Get exclusive updates about Harry S. Truman!
Subscribe and receive a daily email digest called myFT Daily Digest to stay up to date with the latest news about Harry S. Truman.
J. Robert Oppenheimer’s internal struggle with his involvement in the creation of the atomic bomb is not particularly fascinating. Should he have shown no remorse? The more intriguing character is Harry Truman, who was tasked with utilizing the “gadget.” What makes Truman more compelling is the fact that he made one of history’s most consequential executive decisions, possibly since Pontius Pilate, without outward hesitation.
The biopic by Christopher Nolan focuses on Oppenheimer, allotting just one scene to the 33rd US president. In this scene, Truman clumsily portrays a provincial fool who cannot pronounce Nagasaki correctly. Aside from relying too heavily on dialogue for exposition and displaying naivety about the possibility of total Axis surrender, this film offers a captivating portrayal of the father of NATO, with its three-hour runtime never feeling tedious.
Throughout the past decade, as Donald Trump won the presidency, Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea, and Xi Jinping asserted China’s dominance, liberals have sought to define what we are defending against these revisionist leaders. The prevailing term, “rules-based international order,” is unsatisfactory. Instead, let’s call it the Truman Show.
Truman made the foundational decisions that have shaped our world: keeping the US involved in Europe post-1945, establishing military bases in vulnerable regions, and reducing industrial tariffs. While his predecessor, Franklin Roosevelt, had the “advantage” of a world war, Truman faced the more challenging task of maintaining a forward US position during peacetime. This approach resulted in an empire-like presence that has come with its share of costs. However, the past 18 months have demonstrated its value. Imagine the situation in Ukraine without a committed US presence. Depending on how Americans vote in the next 18 months, this scenario might become a reality.
The lesson of this decade so far is that liberalism cannot be sustained without military strength. Yet, there has not been enough scrutiny of the failures of previous administrations. I am not advocating for show trials, but it is worth noting what receives attention and what does not. In the UK, there is an inquiry into the Covid pandemic but not into the decline of the defense budget since the 1980s. Multiple inquiries were conducted about the Iraq war, but not about the (non-military) response to Russia’s incursions into Georgia and Crimea. How could it have been more assertive, and to what extent did it embolden the Kremlin?
The problem with inquiry-itis, which extends beyond Britain, is its focus on actions committed rather than actions neglected. In hindsight, Barack Obama’s detached approach to foreign policy went too far. The complacency of Angela Merkel’s administration has aged poorly. Yet, these names do not carry the same level of stigma as George W. Bush or Tony Blair for their active role in the Iraq war. This moral calculation may be accurate, but it warrants examination.
Truman’s reputation suffered for many years. His involvement in the horror of the Korean War was seen as a failure. However, what might have happened if the Western world had not demonstrated its resistance to communist advances anywhere?
If Truman is neglected today, it is for two reasons. Firstly, he reminds us of the compromises liberalism has made to survive thus far. The film presents the nuclear bombing of Japan as a unique moral dilemma, which it may be. However, “conventional” weapons razed much of Tokyo to ashes in a single night. The Allies bombed German civilians. Additionally, the Union did not defeat the Confederacy through chivalrous combat.
No one embodies the mix of high moral principles and their contradictions better than Truman. He facilitated the decolonization of the Philippines and defended civilian control of the government against General Douglas MacArthur’s ambitions. At the same time, this individual with a humble background in municipal politics referred to the bomb as a “blessing” even after using it and was implicated in the Red Scare at home. Oppenheimer’s refined demeanor and Vedic knowledge do not make him the more morally complex individual.
This brings us to the second reason Truman is often overlooked: snobbery. Some liberals struggle to accept that our world owes a debt to a failed haberdasher from Missouri. Truman, a son of a mule trader, was initially seen with derision before becoming arguably the most powerful person to have ever lived in his sixties. Neither his predecessor nor his successor possessed the same nuclear monopoly. Truman did not leave behind treatises or numerous epigrams, let alone any in translated Sanskrit. Nonetheless, he understood that a liberal must learn to navigate alongside, if not confront, the brute forces at play.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
