Friday, March 17, 2006
In reading for my American Foreign Policy class, I stumbled across an essay by Arnold A. Hoffner on President Truman and the origins of the Cold War, entitled "Provincialism and Confrontation." In it, predictably, he blames the Cold War fiasco that ensued following the Second World War as largely Truman's fault. And why did Truman make the choices he did? Was he simply evil? Not evil, but too American. His decision making was shaped by "his uncritical belief in the superiority of American values." Even his service in the First World War did not shake this: "He deplored Europe's politics, mores and food and sought only to return to 'God's Country.' He never intended to revisit Europe." His foreign policy "largely comprised military preparedness." During the war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, "he hastily remarked that they should be left to destroy one another--although he opposed Germany's winning--and he likened Russian leaders to 'Hitler and Al Capone' and soon inveighed against the 'twin blights--atheism and communism.'"
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Truman was hated during his presidency and immediately following. But now most rankings by historians of the Presidents place him in the top five. I think Bush is due for the same sort of vindication. The problem with Truman, among academics, is not that he was a bad leader or that he did something wrong, but he refused to allow his conscience to be dictated to by the heads of state in Europe. This is always the unforgivable sin with liberals. Never mind that following the two world wars, Europe did not look particularly like a moral paragon to be emulated. As for his assessment of Germany vs. Russia: he was dead-on. We should have let them kill each other and waste away their armies. Then we could have mopped up and rid ourselves of two evil dictators with one blow. We gambled that between Hitler and Stalin Hitler was the greater threat and in an immediate sense he was, but certainly there was no "moral high ground" in taking Stalin's side against Hitler. The nice thing to know, in the long run, is that you're right and history has a way of vindicating unpopular-at-the-time Presidents. I still think Bush will be in the top ten someday soon.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Truman was hated during his presidency and immediately following. But now most rankings by historians of the Presidents place him in the top five. I think Bush is due for the same sort of vindication. The problem with Truman, among academics, is not that he was a bad leader or that he did something wrong, but he refused to allow his conscience to be dictated to by the heads of state in Europe. This is always the unforgivable sin with liberals. Never mind that following the two world wars, Europe did not look particularly like a moral paragon to be emulated. As for his assessment of Germany vs. Russia: he was dead-on. We should have let them kill each other and waste away their armies. Then we could have mopped up and rid ourselves of two evil dictators with one blow. We gambled that between Hitler and Stalin Hitler was the greater threat and in an immediate sense he was, but certainly there was no "moral high ground" in taking Stalin's side against Hitler. The nice thing to know, in the long run, is that you're right and history has a way of vindicating unpopular-at-the-time Presidents. I still think Bush will be in the top ten someday soon.
// posted by The Pendragon @ 8:30 AM 
