very keen student of history. I'll start with the latter. bq. "Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes." First, note the ecumenicism of this comment. Second, historically this pattern often holds true. Though Truman's knowledge extended far beyond modern history, let's confine ourselves to that time period and see: The French Revolution. The Russian Revolution. Hitler and the Germans. Though Truman couldn't know it then, pretty much the entire history of Third-World decolonization fits this pattern. Underdogs gain power, abuse it in similar ways. It's an old human narrative, which is why it has such power as a charge even when untrue. When Truman expressed that, he was simply expressing an unpleasant truth of human nature. Don't like it? Tough. It's true. True in the case of the Jews? He had no way of knowing yet, but it isn't unreasonable for him to wonder. Didn't we wonder the exact same thing about Iraq's Kurds and Shi'ites before the war? Yes, we did. Does that make us bigots? No. Now the "selfish" part. Truman was being importuned on behalf of Jewish refugees. He was also being lobbied, hard, about Israel. Was that lobbying diplomatically polished? Not really, especially from a Republican-supporting Rabbi named Abba Hillel Silver. Comes with not having any diplomats, you see, or many people with experience in positions of authority. Anti-semitism was a very real force at the time. So the presentation was probably a bit rough around the edges, which may help explain why (non-Jewish naval aide) Clark Clifford was the foremost exponent of recognition within the administration. No judgment on world affairs? Again, probably not. Recovering from the shock of the Holocaust and seeing an opportunity to both see to their future security and realize a 2,000 year old dream, Jewish leaders at the time can be forgiven for not having much patience or global perspective. Actually, I'm glad they didn't, because that kind of focus is what it took to succeed. If you're on the receiving end, however, it's going to annoy you. Especially when you see millions of others starving and looking to you for help, and oh-by-the-way the communsts are trying to take over the world. Result: Truman is on the receiving end of an unpolished lobbying effort, one which does not treat the Jews within the decision-maker's context (which is the refugee problem of all Europe and the beginnings of the Cold War) but remains narrowly focused on one sub-set of issues relevant to Jews alone: their own refugees, and Israel. Could that look "selfish"? Absolutely. Like I said, I'm glad Jewish leaders of the time had such focus. It was necessary. I'd even call it the right kind of "selfishness" given their strategic situation and unwillingness to remain at others' questionable mercy. But can anyone with a brain really be surprised that some annoyed Presidential diary entries resulted from that approach? Failure to understand that dynamic is a failure to understand how the exercise of power and decisions actually work. That's a big and important failure in a democracy. You'd think someone in the media would have enough of a clue to get it right. Likewise, no-one who has actually studied President Truman should be surprised that when called on to step up and make a real decision, he saw the context in which these requests were being made and did the right thing. For my money, That matters a hell of a lot more than some easily-explainable diary entries. UPDATE: This isn't the first time some of these statements have come to light. David McCullough's definitive biography, Truman, includes a couple of them (pp. 595-620). What McCullough also includes is the context of the remarks, which strongly backs up my contentions here. Pull it down from your bookshelf or get it at your local library, and read for yourself.
Joe, I think your points about Truman are well-taken, but I am fairly dismayed that Truman's comments are written off in ADL press releases as evidence that he was a "man of the times," whereas Rev. Billy Graham's similar comments on the Nixon audiotapes led the ADL to label him an anti-Semite until he issued a public apology. Both men supported Israel during their careers, and if it's wrong to second-guess Truman now, it was wrong to second-guess Graham then.
Joe, thanks for this cogent and detailed analysis. This type of post is what keeps me coming back.
My take: it was wrong to second-guess Billy Graham, too. Harvey MacKay has written some stories about the Graham organization that essentially give the lie to ADL's accusations. They weren't about his treatment of Israel, but about his and his organization's treatment of Jews. Not publicly, anonymously.
Bluntly, the ADL was completely full of B.S. about Rev. Billy Graham, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for slandering him. Lashon ha ra applies to activist organizations, too.
Excellent.
I had the good fortune to shake Harry T.'s hand on a train to Independence, MO. I was headed to a Synagogue Youth Organization convention in KC, MO. Some one came through our car and said Harry was in a car a ways back shaking hands. So I went back (not many went) and shook Harry's hand. I think I was about 13 or 14 so it would have been around '57 or so.
It was a thrill.
No, while I appreciate the points, you're letting him off too easily.
The Jews had just lost 2/3rds of their European population to Hitler with the acquiesence of much of Christian Europe. In context, the global perspective should have been a lot closer to the Jewish perspective.
Additionally, I'm not sure about the Finns or Yugoslavs, but I'm pretty sure that the Jews were well justified in not giving much thought to the Estonians, Latvians, Poles, or Greeks of that era.
I think, Mr. Berman, that you haven't gotten the point.
The point being, that in spite of his exasperation, Truman went ahead and did the right thing. May I also point out that the language in your own post is pretty arrogant? "you're letting him off too easily", indeed. Would you have preferred someone who spoke very nobly yet did not take the action that Truman did? Let's be frank: If Truman and others like him had a perspective closer to yours (to the one you percieve the "Jewish perspective" to be) there would not have been a State of Israel. After all, how would its founding have served the interest of the US and the West? The type of ethnocentism you advocate is a viable survival strategy only if others (ie the Americans) do NOT practice it.
