Harry Truman

Harry Truman has the dubious honor of being the first president of the television age. True, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had made a televised speech back in 1939, but at that time virtually no homes had the wherewithal to view the grainy fuzzy images that flickered on the six diagonal inch screen in the four foot cabinet. So for his regular broadcasts to the people, FDR stuck with radio and his famous "Fireside Chats", and throughout World War II, the main mode of real time mass communication was the radio.

But when the cash-rich but luxury-poor years of the war ended on V-J Day, Americans wanted to spend their money on hitherto unnecessary items like telephones, washing machines, air conditioners, and yes, televisions. But although today televisions are virtually throw away items, the early models were expensive. A typical black and white set - and we're talking about 1950 dollars here - could easily run $300. On the other hand, with credit flowing freely, the soon to be dubbed boob tube could be bought, like many of the other newer goodies, on the installment plan. So within a few years, televisions had become as much a feature of the American home as the mantle piece once had been. Probably no piece of technology ever caught on as fast as the TV and some classic shows like Groucho Marx's You Bet Your Life were on the air by 1950. The first broadcast from the White House was one Harry made on October 5, 1947.

The television producers may have been a bit nervous broadcasting the White House speeches since even before he was president, Harry was noted for his outspoken views and frank and direct manner. Certainly Harry seldom disappointed and never had to be coaxed into saying what was on his mind. The author of this essay remembers sitting in the living room as the whole family watched an interview with Harry who was talking about his dealings with the Russian dictator, Josef Stalin. If memory serves, Harry said "We made over forty-odd agreements at Yalta, and that bastard broke everyone of them." Unfortunately, the author has not been able to locate this actual clip to confirm if memory does indeed serve.

On the other hand, Harry sometimes had trouble when encountering that virtue in others. Once the great African American singer and actor, Paul Robeson, visited the White House to petition for action to stop violence against blacks. Although not as common as during the 1930's, civil rights related murders were still a disturbing fact of American life and and anti-lynching legislation was being defeated at every turn. Paul said that if action wasn't taken, then the black Americans would have to take it themselves. This got Harry's back up and he said that sounded like a threat. Paul said it was not a threat, he simply was stating a fact. For his time, though, Harry was considered progressive in civil rights and in 1948, he had ordered full integration of the armed services. But it still took nearly twenty years before - as H. Rap Brown put it - America finally came around with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965.

That said, when Harry left office in January, 1953, he was at a low point in his popularity. The reasons are not easy to understand given today's accepted wisdom.

Today a drop in presidential popularity in inevitably cited as the economy, particularly by those who spend most of their time shouting at the television whenever the incumbent comes on screen. Good times, good ratings. Bad times, bad ratings. Seems simple enough. But that, though, does not fit the times of Harry.

Now there had been a mild recession in the late 1940's, and unemployment had increased from 4 % to 6 %. And despite the recession, inflation was on the rise - a modern and contradictory problem that Americans had not really experienced - and Harry had also come off as a bit heavy handing dealing with labor disputes. But the inflation was still mild and was by no means outstripping incomes. There were also many people who approved Harry's tough dealing with the increasingly powerful unions which themselves had already become big business.

But in Harry's second term, the economy got back to being bullish and arguably the times were the best they had ever been before or since. Unemployment dropped to an astoundingly low 2 - 3 % which economist tell is is better than full employment.

So what went wrong? Perhaps it was simply voter backlash after fifteen years of the same party in the high office (and with FDR, having the same president for twelve), and people just wanted a change. Whatever the reasons, Harry began his popularity decline fairly soon after he assumed office. He had not been expected to win the 1948 election which turned out not to be that close.

But one thing we know caused Harry problems is that this was the time of the Great American Angst, or as it has been traditionally called, the Red Scare. Naturally, Harry opponents, looking for ways to garner votes, accused him of being soft on communism. Harry vehemently denied this but then came the conviction of a state department attorney, Alger Hiss, on perjury charges related to Russian espionage and people began to think the Russians were everywhere. They may not have been everywhere, but they were certainly around. Of course, the spies were not always where Harry's opponents said they were. Although the evidence against Alger was and remains disputed (although the consensus seems to be that Alger did indeed pass information to the Russians), one of the most outspoken anti-Communist congressman and voracious Truman critic was in fact taking money from Russia in exchange for information. The congressman, it later turned out, was doing it simply for the money and never spent a day in jail.

Harry's popularity was certainly not improved when he introduced Americans to one thing they had never experienced before but we now accept as routine. That was the undeclared war that shows no sign of ending. Or perhaps we can state it more charitably and just say Harry hoped the postwar United States would be the world wide peacekeeper without being a worldwide conqueror. He and everyone else soon found that was easier said than done.

