Talk:Truman Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


In paragraph 3 of "Regional Crisis," The article states: "In February 1946, Kennan, an American diplomat in Moscow, sent his famed 'Long Telegram'..." I am confused when reading this. Was he in Moscow, Russia? Or Moscow, USA... there are three Moscows in my area alone. Could you specify which one as to remove confusion? It would be much appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


-- slava, march 24, 2005

I agree. I have made the edit. --Hench 02:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)


I'm niether a historian nor an economist so this may be completely out of line and the more knowledgable wikiens should feel free to slap me. With that disclaimer, there are several references which imply to communism is a form of government when it is actually an economic system. (R.I.P. Mr. Buck) I'm wondering if the "communism" being refered to is really some authoritarian rule via fascist dictators, etc. Does anyone have an informed historical perspective which might illuminate the details more clearly? movement that wishes to implement that system. In the context of this article, the reference would be to said political movement. --Hench 06:40, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "communism" in this context was intended to refer to the Soviet Union and its various client states. Although this is a somewhat careless shorthand, it was an extremely common usage in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, especially in the United States. This usage is still fairly frequently encountered today. As annoying as it may be to those who are intent on precise use of language, it is firmly entrenched in common parlance. Paul (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hench is mistaken (the economics involved is called "socialism"); The political usage is standard among scholars: Comrades!: A History of World Communism by Robert Service (2010) is about politics, not economics. Likewise

"Communist" was part of the official name of the party--see for example The French and Italian Communist Parties: Comrades and Culture (Totalitarianism Movements and Political Religions) by Cyrille Guiat (2002) Rjensen (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Renamo Reference[edit]

I deleted this

The joint U.S-South African financing of the Renamo resistance movement in Mozambique can be seen as an example of Truman's legacy at work. Policymakers in Washington feared that a reasonably successful Communist state in the heartland of sub-Saharan Africa would cause neighbouring countries to adopt the socialist development model.

from the text, becuase the Renamo resistence movement was only founded in 1975, and as such is completely anachronistic and off-topic. If you wanted to discuss case studies, you would be better served mentioning US actions in support of Greece, Turkey, Rhee Syngman in South Korea, or of the French in Viet Nam that are more immediatly connected to the Truman Doctrine.--Francisx 07:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The First Graphic[edit]

"Military spending in 2007, in USD. The Truman Doctrine outlined the foreign policy of the United States, in which right-wing, totalitarian governments are actively supported, and unfriendly or uncooperative governments are overthrown via direct invasions by the military forces or CIA operations." This accompanied a graph showing the military expenditures of various countries in 2007. I question the relevance of such a graph and would also like to suggest that the subsequent statement isn't a fair and accurate portrayal of the Truman Doctrine in a sentence. I deleted it. Teapot24 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)teapot24 The testicular cheese has been DETECTED

"The Truman Doctrine outlined the foreign policy of the United States, in which right-wing, totalitarian governments are actively supported, and unfriendly or uncooperative governments are overthrown via direct invasions by the military forces or CIA operations."

Aksl85 (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed[edit]

Someone put the word "chicken" in the following sentence, and it should be rolled back to an earlier draft.

It was an early response to political aggression by the Soviet Union in Europe and the Middle East, illustrated through the Communist movements in Iraq, Turkey and Chicken.


I added NSC68 as it is one of the most if not the most principle document of the Truman era. If anyone can elaborate more on my quick excerpt, please feel free to do so.

Operation Gladio[edit]

In the paragraph on the effect on nations in Western Europe I think Operation Gladio should be mentioned as it was a significant operation organized by the US and the UK over a long period of time to counter communist popularity.


