Pres. Truman on the Jews

Arutz 7 ^ | July 11, 2003 | staff

[Nachum]

The Washington Post reported today (Friday) that US President Harry S. Truman, generally regarded as having been supportive of Jewish aspirations in Israel, as well as concerned to relieve the suffering of Jewish refugees in post-WWII Europe, had some very unkind thoughts about Jews.

This according to a Truman diary only recently, and serendipitously, discovered on the shelves of the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, reports the Post.

"The Jews, I find are very, very selfish," Truman wrote in a 1947 diary entry. "They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] 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." After a conversation with Treasury Secretary Henry Morganthau, a Jew, about a ship carrying Jewish refugees to pre-state Israel, Truman wrote, "He’d no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs. Henry brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed."

The Washington Post reports the reaction of Sara J. Bloomfield, director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum: "Wow! It did surprise me because of what I know about Truman's record, Truman's sympathy for the plight of Jews was very apparent." But, Bloomfield told the Post, Truman’s comments were "typical of a sort of cultural anti-Semitism that was common at that time in all parts of American society. This was an acceptable way to talk."

[Feldkurat_Katz]

ping

[Support Free Republic]

Any way I can talk you into making a donation?? Thanks if you will!

[scotiamor]

Truman's recognition of the state of Israel was for purely domestic political reasons, to help his re-election campaign. Greorge Marshall resigned as Secretary of State in protest.

There are also some "charming" letters Truman wrote to relatives teeming with racism, very negative opinions of blacks.

However, Truman is not a total ogre. He had very nice things to say about the Pendergast political machine in Kansas City, many of whom ended up in prison for corruption.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

"Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. "

So the Baptists, Mormons, Negros, and Russians might feel dissed too. But I won't hold my breath waiting for anyone to make a fuss about that. Well, maybe Rev. Al or Jesse will pipe up at some point.

I think Truman's generic comment about the tendency to ethno-centrism (let the others suffer and die, but leave my group alone) is right on - - - -and it applies to most peoples with tightly knit ethnic connections. Because the particular recent event that set off this reflection was some apparently intense lobbying by Jews, he dumped on them. If he had been dealing with some similar lobbying effort by FAIR or other Arab-centric arm twisters, he would have dumped on them. And he was really down on the British intriguers whose ethno-centricity was even more irritating for having the British Empire behind it to get results.

[11th Earl of Mar]

"Wow! It did surprise me because of what I know about Truman's record, Truman's sympathy for the plight of Jews was very apparent."

Billy Graham made a similiar statement in the '60s to Richard Nixon. But I don't remember liberal historians having such kind regards about him when his remarks were exposed.

[rightofrush]

What matters is not what one says, but what one does.

I rank Truman as at least the 5th worst president of the 20th century (after FDR, Wilson, Clinton, and JFK).

Truman:
1. Allowed the Atomic bombing of Japan after knowing of the Japanese willingness to surrender since February of 1945, wtih being allowed to keep their Emperor their only condition. If Japan would have been allowed to surrender earlier, USSR would have been kept out, and the Kurile Islands would have remained Janpaese. Truman is reported to have said when told of the earlier offer to surrender, "They haven't suffered enough."
2. Allowed the implimentation of the infamous Yalta agreements. He had the power to tell the Soviets to blow it out their ear. He had seen reports of the perfidity of Alger Hess and friends and refused to act on them or even to ask for further investigation.
3. He allowed the takeover of Chechoslovakia by the USSR and the elimination of aid to the ROC. MacArthur would have loved to help as a military advisor.
4. Inflation under his watch rivaled that of Carter's.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"They haven't suffered enough."

And they hadn't.

Truman was right. There was a debt to be paid in Japanese blood for a great many things. Not the least of which was the Bataan death march. Cruel, but true.

[rabidralph]

" But, Bloomfield told the Post, Truman’s comments were "typical of a sort of cultural anti-Semitism that was common at that time in all parts of American society. This was an acceptable way to talk."

