The Truman Doctrine

The Truman Doctrine

In 1946, the Soviet Union was viewed as moving fast in galvanizing other states to adopt communism. The Union was thought to be focusing on the control of the Middle East, Europe and northern Africa. The only access to these lands was through the Mediterranean which could only be achieved if Greece and Turkey fell under its control. Soviet domination of the eastern Mediterranean, considered to be of vital strategic importance, could result in an unprecedented decrease in the influence asserted by the US through Britain. The situation in Greece was viewed by Americans as one that was the responsibility of the British rather than themselves. Britain was however going through a tough economic period that warranted its withdrawal from Greece leaving it prime for control by the soviets. It was found that if the US chose inaction in the situation, then, Greece would in no time fall under communism. The economy of Greece was at an all time low and was on the verge of collapse. This was largely due to runaway inflation and the proliferation of black marketeering. The civil service was regarded as a depressing force. The government had been reorganized to encompass the liberal opposition so that the structure was characterized by individualistic politicians with varying degrees of self interests. The struggle for power was on with different candidates pulling in different directions. The United Nations set up a task force to investigate the situation in the country and concluded that the conditions were much dire than originally suggested. There was also the widespread notion that Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania were funding communist guerillas in a bid to toppling the Greek regime (Zubok & Pleshakov, 1996). It was concluded that the agitation sponsored by these countries was at the behest of the Soviet Union. Italy and France were apprehensive of the ongoing situation in Greece and were of the opinion that if the country fell under communism, then they would be next. The United States, under these circumstances, had to act.

President Truman was categorical in his approach urging the Turks to reject the soviet demands for the control of the Dardanelles, a channel through the Black sea to the Mediterranean. He also voiced his opposition to the soviets of their demands. However, mere sentiments were not sufficient and more comprehensive action had to be taken. The economies of both Greece and Turkey were weak and could not sustain a prolonged war with the Soviet Union. Therefore, assistance had to come from the US and was initially marked as economic aid. All proposals regarding peace in the region by the Soviet Union were rejected by the republicans who hardened their stand on the soviets. America became immersed into “stabilizing all economies outside the Soviet sphere of influence, thereby making them less susceptible to communist influence” (Brands, 1993). In 1946, this stance came into play when all credit from the US designated for the Soviet Union was diverted to France which was struggling with its own economic difficulties. The Truman doctrine seemed highly unlikely to garner the support of the public and both houses in the US as it was thought that the country had had enough of war which was just two years back. The doctrine advocated for a new foreign policy that was to be supported by a larger army as well as extensive foreign financial assistance. However, the doctrine was accepted once the country was made aware of the threat that other democracies faced as a result of communism. In this regard, the armed forces were expanded and economic aid was advanced to a hoard of countries including Britain, France, Iran, Turkey and Greece.

The hardened stance by the American republicans in regard to the Soviet Union’s conduct in dealing with countries considered as strategic to both countries’ interests had some consequences. The soviets believed that the conflict between them and the capitalist hardliners was inevitable. They concluded that the most effective means of dealing with the conflict was by increasing their power and hence proposed both direct and indirect means which would include subverting governments that were fundamentally anti-communist, and biological and atomic warfare (Taubman, 1982). The US acknowledged the threat posed by the soviets and planned for military retaliation as a last resort. As a primary measure, they chose to economically empower nations that were under communist threat. All policies that were crafted by the government then were geared towards counteracting soviet advances while preparing to deal with an eventual scenario where countries would be aligned to specific power blocks. Moderates like the secretary of Commerce and Vice President under Roosevelt, Henry Wallace, who advocated for an open-minded and objective policy towards the soviets, was asked by the president to resign for his sentiments (Jeffery, 2000). Greece became stable as the Americans were at the centre of the Allied mission that oversaw the successful completion of the first postwar elections. There was an influx of aid from America with both material and financial assistance being offered. Turkey also benefited from its position as an avenue that could have been used by the soviets to control other parts of Europe and the Middle East. The economic package that was drafted for Greece encompassed Turkey which was a much harder sell in the US due to its record of propagating enmity against Christians and its perceived persecution of other minority groups.

There are many advantages and disadvantages of the Truman doctrine depending on the perspective. For Europe, the doctrine was godsend as many economies, for example Greece, recovered from near collapse and flourished. On the overall, the continent benefitted economically from the American aid and from the fact that democracy persisted and was not subverted by the communists. Americans got the satisfaction of having played part in the promotion of democracy and also in curtailing the spread of communism. On the contrary, the US spent many resources on a singular course, which some critics argued, did little to alter the course of history. This school of thought argues that both Turkey and Greece would have remained anti-communist without the assistance of the US (Merrill, 2006). Additionally, the US created an enemy in the USSR which expended countless resources in countering the US’s influence and in the preceding Cold war (Harbutt, 2002). By analyzing the situation from a different perspective, one would argue that the US came out the stronger as it became a superpower at the expense of the USSR and gained much more that it lost in this singular regard. The Truman doctrine can thus be said to have been a success for the US and the European economies and a stumbling block for the soviets.

References

Brands, H.W. (1993). The Devil We Knew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.18.

Harbutt, F.J. (2002). The Cold War era. Wiley-Blackwell, pp 19–20

Jeffery, J. (2000). Ambiguous Commitments and Uncertain Policies. The Truman Doctrine in Greece, 1947-1952. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, p.35

Merrill, D. (2006). The Truman Doctrine: Containing Communism and Modernity. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36(1), pp. 27–37

Taubman, W. (1982). Stalin’s American Policy. New York: Norton, p. 150

Zubok, V. & Pleshakov, C. (1996). Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp.127-128

Last Completed Projects