I suppressed "ALBET IS GAY". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

I think the following phrase is vandalism "The military aspect of losing Greece and Turkey was also a huge factor in granting the 1 million dollars." Greece got 300 million and Turkey 100 million so I don't see where that "1 million" is coming from —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another case of vandalism appears to be 'he act, which was a blow job happened after truman signed into law on May 22, 1947, granted Greece $300 million in military and economic aid' from the section on greece. I am unsure of what should replace that phrase so shall leave it to someone else —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


If someone would like to add a picture there are some at trumanlibrary, but the copyright status is unknown so they cant be uploaded to commons: Vints 06:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Metaphor Section[edit]

The semiotic analysis by Ivies is relatively insignificant as far as a line of inquiry into the Truman doctrine, so I am removing the metaphor section. If it returns, it should be brief and fully attributed to Ivies rather than stated as fact. AlexeiSeptimus 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research[edit]

the Original research tag at the beginning of the article : the "was clearly at the heart of truman'sthoughts" is a qote from Chafe, William H., The Unfinished Journey: America Since World War II, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. I think —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam Connections[edit]

I don't have the following book in front of me, but I seem to recall Neil Sheehan in A Bright Shining Lie saying U.S. aid to the French in their campaign against the Viet Minh began basically as soon as the French reoccupied the country in late 1945/early 1946, not "shortly after the start of the Korean War" as the article currently states. This issue is worth looking into especially since the doctrine of containment was often cited as a reason for later U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Krazychris81 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

POV check[edit]

In a quick read through of the changes made by User:Naur today, it seems that the editor might have an agenda that would conflict with WP:NPOV for this article. This is not a criticism of the editor, but a concern for the neutrality of the article. I do not have the time or inclination to read through in detail to analyze it, but it is a concern. At the very least, the additions are not neutrally written and should be adjusted. Statements like "the support at all costs of right-wing, authoritarian governments" and "the American global domination" and "the support, under the guise of democracy and freedom, of right-wing, totalitarian governments in third-world countries" seem to be red flags to me. Primary support for the additions seems to come from Noam Chomsky - a less than neutral commentator on American politics. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am confident that most of my edits are well-written and adequately sourced. I do not have an "agenda" - I read books and I write what they tell. Since this article had almost no sources before I edited it, and since it has now over fifty sources, I would say it is a much more encyclopedic article than before. If the above user has read from respectable authors with opposing viewpoints, and would like to include them, discussion is always welcome. I am curious how the user came to view Noam Chomsky as a biased author, since he is highly respected among intellectuals and historians - for example, being the most-cited living person. But anyhow, this is irrelevant, since it is not our job to decide whether certain authors are neutral or not. Naur (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
"the support, under the guise of "democracy and freedom"[2], of right-wing, totalitarian[3][4] governments in Third World countries to contain the spread of Communism and other forms of anti-colonial, anti-capitalist[5][6] ideologies which would harm the American Empire[7], via economical, political, military and covert means." - I'm no fan of US imperialism, but this really is shockingly one-sided and needs to at least be qualified, as I will do now. (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Statements like "State terrorism is widely employed by the United States to achieve her goals" certainly asserts a certain POV. One can find a source to support any point of view, so the claim that it is well sourced does not stand up. I have replaced the povcheck tag. Please leave it there until other editors have reviewed the article to check for pov. I have a legitimate concern and I hope that you will allow this to run through a proper check process. Since I have pointed it out and User:Naur has been adding the edits, some third party should be doing the checking to avoid an edit war and any suggestion of bias. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been providing legitimate and respectable sources to almost every single questionable claim in this article. When I do not, the perhaps controversial claim is often linked to an article which should explain it in details with many references. I do not wish to offend, but you seem overconfident of your own neutrality and judgment when you decide to call an article composed of over fifty sources "blatant POV", with nothing else to support your claim except for pure intuition. I hope the user would read the article fully and specify some areas which may be problematic, instead of simply putting up a NPOV tag because he felt it was not to his liking. Or, perhaps - no offense, again - the user should go and read a few more books. Naur (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see how statements like "its ultimate target was to discourage liberation of economies around the world so as to prolong a colonial-style domination by the United States" and "State terrorism is widely employed by the United States to achieve her goals" can be considered neutral. Calling the US a terrorist nation, I believe, is blatant POV - even if it is backed up by some sources. It appears that the majority of your citations (not all) are for works of Noam Chomsky. He is entirely biased. He is a political activist, political dissident, anarchist, and libertarian socialist intellectual (from his article). Since your very first edit was to a discussion about socialism, I don't think I am unjustified in thinking that you may have a particular point of view. If you and I both have different views of what is neutral, then that is why a third party needs to review the article. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
That is true. I am under no illusion that I am bias-free - everyone is bound to have a certain point of view if they're interested in a subject enough to discuss about it. But the fact remains that I have included over fifty sources, and neither you nor any third-party has included a single source - or indeed, raised a single concrete objection and provided an alternative, except to say that a certain source is biased just because the author appears to have a certain ideology. Your whole reasoning is based on intuition and a lot of assumptions - assuming that Chomsky is biased, based on another Wikipedia article, despite that it appears it is the first time you've heard of him; assuming that I am biased because of a certain edit I made. Your research seems entirely composed of investigating the backgrounds of certain writers, and of me, instead of the content of the article. Naur (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty shocked, myself, at the huge level of bias displayed in this article. It's full of loaded terms of the sort often used in communist propaganda. It's bad enough at this point that I would recommend the article for deletion, rather than keep what we have now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, Mr. Naur, who has wreaked this havoc, today removed the NPOV tag, commenting "rm tag- no debate for half a month", this despite the eight entries of debate above. (I restored the tag ... for the moment at least.)

