From the Washington Post. Was Truman really somewhat anti-semitic or was he just pissed at the situation?
Harry Truman’s Forgotten Diary
1947 Writings Offer Fresh Insight on the President
[/sub]
Sounds like a Pitting to me. Everybody gets pissed sometimes.
I can’t say I’m surprised. Hell I remember when I first read about how Wilson (a progressive president) praised “Birth of a Nation” as History written in lightening.
That type of belief system is hard to shake. Truman was raised and existed in a time when such remarks would not have been out of place even in open conversation. It took the horrors of the holocaust to make it unfashionable as well as tateless to say such things (I’m not making light of it this would be some of the attitudes of those at the time) but it wouldn’t necessarily kill the actual prejudice.
If the individual believed Jews were cunning and used others sympathies to their advantage they would resume that belief shortly after the initial shock wore off except now they would likely focus and vent on individuals instead of the group as a whole.
It takes a long time for attitudes to adjust and old myths to die.
The particular
Harry Truman DID have anti-semitic attitudes… but that didn’t stop him from supporting Israel in its infancy. Similarly, Truman expressed racist sentiments regularly… but that didn’t stop him from integrating the U.S. armed forces.
So, Truman was both a bigot AND a benefactor of blacks and Jews. If that seems contradictory, well, people often ARE contradictory!
Anyone who’s read any december pieces on this very board will have noticed that, in addition to his main theme of the hypocrisy of liberals, there’s a second counterpoint of the importance of supporting Israel.
I just got through reading a thread on another board which started as a discussion of Ann Coulter, but degenerated into a healthy dose of Hilary-bashing. And one or two of our gay posters evaluate every public figure strictly on his or her stand on gay rights.
This focus on a single issue is a luxury private citizens can afford, but public figures by and large cannot – especially if they are entrusted with public office.
Harry Truman was dealing with an expansionist phase in the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was turning Eastern Europe into a group of sock puppets, the Kuomintang which had been our allies was falling to the Chinese Communists, nationalist movements were afoot in countries ranging from Indonesia to Tunisia, and instability was the term to describe the state of the world.
And prominent American and European Jews were focused on the impending creation of the state of Israel, and continued to stress this to him. Chaim Weismann went to the White House to press the issue, prominent Jewish politicians were calling for our support of the proposed state, and Morgenthau used his “in” as a former Cabinet member to push the issue.
Truman had a full plate of concerns, and this was one of many items he needed to deal with. Interestingly, he finally came out in support of Israel – and it was largely because his old friend and ex-business-partner Eddie Jacobson (a Kansas City Jew) came to visit and helped him to see the matter from the eyes of the Jewish community, and in perspective, sharing his other worries but helping Truman see his own concerns about Israel too.
Truman was not anti-Semitic; he was just frustrated and peeved that this one issue was being pressed on him so strongly, amidst all his other worries.
I judge someone more by their actions than by their words, especially when those words were private.
Heck, I’ll make some private disparaging comments about WASPs (as a group) sometimes (okay, not too often) but I don’t think I’m racist against any individual.
This particular bit sounds like an astute observation, coming from a lot of cynicism Truman felt in dealing with a really difficult situation. I think I’ll weigh in as echoing Polycarp in a paraphrased fashion: he might have been an Anti-Semite, or at least had leanings that way, but I think it’s telling that we didn’t really know this until 50+ years after his presidency.
Well, that does it for me. I’ll never vote for Truman again.
Zev Steinhardt
Yeah, but you vote Republican, anyway (outside NYC).
I have always had the most positive feelings about Truman, so this quote stuns and disappoints me. I am sympathetic to his point that American Jewish organizations lobbied exclusively for the Jewish DPs. I’m sure it was true, and no doubt it was frustrating to President Truman.
I’m less sympathetic to his subsequent comment, “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.” I think the Jews who reached the top showed considerable memory of their past conditions and continued active support for the underdog. That’s why Jews were very active in the civil rights movement. That’s why prosperous Jews overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
More seriously, as others have noted, Truman was quite prejudiced on a personal level, certainly against blacks, probably against Jews. However, the quality of the man was in his ability to take his office seriously and act in the best interests of the country, regardless of his peronal feelings.
It should also be pointed out that Morgenthau was really disliked by Truman. The Morgenthau plan for postwar Germany included the dismantling of German industry as a measure to prevent a future war, as well as a punishment for the Holocaust; he was pretty insistent on getting this done. Truman, meanwhile, saw the value of a prosperous Germany in the face of Soviet influence and thought Morgenthau was far too vindictive.
Check out Michael Beschloss’s recent book, The Conquerors.
Tom, Tom, Tom…
Never let the facts get in the way of a good joke… 
Zev Steinhardt
Actually, I thought Tom had a witty comeback, there.
He should have worked in a Dewey angle, though.
I think the comment certainly strikes an anti-Semitic tone in its first breath – but it seems to retreat from that by the end. it sounds more to me that Truman is frustrated about the rise of oppressors from the ranks of the formerly oppressed, and the Jewish people he was dealing with were simply the on-the-tip-of-his-tongue example.
His comments are rough-hewn and unbecoming. But I still think he’s probably the best president of the 20th Century, if not beyond.
You think Truman couldn’t win an election just because he’s dead? Don’t forget John Ashcroft. 
“I think the comment certainly strikes an anti-Semitic tone in its first breath – but it seems to retreat from that by the end.”
Yes the comments are unfortunate but I think they are in the context of a general rant about underdogs who forget where they came from when they obtain power. Note that he includes Baptists in the list; Truman was himself a Baptist.
“I think the Jews who reached the top showed considerable memory of their past conditions and continued active support for the underdog. That’s why Jews were very active in the civil rights movement. That’s why prosperous Jews overwhelmingly vote Democratic.”
So what you are basically saying is that Truman’s comments still apply to Jews who vote for the GOP? 
Seriously: in 1947 there were fewer well-to-do Jews and the biggest years of the civil-rights movement were still ahead so Truman couldn’t really know the things you mention.
What is objectionable is the sweeping statement about “the Jews”. It is perfectly possible to note that particular individuals and lobbying groups are selfish without attacking an entire ethnicity. But then these kinds of sweeping statements were commonplace in those days.
Is the comment anti-Semitic? Not really.
The Gospels, John in particular, regularly speak of “the Jews” as opposed to Jesus. Remember that all the early Church leaders, including all the Apostles and three of the four Evangelists, including John, were themselves Jews. The term’s being used in this context by a rhetorical trope (which I’m sure someone will be along to supply the name of) for “the corrupt Jewish leaders that brought about Jesus’s Crucifixion and have continued to persecute us, along with their followers.” Remember that two years before Truman wrote this, Jews were being killed by the Nazis and if they were lucky locked in concentration camps.
He had been annoyed by a group of Zionists. And he was wise enough to realize that it was simply a case of what he cynically saw as a commonplace of human nature – when you are no longer the underdog, don’t worry about the new underdog, but act for your own group’s benefit. (For example, being of a ethnic group historically discriminated against, one might take stances in support of a party which favors large conglomerates and religious bigotry and defaming a party which takes the reverse roles.)
Having come into the world on the day the Chicago Tribune announced to the world the election of President Dewey, I’ve always been intrigued by the history of the time.
And I think we today have a lot to learn from it.
P.S.: astro, a coding hint. I know you used {sub} codes to produce the fine print in the quote, because while the print is small, the line spacing is that for normal type. If you use {size=1} to open and {/size} to close, you get fine print without the annoying extra space.
I think Truman was just having a lousy day. Everybody gets peeved.