Back when I was working on my dissertation for my PhD in history, I read a lot of primary sources and secondary sources from mid 20th century US foreign policy and other government figures.
I'm no Truman fan, and he clearly was in over his head as pretty much all Vice Presidents would be, however, it is a bit unfair to lay the primary blame for the Cold War at his feet. Although impossible, you would have to find the alternative person that would have done something drastically different than he did. I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with who that would be and what they would have done. (And argue it would have resulted in a better result) It might be more fair to think of Truman in the context of what Eisenhower's policies were and how he handled things. He was far smarter, and realized that we had both a real, existential external enemy in the Soviet Union's totalitarian ideology, and how that would lead to his warning about the unfortunate necessity of the military-industrial complex (the Devil we know?) that has been ruling us ever since (and has now, ironically been taken over by the very Communists it was created to fight). It was (and is) legitimate for Truman and his advisors to believe that the nation's economic health would be so important in the context of an enemy (would that our current leaders would recognize the fact as well...). Recognizing that our economic weakness (contrasted with of the vast improvement in the German economy under Hitler, most notably touted vociferously as "the future" by Joe Kennedy) made Hitler's war easier for him to justify to his people, and made it harder for FDR to justify the US getting involved at all. Thus our economic weakness, it could be argued, led to a worse outcome than if we were economically strong enough (and not so domestically distracted by the Depression) to push effectively back on Hitler's ambitions. I think that is a better context in which to consider Truman's policies and their effect on whether he is "responsible" for the Cold War. After all, the Soviet Union/Stalin didn't really HAVE to consider the US an existential enemy. They didn't HAVE to subjugate both domestic and foreign enemies and start wars of conquest (except to the extent that the imposition of ideological Marxism basically requires it). I lay the blame solely on Stalin. Almost everything we did was a reaction to him, especially once he got nukes. One must know whom considers oneself an enemy and act accordingly, after all. Truman was a dope and dupe. But we've had (have) much worse...
Again, the Communists were doing their thing. That is a given. That didn't create the Cold War. Truman, listening to his advisors and due to his own stupidity, created the "Cold War", the organizing principle behind creation of the national security state, the CIA, the defense department, and so much more. He needed the enemy to justify the build up.
The Soviet Union spent most of the Cold War reacting to extreme US provocations, such having enveloping the Soviet Union with alliances and bases and having SAC having bombers in the air constantly, ready to nuke Russia back into the stone age. It was extremely provocative.
One problem that the US faced is that its leadership didn't believe its ideology would not win in a contest with Communism. The CIA and the State Department funded non Communist leftists in an effort to direct leftism away from Communism, with substantial domestic consequences.
Truman and his advisors were deathly afraid of a return of the Great Depression. They didn't understand that growing the US middle class and the consumerist culture would adequately prevent that.
They could also taken the German economic model and applied it at home and built more infrastructure and balanced the economy while keeping the good aspects of the New Deal in place. The 50s were the most economically equal era of American history and saw the development of the huge middle class.
We didn't need an enemy, just like we don't need one today. It is this mentality that corrupts our system and prevents real progress.
One of the greatest aspects of the 80s was that Reagan oversaw the rebirth of the American spirit and the great economic growth ended Cold War as much as anything. The Communists just could not compete. When America is the City on the Hill example rather than the world dominating hegemon, it is much more successful.
I don't think, from all I seen and studied, that FDR would have fallen into the Cold War trap. FDR made many mistakes, but he just was wiser than Truman on so many things.
Stalin was struggling to rebuild and control what he had. He had to keep the fear to stop a domestic revolt. Stalin was willing to continue to work with the US post WW2, but Truman was threatening him even at Potsdam before V-J day. Truman really screwed up. He was intimidated by Stalin as well. He was just a weak man that couldn't handle his job.
I fully understand. However, Stalin never changed between 1933 and 1952. If he was our natural enemy in 1945, we should have not sent over such massive aid even before Pearl Harbor, let alone the extreme quantities we sent over after, without which the Soviet Union would have lost everything West of the Urals.
Stalin was someone a competent leader could work with. But the Democrats started the 2nd Red Scare as part of their internal power struggle, and it bled into extreme anti-Communism, which opportunistic people like Nixon and Tailgunner Joe exploited for power.
I am not a fan of Stalinist Russia, but making enemies into the worst people ever prevents reasonable solutions and also propaganda and emotion to control instead of reason.
You could blame Churchill as much as anyone. He agreed to Europe with Stalin, and then turned around a few years later and gave his Iron Curtain speech. I am not a Churchill fan, so there is something to how he manipulated America.
I just don't see the Cold War starting under FDR. From all my research, it was clear that the small minded guy from Independence was not up to the job and screwed up the world. He had plenty of help, as even he could not have done it all by himself. There were many hands in that disaster just like there were in Afghanistan.
