The Doctrine of Truman, Research Paper Example

Roskin’s examinations of President Truman mostly centered on the Truman Doctrine and an anti-Communism. The Truman Doctrine supported an aggressive global attack against communism and ultimately led to a deprivation of the rights of natural-born private citizens living in America (Roskin, 2010). The doctrine did not overtly state the intent which was interpreted but was expressed as “the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures” (Gaddis, 1974, p. 386). It was not an unyielding doctrine, nor was it threatening… at first. The long-term role of the doctrine remains a matter of debate. Did it avert global destruction in an age of distrust and of emergent nuclear technology or did it assert its own tyrannical ends in an un-Constitutional manner which escalated an already-volatile political climate?

To understand the doctrine, it is necessary to know some simple facts about President Truman. He was a respected veteran of World War I who had gained a reputation for his intelligence, his bravery, and his single-minded commitment to the task at hand. He said that war could only make men of the boys that already possessed the potential and confessed that (during his service) conscientious objectors were perceived as disloyal, lazy, or as fence-riding cowards (Dunar, 1991). Religion was a large part of his belief system. A dedicated Christian, Truman would not accept the religious motivations of America’s political adversaries and credited his own battle survival to his belief that “the Lord was and is with me” (Dunar, 1991, p. 286).

After being elected, his “no mercy” tactics were displayed in a variety of ways. In conjunction with the Truman Doctrine, the President utilized religious groups, the mass media, and even the development of nuclear weapons to reinforce his agenda, despite the fact that he spoke of peace and change (Dunar, 1991; Gaddis, 1974; Hamby, 1995; Kirby, 2001; Walker, 2005). Domestic challenges and policies often determined the level of his commitment to change, so the relative severity of a decision’s effect upon the American people often determined his resolution to act quickly (McBride, 2005). Since conscientious objectors in the Cold War struck a cord with American immigrants sharing the oppressive cultures of the day, Truman did not make amnesty a high priority in his administration but did occasionally relent on behalf of the American cause as he saw it (Dunar, 1991). Gaddis (1974) wrote: “For the United States, in the twentieth century, the most important requirement for a congenial international environment has been that Europe not fall under the domination of a single, hostile state.” (p. 387). Years before the Truman Doctrine was released, talk of counter-balancing perceived Soviet pressure was in the works, and the fear of the “single, hostile state” were growing. Stalin gave private orders that Communist officials were not to seize power in a majority of the areas in which the party now thrived, such as in France, Italy, Greece, and China (Frazier, 2009; Gaddis, 1974). Paradoxically, American politicians prophesied that this Soviet influence would cause the nation to overextend itself and to collapse (Frazier, 2009). On this basis, the Truman Doctrine acquired altruistic undertones which reinforced the American view that they were the champions of a just, merciful, godly, and universal cause, making a universal solution the right and Christian course (pp. 24-27).

Truman was happy to oblige. However, few of the American citizens or Congress would support the approval of aid to Greece and Turkey unless it was built upon a broader, ideological standpoint (Roskin, 2010). Critics have suggested that Truman’s globalization of the problem lacked the specific focus which is necessary to policy-making; however, Truman did have a private agenda which began with providing aid to certain enemies of communism and only when a given set of circumstances were present (Frazier, 2009; Gaddis, 1974). With time, the circumstantialities of Congressional approval became defunct, since Truman’s doctrinal drafters had convinced them that the detrimental aspects of Soviet influence would overtake much of Europe and even the Americas if quick, decisive actions were not taken on behalf of their allies against the spread of communism (Frazier, 2009). In the meantime, the conscientious objectors were often given amnesty and allowed to remain in America despite the ambiguous nature of their bravery and of their loyalties. As the Cold War began to develop further, the crowd cheered as amnesty was revoked for many (Dunar, 1991).

In the end, Truman’s fervor for his causes was so strong that he privately depicted the anti-communist fight as one waged for the God-fearing causes of America (Kirby, 2001). In addition, he contributed to the domestic paranoia and inflamed the people to the degree that blacklisting in Hollywood became an assurance of security and accord rather than a blatant disregard for rights to free speech, privacy, and religion. Truman also supported mandates that healthy adults male be required to participate in the U.S. military for a term of no less than one year (Dunar, 1991). It was rejected. Using tactics typical of the communist regime which he denounced, Harry Truman became an exploitative tyrant and propagandist. He developed a chill of the spine into an all-out campaign of cultural extinction- a campaign which is now known as the Cold War.

References

Dunar, A. J. (1991). Harry S. Truman and the issue of amnesty for conscientious objectors. Peace & Change, 16(3), 285. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Frazier, R. (2009). Kennan, “Universalism,” and the Truman Doctrine. Journal of Cold War Studies, 11(2), 3-34. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Gaddis, J. (1974). Was The Truman Doctrine A Real Turning Point?. Foreign Affairs, 52(2), 386-402. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hamby, A. L. (1995). Truman and the bomb. History Today, 45(8), 18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Kirby, D. (2001). Harry S. Truman’s International Religious Anti-Communist Front, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 1948 Inaugural Assembly of the World Council of Churches. Contemporary British History, 15(4), 35. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

McBride, D. (2005). For all the Wrong Reasons? Re-evaluating Truman, Domestic Influences, and the Palestine Question. DOMES: Digest of Middle East Studies, 14(2), 27-49. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Roskin, M. (Jan. 2010). IR: The New World of International Relations. Longman Publishing Group. Print.

Walker, j. (2005). Recent Literature on Truman’s Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground. Diplomatic History, 29(2), 311-334. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7709.2005.00476.x