When the Big One ended on either August 14, 1945 or September 2 (depending on your definition), the boundaries of the various countries were something of a mess. Europe (including Germany and the Balkans) were divvied up rather haphazardly, and Korea had been divided into North and South. Korea's north was nominally occupied by the Soviet Union, which worried the West, but China was the nearest neighbor and so provided an American ally as a buffer.

Now that was fine as long as China was one of the Western Allies, but when Mao Tse-tung (as he was called back then) drove Chiang Kai-shek to Taiwan, any hope of a mutually agreeable reuniting of the country was dashed. Then when North Korea troops invaded the south, the United Nations passed a resolution authorizing military intervention, and Harry ordered American troops into the Korean peninsula. The Russians and the newly founded People's Republic of China (there is a direct correlation between the dictatorial nature of a country and the use of "democratic" or "republic" in their names) threw their support to the North, and what was nominally a civil war between a temporarily divided nation became part of the never ending turf war of the major powers.

In general, most Americans approved of fighting communist expansion, but Harry's commitment meant increasing number of men and women in the armed services which only a few years earlier had been reduced as soldiers were mustered out of service after the Japanese surrender. Some veterans, who had volunteered for World War II without hesitation, were quite bitter at being recalled and when Groucho Marx asked a draftee what he hoped to be, the soldier replied, "A civilian".

Eventually the two sides hit a stalemate, and Americans were wondering why the hell (as Harry might have said) the country that defeated Hitler and Tojo couldn't win another war in a tiny country halfway across the world. Of course, part of the problem was that both sides had a new weapon that was effective but was only practical if only one side had it. That weapon was, of course, the atomic bomb which Harry had ordered used for the first (and to date the only) time in combat on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Historically the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan is probably the one event during Harry's presidency that will be debated endlessly and never to everyone's satisfaction. Because the weapon did not exist when the Geneva Conventions (note plural) were signed, there was no specific rule on to its admissibility in warfare. Still it was clear from language of the various treaties that aerial warfare was supposed to be directed at military targets and one of the war crimes for which German and Japanese leaders were prosecuted was bombing of targets without regard to the danger of civilian casualties.

If asked, then, how Americans justified their own carpet firebombing of cities, particularly in Japan, various rationalizations were given. Some people would go into spittle flinging diatribes that there were no Japanese civilians and so you could bomb anyone you damn well wanted. A somewhat more legalistic answer was that Japan's war industry was widely supported by cottage mom and pop businesses and the work was carried out in private homes. So all residential areas were, in effect, legitimate military targets. Then there was the absolutely honest answer - which was given by General Curtis Lemay who actually planned the firebombings of Tokyo and the other cities - that if we had lost the war, then he supposed he would have been tried as a war criminal. But, he added, we didn't loose and so that was pretty much that.

Now before we go further and incur the aforesaid spittle flinging diatribes, we must state that the two conflicting issues - whether the bomb was a prohibited weapon under the international conventions or if it was an effective weapon that helped stop the war - are not mutually exclusive. So we must pause and state categorically and emphatically that there is no doubt that the dropping of the bomb helped shorten the war. You don't have to sift through historical analysis of when the Russians declared war against Japan or what this or that Japanese or American politician said. You just turn to what the Japanese emperor, Hirohito, himself said. And that was that the bomb was one of reasons he ordered the Japanese forces to lay down their arms. Hirohito's statement, we must emphasize, was not made years after the war, but was actually before the surrender in his announcement to the Japanese people.

How much did the bomb shorten the war? Well, that question is entirely unanswerable. Even in Japan there were some high ranking military and politicians who wanted to fight on to the annihilation of whatever side lost. A group of army officers were so afraid the Emperor would surrender that they tried to stage a coup at the palace (obviously they failed). If that sentiment had prevailed the war would have kept going into the next year. There were some Japanese who felt they should surrender once they learned Russia was going to repudiate their treaty with Japan and declare war which was originally planned for August 15, but happened on August 8.

In America opinion was divided as well. Some plans were made assuming the war would be going full steam into November and an invasion would be needed. On the other hand, there were some people in the American military and administration who agreed that the Japanese would surrender once Russia declared war on Japan. In that case, the you're talking about shortening the war by a few days, if at all.

Harry understood the controversial nature of the new weapon and that its deployment on a city with a large civilian population would be a touchy issue - particularly since at the time the United States and its Allies were drawing up a list of war crimes against the Germans and Japanese, crimes which included bombing of cities without regard to the presence of civilian populations. In fact, when he first announced the dropping of the bomb, Harry described Hiroshima as a "military base" and added that it had been chosen to avoid, if possible, the killing of civilians. But despite Harry's statements to the contrary, civilian casualties were not only expected, but American target memoranda and minutes of meetings show that the recommendation was that the atomic targets, although having a military nature, should be surrounded by residential areas where the force of the bomb would run its course. So Japanese civilians - thousands of whom were not even born when Pear Harbor was attacked - were indeed specifically targeted and their deaths were part of the strategy to fully test the power of the weapon.