Naur, you obviously have a problem with U.S. foreign policy. You are not alone. There is a way to record that fact without rendering this article useless. The Truman Policy was the first formal declaration of the U.S. policy versus the Soviet Union and International Communism. It was essentially the formal beginning of the Cold War, which is a very important chapter in recent history. Your ranting obscures that point. Frappyjohn (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What rant? What "obvious" problem do I have? Yet again users who simply do not like the article seem to wish to accuse me of faults rather than provide elaborate arguments. Again I insist that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on third-party sources, not the personal opinions of a few editors. I have cited over fifty credible sources, and none of you have provided a single material to be used in the article. I am perfectly open to the idea that my writing may be biased - but I will not accept the removal of my well-sourced statements simply because certain users do not like it. I am sure any admin or experienced user will agree with my viewpoint at the moment. No matter how much you disagree with the article, it is currently well-referenced, and one should try to provide opposing points of view (if there is), rather than simply accuse me of personal problems. Naur (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No one is accusing you of having personal problems. I wrote: "You obviously have a problem with U.S. foreign policy." You wrote: "What 'obvious' problem do I have?" By "problems" I meant your apparent disagreement with the way U.S. foreign policy has been conducted. Do you deny that you disapprove of it?
You write: "I will not accept the removal of my well-sourced statements simply because certain users do not like it." In my most recent rewrite of the lead, I very carefully did not remove any of your statements but merely attributed them to critics of U.S. foreign policy. Do you deny that Mr. Chomsky is a critic of U.S. foreign policy?
Yet you proceeded to remove my edits, and without any explanation of your reason for doing so.
You also, once again, removed the NPOV tag when obviously a very vehement disagreement with your edits is being expressed on this page. I am replacing it once again. I hope that an admin will offer to mediate this dispute very soon.
Frappyjohn (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for removing the NPOV tag - my intentions were to revert the edits you made to the content of the article, and I was not aware that I removed the tag as well. It should stay.
I do admit that I disagree with U.S. foreign policy. However, I try not to let my beliefs influence the credibility of my edits, and I believe I have done a reasonably well job. I also believe that users on Wikipedia, when in discussion with other users, should focus on edits instead of arriving at quick conclusions over the personal beliefs of other users. This is not helpful at all to the discussion, and hopefully we do not have to talk about this again.
I do not deny that Chomsky is a critic of U.S. foreign policy. I do, however, disagree with the generalizations of some of the claims made in the article as being the points of view of critics only. Some of these claims are, indeed, basic facts, for example - that the Truman Doctrine is "most notably practiced in Iran, Korea, Vietnam, and various countries of Latin America", or that "direct military invasions were conducted after a left-leaning or otherwise anti-imperialistic government was formed through elections or popular revolutions". There should be no dispute over these claims, as they are historical facts and not interpretations or points of views. Any scholar, even if they have differing points of views on U.S. foreign policy and its implications, would not disagree that these two statements are undoubtedly true. So it is a bit silly to say that "critics" say these are true. Moreover, we do not have any other sources in the article with opposing viewpoints, so at the present, these are not just the words of "critics", but of universal opinion among scholars. Until another user could find a reliable source that argues against the points of view in the article, it is a bit inappropriate to regard these as mere "critics". Naur (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Naur: Much of the problem I have with your edits is that you appear to be using an article on a specific (and now outdated) policy declaration to expound on a much more general subject. Your efforts should be directed to the article on the Foreign Policy of the United States.