She continued on, "unless one was a Republican."

[Billy_bob_bob]

Bump for later reference.

[drhogan]

i thought she sounded sincere. truman had many likeable qualities, and clearly had some flaws. but i think he was basically a decent man, and a good president. if we examined the private diaries of other people at that time, we would probably find all sorts of racist comments. it wasn't until the '60's that people began to wake up about this sort of thing. USS Grant made antisemitic comments, and Lincoln made racist statements about blacks. i don't hear democrats attacking them.
however, any current politicians who make these statements should be black-balled, because it is just plain stupid from a political point of view to attack an entire ethnic or racial group. McCain fell into this trap with his "gooks" comment.

[RoughDobermann]

Allowed the Atomic bombing of Japan after knowing of the Japanese willingness to surrender since February of 1945

Clue me in here. Did the Japanese keep fighting, and fighting viciously, after February 1945?

[richardtavor]

ror--I believe that the Japanese held to 4 conditions (as dictated by the Military) even after the first bomb.:

1. Emperor to remain
2. Military intact
3. Military to try their own war criminals
4. Self Rule.

Even after the second bomb, they only capitulated back to the position you suggest (point 1.) None of these conditions were acceptable to the US--Russia only initiated their military response in the Sakhalin Islands after they knew that the US would attack (in other words--they wanted to stake their own territory.) I am no lover of Truman, but I respectfully disagree with some of your statements about the history of that era. I was interested to see Truman's Library (even through the propaganda) in Independence. If you ever get a chance you should see it. Your comments about Marshall were right on--he always supported an Arab solution to the Middle East.

[Cicero]

Drudge cites the WashPost article, which doesn't seem to have been posted yet.

It can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40678-2003Jul10.html

I never liked Truman, and I've never understood the people who have since tried to make him into a "great" president. He was a petty little pipsqueak with a background in corrupt machine politics.

[rightofrush]

Truman was right. There was a debt to be paid in Japanese blood for a great many things. Not the least of which was the Bataan death march. Cruel, but true.

The Japanese General Staff, General Officers, and anyone above the rank of Captain needed to justify the weather report: "...cool, with a little Nip in the air."

The non-combatants did not need to be fire & atom bombed if there was an alternative.

[RoughDobermann]

Ummm... I think you replied to me by mistake. Bloody Sam wrote what you quoted, not me.

[RoughDobermann]

The non-combatants did not need to be fire & atom bombed if there was an alternative

You mean like the hundreds of civilians that were killed by the Japanese on December 7, 1941? WWII was total war; if the Japanese don't tlike it, perhaps they shouldn't have started it. Yamamoto was right, you know...

[rightofrush]

You did pick an appropriate post name.

As a further thought on the topic, if we had negotiated a peace treaty prior June, 1945, USSR would not have had a chance to declare war on Japan, would not have occupied North Korea, and there would have been no Korean War. MacArthur may have even had a better chance at the presidency in 1952.

Yeah, I know, "the saddest words of mouth or pen, are those that begin with: it might of been".

[rightofrush]

You did pick an appropriate post name.

As a further thought on the topic, if we had negotiated a peace treaty prior June, 1945, USSR would not have had a chance to declare war on Japan, would not have occupied North Korea, and there would have been no Korean War. MacArthur may have even had a better chance at the presidency in 1952.

Yeah, I know, "the saddest words of mouth or pen, are those that begin with: it might of been".

[southland]

RE POST 17: The JPANESE SHOULD HAVE NOT ATTACKED Pearl HArbor UNLESS THEY WERE ABLE TO TAKE the results of an all out war which resulted from their action.
I see no alternative to Truman using the bomb on Japan. They were still killing our POWS that they held.. He saved 1,000,000 men in our army from having to invade Japan.
Truman died in the same house he was born in therefore he didn't steal much if any thing. I don't think he took the silverware as X42 and family did.
I rate Truman very high.and really above Roosevelt.