On September 20, 1946, the doors leading to the President’s oval-shaped office still were closed when 10:30 arrived. Five minutes more passed …10…15…Finally, the doors opened, and the reporters surged in.
Mr. Truman was at his desk, attired in a blue suit, red tie and a red handkerchief peeping from his breast pocket. He showed no signs of excitement, and, as his custom, smiled and exchanged small talk with the reporters closest to him.
The reporters, 197 in number, were far in excess of the usual number at a White House conference, and the was difficulty in squeezing them in.
“Move a little to the left,” yelled Doorkeeper Bill Simmons as they piled in. The newsmen, mindful of Wallace’s leftish tendencies, broke into laughter, and Mr. Truman joined in. (Edward T. Folliard, 1946)

That day, President Harry S. Truman fired Mr. Henry Wallace; a Secretary of Commerce who criticized Truman’s foreign policy toward the USSR. The Washington Post wrote that this move had to be done so that H. Wallace’s views would not longer “‘jeopardize’ America’s foreign relations.” During his statement, President Truman specified that while “Americans might disagree freely and publicly on any question” at the same time “the government of the United States of America had to stand as a unit in its relations with the rest of the world”. (Edward T. Folliard, 1946)

Here, President Truman was referring to Mr. Wallace’s speech given in Madison Square Garden in which he advocated position where the USA would cooperate with the USSR, something that was far away from official lines. In his speech, Mr.Wallace went over British “imperial policy in the Middle East” at the time when the US Navy was cooperating together with British Navy in the Middle East. And, exactly at the same time, Soviet newspaper, Izvesia, bashed Britain for violating sovereignty of some states and creating war-like atmosphere in the World. Obviously, such speech would hardly benefit or improve US-British diplomatic relations. The New York Times cited an article that appeared in French newspaper The Monde: “His (Wallace’s) gibe at England is surprising in view of Anglo-American cooperation in diplomacy, with Mr. Byrnes(Secretary of

State) rather than Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin leading the anti-Soviet front”

.(Harold Callender, 1946)

Interestingly, according to The Los Angeles Times, President Truman who approved the Wallace’s speech later said he found it “no departure from foreign policy under Secretary Byrnes”.(AP, 1946) And yet, during the press-conference, he used words that describe Wallace as someone who departed from official line of thinking thus jeopardizing “unity of the government.” Perhaps, in an attempt to slightly cover such awkward situation, the LA Times mentions that the State Department did not clear the speech text even though it was delivered by a Cabinet member with the explicit approval from the President. They also mention that the State Department officials indicated that “in actual delivery, Wallace dropped whole sentences from his prepared text, including language admonishing Russia to ‘stop conniving against us’ and stop teaching that communism ‘by force, if necessary’ must triumph ultimately over democratic capitalism”.

Is not it confusing? First, the speech is approved, then criticized and after all, it is hinted that it was not an actual speech presented to the President. I think it is for reason that a game of politics is the tricky one. Go figure if it was an actual speech or not, did Wallace improvised while delivering it or not, or maybe Truman wanted to get rid of the “last New Dealer?” In one instance, The Washington Post said that ousting of Wallace caused “a squall of speculations in Washington. Had Byrnes told Mr. Truman that ‘Henry goes or I go?’ What would be the effect on the 1946 campaign? Would the Democrats lose the support of liberals and left-wingers who have regarded Wallace as their champion?”(1946). And while the White House denied any type of the ultimatum by Byrnes, saying that the President reached this decision himself, the same article mentions the “indisputable fact that Mr. Truman reached his decision after talking to Byrnes”.(1946)

In a post 1945 world, many works appeared analyzing Wallace’s career and political views. Some called him a “Commie”, “Red”, “Leftie” or “Idealist”. But who was this man? An answer will depend on political views of an author but one fact should remain: Henry Wallace was one of the most humane minds of his time. “The century on which we are entering – the century which will come of this war – can be and must be the century of the common man,” he said back in 1942. He hated fascism and envisioned world where all people had self-determination and civil rights. He assigned a very important role to the UN in his envisioned world and argued that: “…in order that the United Nations may effectively serve the world, it is vital that the United States and Russia be in accord as to the fundamentals of an enduring peace.”(Alonzo L. Hamby, Apr., 1968)

These words came in 1942, at the time when the USA and USSR were allies. The few years later they would become fierce enemies but Wallace would stand by his words. He denounced Truman’s “getting tough” policy arguing that authoritarian regimes in Greece and Turkey were far from being called “democratic”. Wallace supported American-Russian accord and believed that “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” approach would alienate and destroy unity between two superpowers. He followed a line “the tougher we get, the tougher the Russian will get” and supported sphere of influences that would divide the world but at the same time keep it in a peaceful mode. Wallace’s followers argued later that his policies helped to keep peace and some documents might prove it. For example, CIA’s classified document dated on Aug., 27, 1948 says that: “The assumption of a possible future war with the West is implicit in Soviet propaganda since September 1946, the month of …speech and resignation of Wallace from the Cabinet” (CIA, 1946) Could it be a coincidence or maybe Wallace’s actions, while a member of the Cabinet, indeed kept the USSR from openly denouncing the US policies?

It could be either way, however, in opinion of many, he still was a way too sentimental, idealistic and perhaps naïve to believe “Uncle Joe” and his totalitarian ideology. While many liberals realized that communists had world-wide aspirations, he continued to advocate spheres of influences believing that the USSR will stop there. And yet he failed to follow his logic, and thought of the Marshall Plan as something almost fascist.”(Alonzo L. Hamby, Apr., 1968) He was not consistent as an idealist or realist. At the time when many liberals preferred a policy of affirmative containment, Wallace did not accept it. In words of Alfonso N. Hamby:

“He (Wallace) had been unable to discard the assumptions of the war years and still thought in terms of the Popular Front, of anti-fascism struggling against fascism, though such views took him farther from the reality of world politics. A man of the most humane instincts and of elements of greatness, he had destroyed his career by his intellectual rigidity.”

Reference:

Folliard, Edward (1946, Sep.21) President Says Views “Jeopardized” U.S. Relations. The Washington Post, p.1.
Los Angeles Times (1946, Sep. 14) Wallace’s Speech Causes Wide Furor. The Los Angeles Times, Pg.2.
Alfonso L. Hamby (Apr., 1968) Henry A. Wallace, the Liberals and Soviet-American Relations. The Review of Politics, Vol.30, No.2.
Harold Callender (1946, Sep.14) Byrnes Deeply Disturbed by Wallace’s Policy Talk; Truman Under Fire For It. The New York Times, Pg.1
CIA, (1948, Aug., 1948) Evidence of USSR Military Intentions in Soviet Propaganda Broadcast. Copy #71

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 10th, 2006 at 6:50 pm and is filed under History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.