I challenge your numerous citations of Chomsky in this regard. A Google search for "Chomsky 'Truman Doctrine'" produces mainly side references by Chomsky to the doctrine. A search on Chomsky's site,, for "Truman Doctrine" produces only eight documents that mention the doctrine, and none that mention it in the title. A search at of Chomsky's text At War with Asia, which you cite twice, produces only a single mention of "Truman Doctrine" and that is in a footnote. Chomsky, like you, appears to be highly critical of U.S. foreign policy. But he doesn't say much about the Truman Doctrine. Please take your talents to Foreign Policy of the United States. :) Frappyjohn (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I intend to participate in the editing of other articles once I am satisfied with this one. I couldn't say I am now, as not enough is made of the Truman Doctrine and its influences on the foreign policy of the United States. I do, however, defend my citations of Chomsky in this regard. As the Truman Doctrine is undoubtedly a milestone of the foreign policy of the United States, and for the Cold War, there is no reason that sources regarding such topics could not be cited in this article - just as sources regarding, say, the Arab-Israeli conflict, may be cited in articles about the foreign policy of the United States. These subjects are closely related and the sources are definitely relevant to the topic. Chomsky writes a lot on specific political topics, so it is not often that he mentions the Truman Doctrine, which belongs more to a textbook. But many statements and specifics in the article are subject matters of Chomsky, so citing him is only appropriate. If you disagree, I challenge you to propose a better way to write the article. Naur (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that a properly NPOV article (which is what we all should be aiming at) should describe all the major points of view where more than one exists. Naur seems to have done an excellent job of adding the leftwing point of view to the article. And that's fine. Kudos to him. The main problem with the article at the moment is that none of those editors who hold other points of view, such as the anti-communist one, have added well-sourced descriptions of them. The article should be fixed by adding descriptions of the missing points of view along with sources to demonstrate who holds them. Until someone steps up to the plate and does that, the "Neutrality" tag should be left on the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed this phrase: ideologies which would save Third World countries from the exploitation of American capitalism which had cited Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival. This phrase referred to the idelogies the Truman doctrine would work to subvert. First of all, this is speculation that these idealogies would "save Third World countries." It also shows an anti-capitalism bias on the part of the writer. It violated NPOV, and citing Chomsky only makes this worse. I agree with your POV, as I am sure many others do. However, it is a POV and only that. It is not fact which should be written into a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellac (talkcontribs) 17:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

