Book
Reviews
|
|||
|
Go to Executive Times
Archives |
|||
|
Eleanor
and Harry: The Correspondence of Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman by
Steve Neal Rating: •• (Mildly Recommended) |
|
||
|
Click on title or picture to buy from amazon.com |
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New Friends Following the death of Franklin Roosevelt,
both Harry Truman and Eleanor Roosevelt needed each other, for different
reason. Through the pages of Steve Neal’s collection and comments on their
letters to each other in the 1940s and 1950s, Eleanor
and Harry: The Correspondence of Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman,
readers observe how they used each other, got to know each other, and finally
became friends. Here’s an excerpt (pp. 132ff) from the
late 1940’s, showing Steve Neal’s light commentary in italics: Only three years earlier the
Soviet Union and United States were allies in crushing Nazi Germany. By March
of 1948, they had become global rivals. Though Stalin had agreed at Potsdam
that a four-power Allied council would govern occupied Berlin, the Soviets
began imposing restrictions on access to western sectors. The communists were
gaining wide popular support in French and Italian elections. But the Kremlin
preferred to use force. A Soviet coup in February brought an abrupt end to
democracy in Czechoslovakia. On March 10, Czech foreign minister Jan Masaryk,
a friend of Mrs. Roosevelt’s, was tortured and then either jumped or was
pushed to his death from the window of his bedroom in the Czernin Palace,
Prague. Mrs. Roosevelt suggested in her March 13 letter to Marshall that a
face-to-face meeting of Western and Soviet leaders might ease tensions. She
still favored reducing Germany to a pastoral and agricultural state and told
Marshall that Stalin had legitimate concerns about the Western effort to
revive Germany’s industrial capacity. “I am sure they believe we are trying
to build up Germany again into an industrial state,” she wrote the secretary
of state. “I sometimes wonder if behind our backs, that isn’t one of the
things that our big business people would like to see happen in spite of two
world wars started by Germany.” _______________ Hyde Park March 22, 1948 Dear
Mr. President: The
events of the last few days since my last letter to you have been so
increasingly disquieting that I feel I must write you a very frank and
unpleasant letter. I
feel that even though the secretary of state takes the responsibility for the
administration’s attitude on Palestine, you cannot escape the results of that
attitude. I have written the secretary a letter, a copy of which I enclose,
which will explain my feelings on this particular subject. On
Trieste I feel we have also let the UN down. We are evidently discarding the
UN and acting unilaterally, or setting up a balance of power by backing the
European democracies and preparing for an ultimate war between the two
political philosophies. I am opposed to this attitude because I feel that it
would be possible, with force and friendliness, to make some arrangements
with the Russians, using our economic power as a bribe to obstruct their
political advance. I
cannot believe that was is the best solution. No one won the last war, and no
one will win the next war. While I am in accord that we need force and I am
in accord that we need this force to preserve the peace, I do not think that
complete preparation for war is the proper approach as yet. I
am afraid that the Democratic Party is, for the moment, in a very weak
position, with the Southern revolt and the big cities and many liberals
appalled by our latest moves. The combination of Wall Street objectives and
military fears seem so intertwined in our present policies that it is
difficult to quite understand what we are really trying to do. I
realize that I am an entirely unimportant cog in the wheel of our work with
the United Nations, but I have offered my resignation to the secretary since
I can quite understand the difficulty of having someone so far down the line
openly criticize the administration’s policies. I
deeply regret that I must write this letter. Very sincerely yours, _____________ March 25, 1948 My
dear Mrs. Roosevelt: I
have read with deep concern and not without anxiety your letter of March
twenty-second together with the copy of your letter to the secretary of state
of the same date. It
would be impossible for me to minimize the importance of support of the
United Nations with every resource at our command. It is the world’s best if
not sole hope for peace. If the United Nations fails all is chaos in a world
already beset with suspicion, divisions, enmities, and jealousies. Since
you were good enough to let me see the text of your letter to General
Marshall I asked him for a copy of his reply, which is before me as I write.
