The Truman Doctrine Essay

Historical background

The outcome of the World War II (WWII) led to emergence of two supers power; The United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). This meant that the two had assumed greater responsibility in world affairs.

They both embarked on setting up foundations that would establish them as the new masters of the new world, albeit with different approaches which were largely shaped by their traditional ideologies dating centuries ago. Because of fundamental differences in their ideologies; capitalism and communism, and having defeated a common enemy and therefore no common goal of union, divisions ensued.

The Soviet Union quickly and aggressively moved to establish its influence in Europe. It succeeded in Eastern and Central Europe and Far East Asia setting up communism governments in Bulgaria, Romania, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and Northern Korea.

It further sought to maintain and expand its territorial control over Poland in disregard to the Yalta Accord which granted it control over Eastern Poland and left the North and West to the Polish government ironically going against one of the goals of the just concluded war; to stop territorial violations.

In the Middle East, the Soviet Union was reluctant to withdraw from Northern Iran as earlier agreed with Western Powers perhaps due to the huge oil resources in the region. In repositioning itself as the main power in Eastern Europe, it started seeking direct route to the Black sea; a passage that would have been beneficial in the event of an outbreak of war with the West.

This required that it presses Turkey to grant it access to Bosporus and Dardanelles Strait, something which was unlikely Turkey would accept. Soviet expansion tendencies even grew evident in the Far East where it continued its hold on Manchuria (the most highly industrialized portion of China) despite the surrender of Japan.

The Soviet Union also adopted a confrontational stance against the United States, at one point Stalin, the Soviet Leader, perhaps aware of United States sentiments about their expansions remarking that “conflict with the capitalist West was inevitable” (Watson, Gleek and Grillo 49). The Union had also shown great disinterest in diplomatic efforts by United States to maintain friendly ties in recent post-war treaties and accords.

Prior to the World War II the US had “practiced a policy of isolationism” whereby, it did not actively participate in political affairs outside its boundaries (Watson et al.42). Even after the end of the World War II it did not start to aggressively sell it ideologies to friendly nations. However, it soon became impossible to ignore the growing expansion of the Soviet bloc.

Pressure starting mounting for it to act. In 1946 the media reported that a Soviet ring was working in the United States passing secrete information on nuclear programs to Kremlin. This created and elevated anti-soviet sentiments in the public. The Republicans also became critical of the ruling democrats policies towards the Soviets which they considered ‘soft ’and ineffective (Watson et al. 46).

In 1946, The United States sprang to action, withdrawing recognition of the communist Bulgarian government, openly supporting Iran on independence and strengthening ties with Turkey thus setting the stage for confrontation with the Soviet Union (Watson et al, 46). However, what would set off the containment of soviet expansion, and its eventual collapse would follow later.

Britain, under Winston Churchill also bore the brutality and ruinous effects of the WWII. At the end of war, it lost all of its vast colonial empire and harvested a dire financial crisis at home. This made it halt it financial obligations abroad. In the final days before its departure it formally requested the United States to take over the responsibility of Greece whom it had all along supported.

At this time, the Greek government was facing a financial crisis and an insurgency from communist groups in the north of the country. It was agreed that the Greek government had to be kept in power. It was feared its fall could have set a bad precedent and negatively impact on adoption of capitalism in the region (Watson et al. 48).

In addition, strategic Turkey had also to be economically supported to weaken Soviet infiltration and maintain order in its neighbors (Fried n.pag). Another important development in the build up to the containment policy was a situation-analysis telegram sent from the American ambassador to Moscow, George. F. Keenan.

In his telegram Keenan made a strong case for the containment of the growing spread of soviet influence over Europe. These developments presented an opportunity to formally launch a policy offensive against the Soviet Union and on March 12, 1947 President Harry S. Truman, in an address to a joint session of congress, requested for approval of economic aid to Greece and Turkey.

The speech marked the beginning of the policy of soviet containment. This policy came to be known as the Truman Doctrine and would significantly shape the United States foreign policy for many decades to come.

Significance and Impact

In his speech, Truman stated that: “I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure” (Hollitz 176).