But the proper way to deal with a phrase like that is not to delete it but to attribute it to the person or people who hold that view. A Neutral Point of View article should contain descriptions of the various Points of View which different people hold. Deleting the phrase is not the right way to go. After all it is a fact that certain people hold that Point Of View, however right or wrong the POV might be. For instance the phrase could have been rewritten as the NPOV equivalent...
ideologies which, according to Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", would save Third World countries from the exploitation of American capitalism
...which is not a matter of speculation and is true whether Chomsky is right or wrong. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there are other points of views out there, many of them credible, that disagrees, to varying extents, with some of the claims made in the article. However, the most frustrating part to me is that none of the dissenters here bothered to mention one single reliable source, while they had the time to spend thousands of words ranting about my political inclination and personal "problem"s. Until someone could find a few reliable sources, most appropriately books by actual scholars, which disagree with some of the claims in the article - then all we could do is assume that the current claims made are academical consensus, because we do not have another conflicting claim made by a reliable source. Accusing the article of bias, then, is also completely original research. Naur (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Who the hell authored this fantasy revision of history? It reads like the Daily Worker. And the reliance on Noam Chomsky is absurd. The man has a well documented habit of supporting his opinions by deliberately distorting matters of record, and when facts that contradict his conclusions are beyond distortion, he ignores them. In science this is known as cooking the data. This whole article should be scrapped and rewritten from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, where's the beef? All your blatant accusations and attacks are meaningless unless you provide sources and evidence to back them up. Next. Naur (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Truman Doctrine was a political response to Soviet aggression in Europe, illustrated through the crisis over Iran, Turkey and Greece. As a result American foreign policy towards Russia shifted, as George F. Kennan phrased it, to that of containment of Communism.

The article on the Truman Doctrine displays an almost amusing lack of neutrality and requires a very quick repair job. It appears that certain users have edited it - with a single source, and not always factually - to conform to their own political agenda.

--Evil Maniac From Mars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil Maniac From Mars (talkcontribs) 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to an older version. This is ridiculous, Chomsky's opinion is just that, his opinion and (seeing how he wasn't even writing about the Truman Doctrine at all) has no place in this article. This article is using a specific policy document to make generalizations about modern US policy and is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYN. L0b0t (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How you arrived at your opinion of Noam Chomsky I do not know - I do know, however, that Noam Chomsky is the most-cited living person in the world. Of course, he is just one opinion. That is why I have made use of many sources - over 25 different sources, I believe, and 60 sources in total, with only a small fraction of them coming from Chomsky. That is also why I have repeated many times above, that it is perfectly okay that you may feel that this article is biased, and that it may very well be so, and that I wish every user here could contribute to the article. However, what is not acceptable, by Wikipedia policies, is that you remove over sixty sources just because you alone disagreed with them. Such an action requires a lot of ego. What makes you think that your personal opinion is more important than the opinion of over 25 different sources? I'm sure that if you truly wish to improve the article, you could gave us some reliable sources of actual historians debating the implications of the Truman Doctrine, instead of opinions of your own. Finally, I hope you would leave the article as it is now while we discuss. I don't want to start an edit war arguing which version is the "good" version, but your version is short, sourceless and outright awkward, and the current version is much more suitable in Wikipedia standards. Naur (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Chomsky is in no way, shape, or form a reliable source for this article. Noam is a reliable source for the subject of Linguistics in which he has formal training and is a recognized expert. When it comes to US foreign policy, however, he just an opinionated dilettante and is not not a reliable source for anything beyond the opinion of Noam Chomsky. Another issue is one of WP:SYN, to have anything in this article about actions that have taken place after Harry Truman left office are off topic and non-germane to the subject at hand; this would be better off at an article on general US foreign policy. To use a doctrine that refers only to Greece and Turkey to extrapolate opinions about such things as 2007 defense spending is editorial synthesis and has no place in the encyclopedia. L0b0t (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a fifth-grade textbook. Here we deal in depth with the consequences and implications of certain topic. The Truman doctrine outlined the foreign policy of the United States during the Cold War and beyond - and thus there should be at least some coverage of those topics. How much is another question, and I am willing to discuss about that. What is not in question is that the article at the current state, whether you like it or not, is much, much up to Wikipedia standards than the archaic version you reverted to, which has an awkward prose and no sources at all. The current version has over sixty sources and covers many important topics for further reading.
It is fine that you believe Chomsky is not a reliable source (although I hardly think a person who makes this sort of edits have the credibility to call an internationally renowned scholar unreliable). I repeat, however, that the vast majority of my sources do not come from Chomsky. Over 40 of them come from other books and newspapers. Unless you could provide a rationale to remove all of them, I feel I must continue to revert your blankings. I have faith in your well intentions, but I could not consider your massive blanking anything other than a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies and disregard for the opinions of other contributors. Naur (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Naur, the fact remains that your version is very one-sided and biased. You may be using facts, but you are causing havoc to the neutrality of this site. Your version may or may not be accurate, but it sounds as if it is coming straight from Khruschev's propaganda machine. Evil Maniac From Mars 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
That is your opinion. It could also be the opinion of many that the older version is biased and propaganda. So how do we make sure that there is a neutral point of view? We cite sources. I've cited almost over 60 reliable sources to back up what I think is a neutral point of view. But of course, my writing may - and most likely - is biased. So what I'm going to ask all of you to do is to also give reliable sources to back up your own points of views and try to make the article more neutral by addition, instead of simply removing my well-cited claims because of your opinion. Naur (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Turkey, and Greece[edit]