You misunderstand me on several points. First, just because someone does the right thing doesn't make them immune from criticism. I happen to think very highly of Harry Truman-- why does that make me unable to point out that something he did or said was wrong?
As far as ethnocentrism, may I point out that defending against ethnocentrism is not the same as ethnocentrism? The Jews were the primary victims of ethnocentrism in Europe during WWII and then to come in afterwards and say "Let's just treat everyone exactly the same" is trying to create a false equivalence where there was none whatsoever. An obligation was incurred and, to a large extent was indeed recognized by Truman, though not by Europe. The obligation should have extended to the satisfactory disposition of the Exodus ship and Truman should have recognized it.
Thanks for responding, Mr. Berman. I think I see your point.
It’s all semantics though, isn’t it? You don’t want to call Truman’s entry anti-semitic? Fine. But there’s something indisputably noisome about his likening of Jewish avarice—a classic anti-semitic trope if ever there was one—to Hitler’s concentration camps and Stalin’s gulags. Justifying this kind of equivalency, Mr. Katzman, is an intellectually irresponsible exercise. Furthermore: Indeed, some of Truman’s best friends were jewish. Eddie Jacobson is a good example, though their relationship is hardly the enlightened story of bigotry overcome. Jacobson was forever banned from the home of Truman’s mother as well as the home of his in-laws because neither could abide Jews, a condition Truman went along with rather willingly. Want more feel-good detail? Here’s a quote from a bereaved Jacobson, after he met with considerable hostility for trading on his friendship with the president to plead for his support on the matter of Israel: “My dear friend, the president,” Jacobson remembered of Truman’s coldness, “was at that moment as close to being an anti-Semite as any man could possibly be.” It’s in the terrific “Truman,” David McCullough’s 1992 biography. Do research it. As for an adequate response from the media, it’s on the way.
You're welcome, Jim. I confess I should have kept my criticism of Truman in context of my larger appreciation for him and that did not come out in my first post.
He's not talking about avarice, Mr. Laskin - you read that in. He's talking about power, and clearly doing so in a universal context.
"But there’s something indisputably noisome about his likening of Jewish avarice—a classic anti-semitic trope if ever there was one—to Hitler’s concentration camps and Stalin’s gulags."
This incident demonstrates why'anti-semitic' is a label that should not be applied to any and every negative opinion concerning Jews. Nearly everyone, in my experience, has negative opinions about every distinguishable social group, and even Jews have negative opinions about Jews. Negative opinions are especially to be expected when that group is perceived as being arrogant, is preternaturally successful (when given the chance to flourish), and has so many positive attributes (to preserve 'balance').
The transition from this to true, virulent, anti-semitism, is like the transition from a cold to pneumonia--a transition that I do not feel able to explain, although, of course, there are many reasons that can be proposed.
Sorry, but I'm not buying the defense. Truman's comments were the comments of a bigot. Period.
The real story is not whether or not Truman was a bigot, but whether he was able to rise above his bigotry and do the right thing when need be. On that level Truman acquitted himself admirably, and that would probably be the best way to defend him from his asinine comments.
I honestly can't say. I'm very divided, and I'll tell you why:
Truman didn't make entries into anything for posterity's sake. Remember that huge blowout memoirs on sale every year were not the trend at the time, nor was he a person to think that his private thoughts would be scrutinized for every single detail decades after his death.
I think that he may just have been feeling the pressure very badly at that point, might have been having an incredibly bad day (still dealing with all of a broken Europe), and trying to deal with a whole bunch of issues at home as well.
Truman, on that day, could have been feeling just absolutely bad. It happens. He was human. And he could have written that entry to vent, and then think no more of it.
Happens all the time. Look at what some bloggers write in fits of anger sometimes. This is the same thing. I'm not saying it was 100% that, but it could very well have been. Knowing about Harry Truman's character, I tend to think that it might very well have been just that. Think about it: a day when he just is fed up with everyone, and the person who gets in his way is making a point that Jews are a seperate nation, etc... And he just happens to strike out at him.
I'd say that I would have to see more entries like that before I decide. In the case with Nixon, however, he had several instances where he would do nothing but rant about Jews. There's a big difference there. Not that Nixon didn't have his bad days either - he did, but the Jewish point is out of place in that instance because there were several moments when that is all he was screaming about, with no real relation to events around him.
Big differences.
I don't think Truman said anything much beyond "the blankety blank Jews are no different from anyone else".
And at least the original releases on Turman's words looked not at all at what was informing Truman, but just took the stance "if you don't have something good to say about the Jews, then its anti-semitism".
Bull-roars, sez I.
And it is true, that unlike ANY other WW II victims, the JEWS were a hunted species. Not merely killed if you came across one, but actively sought, hunted, and anyone interfering with that hunt in any way risked the lives of the entire family, friends...
The Jews had real cause to panic.
Besides, the holocaust wan't over... just the war. Where was it safe to be a Jew then? (hmmm, where is it safe to be a Jew now?)
Same place its safe to be almost anyone: the US.