This statement has been cited by many as the best indication of the policy which was later adopted and implemented, the policy of soviet containment. In an apparent reference to Soviet Union, he stated that:

“The… United States has made frequent protests against coercion and intimidation, in violation of the Yalta agreement in Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. I…also state that in a number of countries, there have been similar developments” (Hollitz 176).

Truman also proposed that the policy be effected through help urging that “… our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and political processes” (Hollitz 176). In this respect he requested congress appropriate $400 million for military and economic aid to Turkey and Greece. This was later approved.

By acceding to Britain’s request, the US had formally assumed greater role and responsibility in these regions (Pulis 68). It also signified the start and was the basis of United States policy on ‘cold war’ which was characterized by large scale espionage activities between the two superpowers that continued late into the 20^th century.

The Truman Doctrine had many lasting effects. It ushered an era of active involvement of United States in overseas affairs. It led the United States to actively pursue what it considered as vital interests abroad. The policy also completely polarized the world into east and west.

The West (United States and Western European nations) practiced and championed democratic system and capitalism. The East (Soviet Unions and its satellite nations) was governed on communism and socialism principles.

Legacy

The Truman Doctrine has been hailed by many as a success for United States and its allies. Its proponents claim it succeeded in containing the spread of communism to Western Europe (Watson et al). They hold that the economic aid revamped the economies of these nations leading to peace and stability that is still enjoyed to date and that this was achieved without direct military intervention.

This has been attributed to massive economic aid under The Marshall Plan, which some believe was “simply an extension of the Truman Doctrine” (Pozuelo-Monfort 221). They also point out that the policy also contributed to the eventual disintegration and fall of other only other superpower, USSR (Fried).

The doctrine, to a large extend, also entrenched United States involvement in world affairs and buried centuries of policies of isolationism.It also significantly contributed to the US emerging as only superpower after the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union and as the “leader of the free world” (Pulis 69).

David Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs on the 60^th anniversary of the Truman Doctrine wrote that it “cemented the promotion of democracy [and] in terms of human freedom and dignity, … represents perhaps the most successful foreign policy initiative undertaken by the United States”

Critism

Opponents of the doctrine have claimed that it did not leave up to its promises of freeing the oppressed from totalitarian regimes. They cite cases where the United States supported anticommunist but openly tyrannical regimes in Philippines, Indonesia, Iran Nicaragua, Iran and Iraq (Briley n.pag).

They also claim that the doctrine “set the precedence of using troubled nations as pawns in a gigantic context of will with the Soviet Union” (Pulis, 69). Others have termed it as simply a calculated move to “dictate the domestic politics of foreign nations” (Watson et.al 49).

It has also been alleged that the anti-communism goal of the doctrine led to the ‘Cold War’ and wars in Korea and Vietnam that only served to create and “elevate global resentment towards the United States” (Briley n.pag).

Conclusion

The implementation of Truman Doctrine policy certainly was without blemish. However, its overall outcome has years later, proved more beneficial to the world. Today much of the world enjoys peace and stability thanks to simple but strong statements outlined by a bold leader more than half century ago.

It should serve as a good example that the potential effects of a presidential doctrine of a powerful nation should never be taken lightly. It may greatly influence foreign policies for many years to come.

Work Cited

Briley, Ron. “Mixed Legacy of the Truman Doctrine”. Milestonedocuments.com. Schlager Group, 29 Mar.2010.Web.23 Apr.2011.

Fried, Daniel.”Enduring Legacy”. NYtimes.com.New York Times Company, 12 Mar.2007. Web.

Hollitz, John. Contending Voices: Since1865 (vol 2).3^rd ed. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2010.Print.

Pozuelo-Monfort, Jaime. New Architecture of Capitalism.Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons. 2010. Print.

Pulis, Fred. Impact and Legacy Years. 1941, 1947, 1968.Bloomington: Traford Publishing, 2007.Print.

Watson, P Robert, Charles Gleek and Micheal Grillo. Presidential Doctrines: National Security from Woodrow Wilson to George W.Bush. New York: Nova Publisher, 2003. Web.