Skip to comments.
Harry Truman's Forgotten Diary
The Washington Post ^
| July 11, 2003
| Rebecca Dana and Peter Carlson
Posted on 07/11/2003 6:39:01 AM PDT by alloysteel
Edited on 07/11/2003 6:45:45 AM PDT by Admin Moderator.
[history]
"The Jews, I find are very, very selfish," President Harry S. Truman wrote in a 1947 diary that was recently discovered on the shelves of the Truman Library in Independence, Mo., and released by the National Archives yesterday.
Written sporadically during a turbulent year of Truman's presidency, the diary contains about 5,500 words on topics ranging from the death of his mother to comic banter with a British aristocrat. But the most surprising comments 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 4paragraphrule; harrytruman; macarthur; notanexcerpt; truman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-63 next last
To: alloysteel
Here's more of Hilarious Harry Truman's own words:
(On New York) "K*ketown." -- Harry Truman in a personal letter "I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America." Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/leftwingracists.php
To: Enterprise
As a once, present and future Southerner, I have to say that anyone seeking office prior to 1960 would at least have to avoid the hostility of the Klan. I some cases you would need their support. In others, you would just have to keep your mouth shut.
42
posted on
07/11/2003 8:30:18 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: Enterprise
Timeless. Truman even admits he is a bigot.
Whereas T Roosevelt admired the Japs a decade earlier and reached out to blacks (Douglass).
43
posted on
07/11/2003 8:32:30 AM PDT
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: Norse
To put it bluntly, you sound so stupid. Pick up Coulter's book and start it again. Check the references. I read both her book and Halbestroms Truman. Most of what Coulter states about Truman can be found in the laters bio. Coulter has a chapter in her book about people like you, that Truman knew the Soviets would collapse. Take a look at the countries the Soviets swallowed while the Dems were on watch. Concerning your second paragraph, that is also stupid. Why? Because the State Department at the end of WW II were overrun with Soviet spies - re Venona Transcripts - and advised against it. FDR and Truman handed eastern Europe to Stalin on a platter and Truman even called Stalin a good guy. Crack a book open and learn some history!
44
posted on
07/11/2003 8:46:24 AM PDT
by
7thson
(I think it takes a big dog to weigh a 100 pounds.)
To: Enterprise
Were you around then,or are you just parroting what some party hack has said ?
Let's go to the videotape !
When WWII ended, the US had NO remaining atomic bombs. Its military forces had largely been de-mobilized, and the Russians were in position to help themselves to as much of Europe as they wanted.Truman was regarded as a rank usurper,trying to fill the shoes of FDR; and he was daily confronted with the problems of a left-leaning State Department.
The Media did not dislike him: they despised him because he was a party hack from the "backward" state of Missouri.The kindest things they called him were "ward heeler", and "Harry the Haberdasher".
The United States people were sick of war, wanted their sons and daughters home, and would have lynched anyone who suggested otherwise. As a result, there was only a skeleton crew of American troops in Korea: most Pacific theater troops being diverted to the spit and polish worship of General Mac Arthur in Tokyo.
In Europe, brave pilots, working around the clock, kept Berlin alive by airlifting essential supplies-food, coal,etc. - by direction of Truman. Truman also instituted the Marshall Plan, re-building Europe - to the consternation of the Russians and a solidly Republican Congress.
When war broke out in Korea, Truman made an understandable mistake : he appointed "Emperor Mac Arthur" to defend Korea-to the great joy of Mac Arthur's many admirers.
MacArthur should have been court martialled for gross dereliction of duty for his conduct of the Korean war.
He may have been a great hero during WWII, but he let his ego get in the way, and refused to give credence to solid intelligence of Chinese presence in Korea: splitting his forces-which were not given proper winter gear-to reach the Yalu River , in hopes of attaining an early victory he could turn into a Republican presidential nomination.Even after he was shown Chinese prisoners, he snarled abuse at his officers for "letting a few Chinese laundrymen stand in the way".
( If you want some first hand opinions on Mac Arthur, talk to a few of the Korean vets ! )
The firing of Mac Arthur -long, LONG overdue IMHO - was treated in the Media as if it were the death knell of the Republic...but it turned out not to be. Other generals picked up the gauntlet, and came pretty close to winning a victory; but, by then, the American public had had a bellyfull of war, and an outstanding Republican-Dwight D. Eisenhower went to Korea " to bring our boys home ".
Was Truman a great man ? Hell, no ! Did he do a pretty good job in spite of his limitations ? Yep. Did he hate the Communists and their "Liberal" fellow-travelers with a passion ? Again, yes; and no amount of revisionism will change that in my memory.
45
posted on
07/11/2003 9:06:42 AM PDT
by
genefromjersey
(So little time - so many FLAMES to light !!)
To: Norse
An examination of the destruction of the Japanese Army in Manchuria by the Russians in 1945 doesn't make it seem that the US could have gone straight to Moscow. The Germans lost about 2,000,000 military dead against the Soviets when the Soviets were unprepared. It's not at all clear that the US could have done better when Russia was on a war-footing.
