How does Harry Truman end up portrayed in such a positive light now? What happened between him leaving office with record disapproval and now to change our perception of him? by Another_Desk_Jockey in AskHistorians

[–]eternalkerri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's safe to say that the tensions, social failures and conflicts, economic stagnation, the Vietnam War, and several other factors produced a really bad case of cynicism and nihilism in American and arguably 'Western Culture' in the late 60's and into the late 70's early 80's.

How does Harry Truman end up portrayed in such a positive light now? What happened between him leaving office with record disapproval and now to change our perception of him? by Another_Desk_Jockey in AskHistorians

[–]eternalkerri 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think for some people in our current day and age that has a more cynical outlook on politics, presidents, and government than in the past (Thanks Nixon), it just can be really hard to grasp that sometimes, some politicians are genuinely "good folks".

Sure, you can disagree on policies and decisions looking back at Truman's time in office. You can question the morality and decision making processes that went behind things such as the nuclear bombs being dropped on Japan, but Truman himself was pretty much an affable fellow that most people that knew him liked. He had a strong personal moral compass and a set of values he strived to live up to that generally meshed with "the average American".

He for the most part was, in at least my viewpoint, a good person.

How does Harry Truman end up portrayed in such a positive light now? What happened between him leaving office with record disapproval and now to change our perception of him? by Another_Desk_Jockey in AskHistorians

[–]eternalkerri 37 points38 points  (0 children)

I feel like that was Roosevelt. His New Deal, his speech about our freedom from fear and want. His foreign policies.

The description of Truman as the last "everyman" president, isn't really derived from his domestic policies, but from his personal background. Truman was not a college graduate, had spent most of his young life as a bank clerk, a farmer, a store owner, a low ranking military officer, then in local political offices where he was known for being non-partisan and fair. The biggest reason he even got into politics is because to be honest...he wasn't great at anything else but being a bank clerk and army officer and needed a good paying job. He parlayed his local reputation as a good guy into winning office. His choice in words, his public persona, his willingness to 'walk among the little people' by eating at local diners, attending lodge meetings, and even after his presidency just walking by himself around the streets of New York like he wasn't anyone special. Hell, he was even on a very early episode of Candid Camera.

It seems like Truman turned it all on it's head, damaging or destroying any political will and influence we had gained with Churchill and Stalin

To describe the Allies in WWII, I heard it best put more accurately as "The Allies and the Soviets." Stalin was always adversarial, seeking leverage, and actively spying on his temporary allies. Stalin new about the Manhattan Project before Truman did. Stalin was always going to return to an adversarial position after the war, and it is best evidenced by such actions as the Berlin Blockade in 1948, active espionage and agitation in the U.S. government, and creating proxy states in Eastern Europe.

As far as Churchill. Churchill was out of office by the end of 1945, and didn't return to the office of Prime Minister until 1951.

threatening Stalin with nuclear weapons in northern Iran if he didn't withdraw within 48 hours

If you're referring to the 1946 crisis, in which the Soviet Union refused to leave Iran according to earlier agreements. The US had already left, Britain had set it's withdrawal date, but the Soviets remained. Truman, already having felt like Stalin had dealt unfairly with his former allies, now recognized that Stalin was in violation of the 1942 treaty and recognized that the Soviets expansion of forces in Iran was shaping up to be similar to what was happening in Eastern Europe. After several UN Resolutions were passed and the Soviets did not withdraw Truman threatened to use force. It was two weeks before the Soviets actually began to withdraw.

Truman pushed us into a state of perpetual war economy

Could you explain your assertion for this, since under Truman a massive demobilization took place which created what was in essence a 'hollow army'. When the U.S. deployed forces to Korea in 1950, they were horribly under supplied, because Truman was adamant about reducing defense spending. In fact, according to one memorandum, the U.S. Navy was incapable of enforcing a blockade on Korea in July 1950 due to inadequacies. In fact, the famous NSC-68, which called for a reexamination of America's foreign policy and defense posture was met with resistance from Truman who kept sending it back telling them to cut costs! Between 1945 and 1950, there was a HUGE reduction in defense spending by Truman, which only increased because of Korea. The policy paper may have encouraged it, but Korea created it, and every president after Truman expanded it.

and set us up as the world police force

Truman's foreign policy against the Soviets/Communists was one of containment. Truman kept the U.S. out of the renewed Chinese Civil War between Mao and Chiang Kai-Shek. He refused to use force to resupply Berlin in 1948. He only moved in Korea after a UN resolution was passed, and in Vietnam he provided funds and material, but did not want U.S. troops involved. Truman heavily pushed for the United Nations, and used it often to back his international policies.

As for Wallace as VP?

FDR was off of Wallace before the convention, since most of his advisor's didn't like him for being too far left and a bit of an eccentric. Truman wasn't even at the top of the list of picks to replace him initially and FDR preferred Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

Is Trans Beautiful? by eternalkerri in ainbow

[–]eternalkerri[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

'Left to your own devices.'

Most times that I've heard the phrase used it's in a darker context, like you're abandoning someone to their fate without caring what happens to them in almost a cruel way.

Not accusing you of meaning it that way since the phrase has multiple uses. It's just where my mind went.