But just how much did Harry agonize over the decision to drop the bomb? When an interviewer mentioned the decision must have taken a lot of soul searching Harry snapped his fingers. "Hell, no!" he said. "I made it like that!" Clearly Harry saw that one necessary characteristic of a good leader is the ability to make quick decisions. If they happen to be right, so much the better.

Harry's philosophy was ultimately that he was the man in charge and if anyone wanted to point fingers, he was the pointee. And yes, Harry did have a "The Buck Stop Here" sign on his desk. Alas, this willingness to accept blame has evolved into the wishy-washy and even Orwellian phrase "accepting responsibility" that modern political and business leaders babble when a major scandal hits. Now of course today saying you accept responsibility means you want people to think someone else is to blame.

Now Harry did indeed make quick decisions, but some people who dealt with him thought his quick confidence was a masking of an insecurity brought on when a man of humble background and limited formal education began rubbing elbows with Boston Brahmins and Harvard graduates. Robert Oppenheimer, in dealing with Harry about the future of the atomic bomb in the post-war world, found the President's thinking shallow and uninformed. When he and Harry sat down together, Harry asked Robert how long it would take the Russians to build the bomb. Robert said he didn't know. "Well, I do," Harry puffed. "Never!" Robert was flabbergasted that the president should be so naive, and indeed the Russian exploded their first bomb on August 29, 1949, a bit more than four years after the Trinity Test at Alamogordo.

However, Harry was no more impressed with Robert. During the meeting, Robert, in a reference to his leading the Manhattan project, said that he had blood on his hands. Harry's reply (which changed a bit with each telling) was that Robert didn't have blood on his hands, but it was he, Harry, who did. Regardless the modicum of surface affability of the meeting, Harry was considerably irritated with Robert, and after the meeting told an aide not to let "that son-of-a-bitch" back in his office again. He then shot a memo off to Under-Secretary of State Dean Acheson complaining about the "crybaby" scientist.

We have already discussed some of the general (as we'll see, no pun intended) reasons for Harry's loss of popularity. Now for the specific. The crucial hit to Harry's approbation was when he relieved the general in charge in Korea, Douglas MacArthur, of command. From the first Douglas had been at loggerheads with Harry. The general - who had a confidence in his abilities that matched that of Harry - believed that the war should be fought with the intent to militarily defeat the enemy. But Harry and the American allies believed that, although the sentiments sounded good, it also meant the winners would have to occupy a hostile country with borders connecting to even more hostile countries. There was also the little problem that what Douglas wanted could very likely trigger World War III.

But as the ultimate field commander, Douglas thought he should have independent authority, not just tactics, but on overall strategy as well. That included when and where to send troops, invade, and when to exercise the option to use nuclear weapons (although Douglas said he never favored actual deployment). Such sweeping claims of authority for a military officer was something new. Even in World War II, ultimate decisions lay with the Joint Chiefs of Staff who acknowledged the final authority of the President.

Now the vast majority of the American military officers realize that the rules that apply to soldiers and their superiors applies to the president, who is everyone's commander-in-chief. That means although you can debate and disagree in private and in strategic meetings, strong public opposition, particularly in matters of policy, constitutes disrespect of a superior officer and is conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Douglas, though, disagreed. While serving on the court martial board of General Billy Mitchell, Douglas said he felt that a soldier had a right to voice his objections, and that the worst thing for America is to have lower ranking officer's frank opinions suppressed.

So when Douglas disagreed with Harry, he had no hesitation saying so, and soon his public statements and open communiques clearly were at odds with the plans of Harry, the Chiefs of Staff, and other American Allies. For his part, Harry saw the situation in terms of who was really in charge of the American armed forces. Was it he, the constitutionally designated commander-in-chief, or a non-elected general? Well, we know the answer as did Harry. On April 11, 1951, he relieved MacArthur of all command which as president he had every right to do.

In the minds of most Americans, though, Douglas was still the hero of the Pacific war and the man who defeated the Empire of Japan. The General returned to ticker tape parades and an address to Congress where he delivered his famous speech saying, "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away" - something that Harry hoped the troublesome general would do. Harry's approval rating fell to 22 % - the lowest of any American president, then or since. And the elections were just around the corner.