46
posted on
07/11/2003 9:26:09 AM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Enterprise
HST was NOT soft on communism; he was the best Democratic president of the 20th Century. He took on Stalin and the gang in Korea, passed the Marshall Plan and never trusted the mass murdering devils. (FDR did and WAS soft On Stalin and his US fellow travelers). And he never lost a wink of sleep over dropping the A-bomb on the-then fascist government of the Japanese; who never would have surrendered had it not been done.
47
posted on
07/11/2003 9:40:51 AM PDT
by
laconic
To: Doctor Stochastic
Another FACT about HST: he VOLUNTEERED for service and fought hard commanding a company in WW1 despite having bad eyes and a family at home. Contrast that to clinton and others.
48
posted on
07/11/2003 9:46:12 AM PDT
by
laconic
To: genefromjersey
"Were you around then" I wasn't around during the Civil War but I believe the North won it. I dunno, maybe it is just some hack who told me the North won.
MI>"When war broke out in Korea, Truman made an understandable mistake : he appointed "Emperor Mac Arthur" to defend Korea-to the great joy of Mac Arthur's many admirers."
Then the stupid ass made a bigger mistake by firing McArthur instead of letting him win the war outright. Truman should have been impeached.
"Did he do a pretty good job in spite of his limitations
HELL NO
"Did he hate the Communists and their "Liberal" fellow-travelers with a passion ? Again, yes; and no amount of revisionism will change that in my memory."
Well, since you so passionately try to revise history, here is Truman in his own words to Henry Wallace in 1946 (From the book "Treason") - "Stalin was a fine man who wanted to do the right thing." Further, according to Coulter, he later wrote in his diary that the Russians "have always been our friends and I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be."
Truman liked to refer to Stalin as "Uncle Joe" BTW. Your revisionist view of Truman the Commie loving RAT is sick.
To: laconic
There have been no best Democratic Presidents in the 20th Century. They all presided over stunning foreign policy disasters. Our Democratic President were a fraternity of morons.
To: Enterprise
Oops - should read as - Our Democratic Presidents were a fraternity of morons.
To: Enterprise
You are too partisan. Give credit where it is due: Truman brought the Pacific War to an honorable close, stood up to Stalin, stopped the Reds in Korea. Also, when he retired, he didn't take a cent from the large corporations or as a public speaker. Unlike Gerry Ford (who has taken millions from "service" on corporate boards), he believed it would taint his status as an ex-president. HST was a plain, but decent and well-intentioned man.
52
posted on
07/11/2003 12:06:00 PM PDT
by
laconic
To: laconic
The reds are still in Korea. Too bad he didn't stop then in China, huh!
To: Enterprise
The reds aren't in South Korea or Japan.
54
posted on
07/11/2003 12:46:36 PM PDT
by
laconic
To: Enterprise
Spoken like a TRUE BELIEVER !!
From 1941 to 1945, Russia had been portrayed ,in every conceivable way, as a "gallant ally". It was almost impossible to pick up a newspaper, listen to the radio, or watch a newsreel without seeing something favorable about the "Reds".
With that in mind, it is not surprising that MOST people,in the early part of 1946,became confused and upset when told the Russians were no longer allies, but potential enemies.
Truman, a relatively unsophisticated man,who relied on a solidly leftist State Department for information, thought "Uncle Joe" Stalin was just another politician, who could be wheedled and manipulated.
Henry Wallace: a Crypto - Communist, was merely thought to be a bit TOO "progressive", and he had a hefty political "following", that was part of the coalition FDR had put together to stay in office. Wallace was supposed to be Truman's running mate in 1952, but got dropped from the party line like a freshly-delivered turd, once his odor became apparent... much to the relief of the American people !
Re-visiting Dugout Doug in Korea : The Great One had no real plan for winning the Korean war - other than launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the Korean peninsula against the Chinese - who were, at the time,rather closely allied to the nuclear armed Russians. The Big Mac was perfectly willing to risk WWIII-whether the President liked it or not-and it was pretty generous of HST to let him retire with honor-something that was not apparent to the Media, or the American public at the time.
By the way, it was NOT up to Truman to dictate the course of the war, but the United Nations.Korea was a UN boondoggle from start to "finish", and the negotiated cease fire was a very "UN" kind of ending- ( Translation: War UNending.)
55
posted on
07/11/2003 1:29:03 PM PDT
by
genefromjersey
(So little time - so many FLAMES to light !!)
To: laconic
The reds aren't in Japan because we allowed our military to beat the Japanese. The reds are in North Korea because we prevented our military from defeating them. Give punkin brain Truman a big hand for that!
To: genefromjersey
Nice post gene. Thank you!
To: genefromjersey
"Much as I admire "Gentle Annie", I think she over-reached a bit on the last book - or relied on John Birch Society tracts too much."
The John Birch Society is looking absolutely prescient if you consider where we find ourselves today!
58
posted on
07/11/2003 9:48:31 PM PDT
by
thegreatbeast
(Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
To: Enterprise
Listen, I'll go along with Truman being a man on the make and perhaps joining the Knights back in Kansas but please don't cite anything called the "socialistreviewindex" ever again.
59
posted on
07/11/2003 9:58:25 PM PDT
by
thegreatbeast
(Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
To: thegreatbeast
Good point.
60
posted on
07/12/2003 5:43:00 AM PDT
by
genefromjersey
(So little time - so many FLAMES to light !!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-63 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson