Should Truman have handled the post-war era differently?
My weariness of America's ongoing role as the world's colossus has compelled me to fixate on the '45-49 post-war era, whereupon Truman cemented our empire and waged a crusade against communism. In many ways, we're still living with the consequences of his decisions.
Some of the more left-leaning essays/books I've read, the authors ranging from Gore Vidal to Oliver Stone/Peter Kuznick, offer compelling arguments. That Truman, himself a shallow foreign policy thinker, too often leaned on reactionaries like James Byrnes, Dean Acheson, and Harriman for advice rather than moderates like Stimson and Marshall. That he failed to both properly comprehend the nature of Stalin--a psychopath, but no world-dominator--and appreciate the tremendous sacrifices of the Russian people (and, consequently, why Poland was such a concern to them). That he wielded our short-term atomic bomb monopoly carelessly and, while fanning the flames of international conflict with his boisterous anti-communist rhetoric, also set the stage for extremists like Nixon and McCarthy.
What is your assessment of Truman's character and decisions? Are there any books you can recommend that either follows this critical angle or offers counterarguments?
= new reply since forum marked as read
From wiki: "Truman is a 1992 biography of the 33rd President of the United States Harry S. Truman written by popular historian David McCullough. The book won the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for "Biography or Autobiography."
From FSogol: awesome book.
Truman had great character and always did what he felt was the right course of action. I'd never 2nd guess or Monday-morning quarterback his decisions. We need more men (and women) like Truman in our government today.