I hope sincerely that the conversations which you are scheduled to have with
Mr. Bohlen tomorrow will dispel at least some of your doubts and misgivings
and that there may be further clarifications if you are able to see Dean
Rusk. I
should deplore as calamitous your withdrawal from the work of the United
Nations at this critical time. Such a step is unthinkable. The United
Nations, our own nation, indeed the world, needs the counsel and leadership
which you can bring to its deliberations. The
United Nations’ trusteeship proposed to the Security Council is intended only
as a temporary measure, not as a substitute for the partition plan – merely
an effort to fill the vacuum which termination of the mandate will create in
the middle of May. I
sought to clarify our position in a statement issued today. Although I am
sure you have read it, or heard it, I enclose a copy for your convenient
reference. May
I appeal to you with the utmost sincerity to abandon any thought of
relinquishing the post which you hold and for which you have unique
qualifications. There is no one who could, at this time, exercise the influence
which you can exert on the side of peace. And peace and the avoidance of
further bloodshed in the Holy Land are our sole objectives. May
God bless you and protect you as you set out to fulfill so honored a mission
to London. Very sincerely yours, In the midst of what would be a
most difficult run for reelection, Truman did not want to lose Mrs. Roosevelt
from his administration. Her biographer and close friend Joseph Lash wrote
that Truman’s reply “moved her deeply,” though she would continue to question
policies she did not agree with. Like Mrs. Roosevelt, Truman was exasperated with the Mideast
situation. On March 18, he pledged to Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish
Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, that the United
States would recognize the new Jewish state even if the United Nations failed
to establish a temporary trusteeship. A day later, the U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations, Warren Austin, asked the Security Council to drop its efforts
to implement the partition plan. “This morning I find that the State
Department has reversed my Palestine policy,” Truman wrote in his diary. “The
first I know about it is what I see in the papers! Isn’t that hell? I’m now
in the position of a liar and a double crosser. I’ve never felt so in my
life.” Truman made known his displeasure to the State Department and
reiterated his commitment to Weizmann. “I think the proper thing to do and
the thing I have been doing is to do what I think is right and let them all
go to hell,” the president wrote to his brother Vivian on March 22. The problem of Trieste dated back to World War I and the creation of
Yugoslavia from the old Serbia together with parts of then Austria-Hungary.
Italy had long wanted Trieste, a city with a magnificent harbor on the
northern end of the Adriatic Sea. Following World War I, Italy gained control
of the city. When Marshall Tito took power in Yugoslavia at the end of World
War II, he sought o regain control of Trieste. In 1946 the United Nations
established the Free Territory of Trieste, splitting 293 square miles into
two zones. The Americans and British occupied the city and areas to the
north. Yugoslavia occupied an area south of the city. Though Tito made
several threats to take the city by force, he acted with more restraint after
breaking with the Soviet Union. On March 17, Truman went before Congress, warning that U.S. national
security was threatened by the Soviet Union’s expansionist ambitions. He
sought to restore the military draft and called for universal military
training. Mrs. Roosevelt thought Truman had overstated his case and that he
was misguided in bringing back the draft. Her comments about “Wall Street objectives” were disingenuous. She was
referring to Secretary of Defence James V. Forrestal, Under Secretary of
State Robert A. Lovett, and foreign policy advisor W. Averell Harriman, who
had similar backgrounds as Wall Street financiers and favored a hard line
against the Soviet Union. All three were veterans of the Roosevelt
administration. _____________ New York March 26, 1948 Dear
Mr. President: Your
letter has reached me on the eve of my departure. It is a very fine letter
and I am grateful to you. I
had a talk with Mr. Bohlen this afternoon and though I haven’t heard from the
secretary he brought me some messages from him. I must say that talking with
Mr. Bohlen did not give me a feeling of any great decisions on various
questions, though he did make me feel that there was deep concern, and I
understand some of the difficulties and intentions better than I did before. However,
I can not say that even now the temporary measures that we have suggested for
Palestine really make anything simpler or safer than it was before, but
perhaps it will prove to be a solution and I certainly pray it will. At
the end of his visit Mr. Bohlen asked me about a statement which Franklin,
Junior had made and I want to tell you that while Franklin told me he
intended to make this statement, he did not ask me for my opinion. There
is without any question among the younger Democrats a feeling that the party
as at present constituted is going down to serious defeat and may not be able
to survive as the liberal party. Whether they are right or wrong, I do not
know. I made up my mind long ago that working in the United Nations meant, as
far as possible, putting aside partisan political activity and I would not
presume to dictate to my children or to anyone else what their actions should
be. I have not and I do not intend to have any part in pre-convention
activities. Very sincerely yours, I found Neal’s observations to be helpful
in adding understanding for what was going on outside the letters. Eleanor
and Harry allows readers to watch trust develop, advice be rendered and
received, and friendship blossom. Steve Hopkins, March 25, 2003 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
ã 2003 Hopkins and Company, LLC The
recommendation rating for this book appeared in the April 2003
issue of Executive
Times URL
for this review: http://www.hopkinsandcompany.com/Books/Eleanor
and Harry.htm For
Reprint Permission, Contact: Hopkins
& Company, LLC • 723 North Kenilworth Avenue • Oak Park, IL 60302 E-mail: books@hopkinsandcompany.com |
|||