Is Trans Beautiful? by eternalkerri in ainbow

[–]eternalkerri[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

society would be far better served to learn to better treat its fringe elements so you are, at worst, simply left to your own devices

Yikes! I get what you're trying to say but that's usually a pretty dark phrase.

Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed by icatalin in technology

[–]eternalkerri 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, pretending to be from another country or group is like, old school spy stuff.

Like World War I old.

Is Trans Beautiful? by eternalkerri in ainbow

[–]eternalkerri[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not my article, but I do have to say that it takes guts to make a statement that controversial in a public forum.

Is Trans Beautiful? by eternalkerri in TransSpace

[–]eternalkerri[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No matter what you may think of the article, taking such a controversial and strong opinion on the subject takes guts.

Where did the link between Communism and Judaism come from? by GenghisCharm in AskHistorians

[–]eternalkerri[M] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

We have removed this post for the following reasons:

1) The cited sources are in block quotes, and do not attempt to parse the content and analyse them.

2) The sources you cite are in fact Neo-Nazi/Holocaust Denier/White Supremacist. Now, as such, they do bear some relevance to the topic as Nazi propaganda did focus on some of the ties of Russian Jews to the Bolsheviks (a particular interpretation of Communism), which did in fact help create the narrative of Jewish ties to Communism. However, the sources cited are not critically analyzed and taken at face value for the information they provide. There are facts that they cite which are incorrect or misleading, which makes them unacceptable as a source. When citing controversial sources such as the writings of extremist groups, one must be extremely cautious of the information that they are presenting and be analyzed critically.

Historians of Reddit, how do you feel about 'Popular History' publications? by AdamSC1 in AskHistorians

[–]eternalkerri 13 points14 points  (0 children)

So here's my take on 'popular history'

There are four types of history 'works' out there. In order from most academic to least they are professional, popular, pop, pulp (or as some put it poop).

Professional: These are the academic books and journal articles produced by academics for academics. These are the peer reviewed journals by academic associations and the books published often in small numbers and geared toward university libraries (and usually cost a small fortune). These books are usually dense, heavily use citations and footnotes, and require an intimate familiarity with not only the subject matter, but of theory as well. I would say 95% of everyone who reads history books will never read these.

Popular The name might fool you into thinking these are low grade books, but they aren't. In fact, the majority of the AskHistorians recommended reading list falls into this category. These are books written by historians/journalists/expert amatures that use extensive references including primary source materials. These books are informative, well written, but not unapprochable to lay readers. These books actually can have great influence in academic history (and are often reviewed in academic journals), as they 'create buzz'. For example, David McCullough's biography of Truman created a lot of renewed interest in both academia and the public in President Truman's life and legacy and changed a lot of perceptions of him from a failure to a relatively good president (at least in Public perception). These are the books that help shape the way a society talks about their history and their place in the world and are a forum for academics to share their ideas to a broad audience (think 1491's influence on the perception of Native Americans in the pre-Columbian era, or Howard Zinn's 'A People's History'). The book that the popular musical Hamilton falls into this category.

Pop These are the 'fun reads' of history. The "12 Things Your Teacher Never Told You", the coffee table photo histories with lots of cool maps and factoids. These are usually light on real historical analysis, often wrong, cite disproven theories, popular myths, etc. These aren't good history books to learn things from. Think of them as the Wikipedia of history works, and are where a lot of the bad answers that get deleted from the sub come from. Avoid unless you just want a cool picture book of tanks or cars or 1920's Paris or something.

Pulp(Poop) These are the garbage books. These are the 1421's/Ancient Aliens/Jesus had kids and started a bistro in Marselle type books. These are garbage history. The only purpose they serve for real historians, is that it gives them a chance to make some money writing books that debunk this garbage, get on talk shows debunking this garbage, and to have a good laugh at.

So arguably, "Popular History" is the most dominant form of history in our culture and is something that academic historians should be involved in. It helps shape our historical and cultural memory about where we came from, who we are, and where we are going as a society. Any historian who want's to just hang out in duty stacks and shun any book you can find in a Barnes & Noble is actually doing the entire field of history and society a disservice.

Military Convoy Flying Trump Flag Belonged to SEAL Unit by GoldieMMA in Military

[–]eternalkerri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some teams have a higher op tempo based on where they are assigned (obviously DEVGRU has the highest), so expect these guys to end up operating in like...Kansas.

Even if they don't get UCMJ'd, they'll probably be desk jockied.

Military Convoy Flying Trump Flag Belonged to SEAL Unit by GoldieMMA in Military

[–]eternalkerri 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Their AO is South America, so they do a lot of those anti-narco and counter-terrorism ops that we don't officially do.

I remember my briefing at our two weeks exercise and it started off with basically "We're not in country, catch my drift?"

Military Convoy Flying Trump Flag Belonged to SEAL Unit by GoldieMMA in Military

[–]eternalkerri 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I dunno, I've been out so long I quit giving a shit about that kinda stuff.

I'm just here for the chatter about the dipshits with the flag.

Military Convoy Flying Trump Flag Belonged to SEAL Unit by GoldieMMA in Military

[–]eternalkerri 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Actually, they deploy quite a bit and the majority of the operators are veterans who earned their tabs and combat badges on active duty. When I was there for my short bit a long time ago, almost all of them earned their tabs in Vietnam.