Although Harry could have run again despite serving nearly two full terms, the primary results and party information convinced him to step aside. Although initially the crime-busting senator, Estes Kefauver, was the Democratic favorite, eventually the genial Adlai Stevenson won the Democratic nomination.

Harry's support probably hurt Adlai's chances. Not only was the presidential ratings horrible, but Harry's speeches and comments about the Republican opponent, Dwight D. Eisenhower, were looked at on as highly negative and unfair toward the man who seven years earlier was even a bigger hero than Douglas. It was a most lopsided election even by today's standards, with Adlai reaping only 89 out of 521 total electoral votes and 44 % of the popular vote. It was Harry's greatest disappointment.

History is written - not necessarily by the victors - but by writers who have to write about new things - or at least about things that people forgot were written before. So if one set of writers tells us Harry was a horrible president, the next group needs to prove Harry was one of the best. In fairly short order, Harry was rehabilitated and was sought by journalists, some who recognized that the president who presided over the end of World War II would by definition have an important place in American history.

Harry's popularity continued to rebound. Finally in the early 1960's, a writer hired to script a documentary about Harry, Merl Miller, spent a lot of time talking with and recording the former president. The show was never produced but in 1974, two years after Harry's death, Merle published a selection of the interviews in the "oral biography" Plain Speaking.

The book was well written and entertaining, but did draw some criticism, mostly because some doubted a number of the quotes were really what Harry said. There was also some consternation about how Merle mentioned that Harry would excuse himself to - as Merle hypothesized from Harry's increased loquaciousness - take a restoring libation. Some critics also pointed out that what Merle reported didn't agree with contemporary accounts. However, Merle pointed out he was reporting what Harry said, not writing an academic history. In any case the book was a best seller, and Harry was back in the news and featured in biographies, television shows. There was even a hit play, Given 'Em Hell, Harry!", starring James Whitmore which was also released as a motion picture.

Plain Speaking became a by-line for honesty in politics. But citing it could be a bit hazardous as one mid-western politician found out. Not long after Plain Speaking was published, the governor of what was even then a conservative state had been accused by an opponent of preferring company with those of his own gender. The governor denied it and called a press conference. There he swore on his wife's Bible that the story wasn't true.

The trouble was the Bible had a white cover. A white cover? Why a real, macho he-men would have sworn on a black Bible. Using a white Bible actually proved the state had a sissified, wimpish, panty-waist chief executive! As common and popular as this type of idiotic horse hockey is now, back then it was relatively rare.

Then another politician - as joking support of the governor - also called a press conference. When the reporters showed up, he took an oath that he, too, was of mainstream persuasion and swore on a copy of Plain Speaking.

Then one of the reporters called out.

"You know Merle Miller was gay, don't you?"

References

Truman, David McCullough, Simon and Schuster (1992). Probably the best book to get to first learn about Harry

Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman, Merle Miller, Berkley Publishing Corporation, 1974. This book started the now never ending "oral" biographies which means the author can just write what is said, not check whether its really correct. Very readable and despite the criticism is probably what Harry told Merle.

American Prometheus: The Triumph And Tragedy Of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, Alfred A. Knopf (2005)

American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964 William Manchester, Little, Brown, and Company (1978). Probably the definitive biography of Douglas MacArthur. The book points out the general's good points (and he had many) and weaknesses (which he also had).

Enola Gay, Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts, Stein and Day Publishers, 1977. Probably the best book about the Hiroshima mission. The authors interviewed many of the principles, both American and Japanese. The memorandum on the atomic targets having large residential areas is quoted.

The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes, Simon and Schuster, 1986. The history of the - as the title says - the atomic bomb. Starts way back at the beginning of the nuclear research and theory.

Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, Richard Rhodes, Simon and Schuster, 1995. Again one of the best books on the atomic arms race. Contains the self-assessment by Curtis Lemay on his being tried as a war criminal.

Give 'Em Hell Harry, Samuel Gallu, Viking Press, 1975. The play based on Plain Speaking. The play was released of VHS tape, but DVD's seem rare or nonexistent. Some of the quotes from the play are now often given as verbatim quotes from Harry. They may be, but should always be checked out. The performance by James Whitmore in the movie release was one of his best, although Will Rogers, USA was also great.

Remembered Truman Quote, ca. 1960 - 1965. Although the memory of this quote seems vivid (as well it might), the actual source has not been identified. The recollection is the statement was made while the former President was standing in front of a photograph of the Russian dictator. The most likely source of this was the series from the mid-1960's, "Decision: The Conflicts of Harry S. Truman" but this particular quote remains elusive. On one "outtake", Harry mentions the agreements with Stalin but his only comment was only a mild "What the hell are you going to do?" The quote could, of course, have been from a different interview.