Added para on Turkey, previously missing despite Turkey being original subject of Truman Doctrine! And added to Greece re history of the period in question ie the civil war. Note that in Greece & Turkey some military coups were against a rightist government, ie one formed by the more right of the two parties Hugo999 (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan | 39 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC) gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggydhyyyyyyyyycffrhyghyj

Naur, stop trying to force your POV into this article[edit]

Naur, please stop. These changes you are trying to force here are unwanted. Consensus is against your edits, in the germane section above you will see that every single editor that has commented about your changes agrees that the changes are inappropriate and unwanted. Enough is enough. L0b0t (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Factual or not, it is skewing the neutrality of the article by depending heavily on a narrow range of sources. This cannot be rationally denied. Your sleeping for three weeks and then coming right back and just blanket reverting without two-way discussion is troubling. If you are serious about making an argument, you (and everyone else) should not edit the article at all until agreement is reached. This occurs when everyone involved says "yes, I can live with that, make the edits". This is the essence of good faith discussion. This should have happened when it was protected before. Hopefully it doesn't need to be protected again. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mufka for the sage advice. Accordingly, I posit, again, that to use an article about a specific 50 year-old policy statement concerning 2 countries to make statements about such things as 2007 defense spending is a massive violation of our policy on editorial synthesis and original research. The number of sources you cite and the factual accuracy of your claims are irrelevant, you are posting this into the wrong article. Your edits would be more appropriate (although I still feel they violate WP:SYN and WP:OR) in a more generalized article on US foreign policy. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to both users: Consensus is irrelevant when the basis of Wikipedia - citing reliable sources - supports my edits. What is a "narrow range of sources" is completely your subjective opinion. By this I do not claim that my opinion is objective - but rather that it is much more preferable if any of you actually provided sources. Here I note that none of you have provided a single source, despite my continued requests.
On the other hand, I apologize for my reverts. It appears that there are indeed a few users here who wish to actively and reasonably discuss with me about the article, which is not the impression I received a few weeks ago when L0b0t blanked the article without bothering to respond on the talk page. I do not believe the current version of the article is acceptable, nor do I believe that L0b0t made the right decision when he accused me of edit warring and yet reverted me for another time. But yes, I will stop editing the article for the moment, and I urge the above two users to respond to what I said in one of the above sections. Naur (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment L0b0t has never blanked this article, l0b0t has discussed edits with you on multiple occasions on this talk page, and l0b0t has never accused you of edit warring. Get the facts straight Naur. L0b0t (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
When considering neutrality, one must consider this statement from WP:NPOV: "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." These new critical viewpoints don't seem to be weighted properly in relation to their prominence. These viewpoints might even fall under WP:FRINGE. Perhaps it would be acceptable to create a section called "Critical analysis" to express all of these conflicting viewpoints. In that section, you could say "Joe Schmoe says ..." I think the current version does an ok job of saying what the Truman Doctrine was meant to accomplish and what the public perception was. Criticism does not need to be peppered throughout to accomplish your apparent goal of exposing weaknesses or ill effects of the doctrine. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Naur, I must point out, again...sigh..., that you are posting all of this into the wrong article. Your edits would be much more welcome in an article about general US foreign policy, such as Foreign policy of the United States, not in an article about a specific foreign policy statement/document that is wholly unrelated (or is related only tangentially, through chronology) to the information which you are trying to add. L0b0t (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusion on world domination[edit]