I'm no Truman fan, and he clearly was in over his head as pretty much all Vice Presidents would be, however, it is a bit unfair to lay the primary blame for the Cold War at his feet. Although impossible, you would have to find the alternative person that would have done something drastically different than he did. I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with who that would be and what they would have done. (And argue it would have resulted in a better result) It might be more fair to think of Truman in the context of what Eisenhower's policies were and how he handled things. He was far smarter, and realized that we had both a real, existential external enemy in the Soviet Union's totalitarian ideology, and how that would lead to his warning about the unfortunate necessity of the military-industrial complex (the Devil we know?) that has been ruling us ever since (and has now, ironically been taken over by the very Communists it was created to fight). It was (and is) legitimate for Truman and his advisors to believe that the nation's economic health would be so important in the context of an enemy (would that our current leaders would recognize the fact as well...). Recognizing that our economic weakness (contrasted with of the vast improvement in the German economy under Hitler, most notably touted vociferously as "the future" by Joe Kennedy) made Hitler's war easier for him to justify to his people, and made it harder for FDR to justify the US getting involved at all. Thus our economic weakness, it could be argued, led to a worse outcome than if we were economically strong enough (and not so domestically distracted by the Depression) to push effectively back on Hitler's ambitions. I think that is a better context in which to consider Truman's policies and their effect on whether he is "responsible" for the Cold War. After all, the Soviet Union/Stalin didn't really HAVE to consider the US an existential enemy. They didn't HAVE to subjugate both domestic and foreign enemies and start wars of conquest (except to the extent that the imposition of ideological Marxism basically requires it). I lay the blame solely on Stalin. Almost everything we did was a reaction to him, especially once he got nukes. One must know whom considers oneself an enemy and act accordingly, after all. Truman was a dope and dupe. But we've had (have) much worse...
Again, the Communists were doing their thing. That is a given. That didn't create the Cold War. Truman, listening to his advisors and due to his own stupidity, created the "Cold War", the organizing principle behind creation of the national security state, the CIA, the defense department, and so much more. He needed the enemy to justify the build up.
The Soviet Union spent most of the Cold War reacting to extreme US provocations, such having enveloping the Soviet Union with alliances and bases and having SAC having bombers in the air constantly, ready to nuke Russia back into the stone age. It was extremely provocative.
One problem that the US faced is that its leadership didn't believe its ideology would not win in a contest with Communism. The CIA and the State Department funded non Communist leftists in an effort to direct leftism away from Communism, with substantial domestic consequences.
Truman and his advisors were deathly afraid of a return of the Great Depression. They didn't understand that growing the US middle class and the consumerist culture would adequately prevent that.
They could also taken the German economic model and applied it at home and built more infrastructure and balanced the economy while keeping the good aspects of the New Deal in place. The 50s were the most economically equal era of American history and saw the development of the huge middle class.
We didn't need an enemy, just like we don't need one today. It is this mentality that corrupts our system and prevents real progress.
One of the greatest aspects of the 80s was that Reagan oversaw the rebirth of the American spirit and the great economic growth ended Cold War as much as anything. The Communists just could not compete. When America is the City on the Hill example rather than the world dominating hegemon, it is much more successful.
I don't think, from all I seen and studied, that FDR would have fallen into the Cold War trap. FDR made many mistakes, but he just was wiser than Truman on so many things.
Stalin was struggling to rebuild and control what he had. He had to keep the fear to stop a domestic revolt. Stalin was willing to continue to work with the US post WW2, but Truman was threatening him even at Potsdam before V-J day. Truman really screwed up. He was intimidated by Stalin as well. He was just a weak man that couldn't handle his job.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I cannot agree that Truman is more responsible for the Cold War than Stalin.
I fully understand. However, Stalin never changed between 1933 and 1952. If he was our natural enemy in 1945, we should have not sent over such massive aid even before Pearl Harbor, let alone the extreme quantities we sent over after, without which the Soviet Union would have lost everything West of the Urals.
Stalin was someone a competent leader could work with. But the Democrats started the 2nd Red Scare as part of their internal power struggle, and it bled into extreme anti-Communism, which opportunistic people like Nixon and Tailgunner Joe exploited for power.
I am not a fan of Stalinist Russia, but making enemies into the worst people ever prevents reasonable solutions and also propaganda and emotion to control instead of reason.
You could blame Churchill as much as anyone. He agreed to Europe with Stalin, and then turned around a few years later and gave his Iron Curtain speech. I am not a Churchill fan, so there is something to how he manipulated America.
I just don't see the Cold War starting under FDR. From all my research, it was clear that the small minded guy from Independence was not up to the job and screwed up the world. He had plenty of help, as even he could not have done it all by himself. There were many hands in that disaster just like there were in Afghanistan.