"...stated that the Communists planned for world domination. While this was likely an aim of Lenin...". There is a huge confusion on what world domination means here. World domination is usually linked to imperialism (a country tries to dominate others). The goal of Lenin was the inverse: preventing all imperialism. But he thought this could be done only by spreading communism worldwide. The world domination of communism (that has no link with nationalism) is not to confuse with Bonaparte world domination (that is clearly nationalist) for instance. The sentence starting with "while this was likely an aim of Lenin" should be removed. User:RomainBrasselet 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalin did indeed establish a stranglehold on the Comintern and changed the direction from one of world domination to a Soviet centered sphere of influence in 1926 (see Comintern#From the Fifth to the Seventh World Congress and Socialism in one country). Regardless, lacking cited sources, the sentence is nothing but editorial opinion so I have removed it. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies[edit]

Hello. I have recently tagged the page as having possible factual inaccuracies. In a recent edit, it was shown that the date was wrong in which the doctrine was instated. I then proceeded to correct the dates in several different areas of the article. However, I am not sure about this section:

"In March 1947, President Truman appeared before Congress and used Kennan's warnings in the "Long Telegram" as the basis for what became known as the Truman Doctrine."

Is the date supposed to be February or March? In previous editions of the article, it said that the doctrine was created in March, but that particular address was made in February. However, there was an address in March. I'm not sure if they're the same one or not. Considering that most of the references are books, it was hard for me to verify. Hopefully someone who knows a bit more of this can look into it. I'd look more, but I've got to leave. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Special Message to Congress on Greece and Turkey (corrupted audio)[edit]

The audio from the "Special Message to Congress..." plays contains plays 0.1 seconds of static before ending. Tested in latest versions of Safari, Chrome and Firefox. Can someone who knows what they're doing fix this? Maxterpiece (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Kennan's view[edit]

[moved from main page]

Read you description of the Truman Doctrine and it is not quite correct.

− Personally, I see it as an extension of Roosevelt's disastrous "Atlantic Charter"

− speeches. However, for a very accurate understanding of the Truman Doctrine I suggest

− you go to George F. Kennan's, Memoirs 1925-1950 and read chapter 13. Truman used Greece

− and Turkey as an excuse to address the rest of the world and the Russians responded by

− starting the Korean war so we would be tied up. Thank you for having me.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). </ref>

− R W Van dyke


This is an important historical article, yet the reader of the substantial introductory section still has no idea when the Truman Doctrine was issued. This information should be in the first sentence. (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Was it Soviet imperialism or Soviet expansionism that troubled Harry Truman?[edit]

[copied ex talk page of rjensen]

I made the edits that you just reverted on the Truman Doctrine page. From your biography, I fail to see how you can dispute the grammatical changes I made. The 'only' was clearly in the wrong place. The Soviet Union would only respond to force? It wouldn't be doing anything else at all? And so forth.

If you think it was Soviet imperialism, that's fine, but this is supposed to be an objective resource, and there are reasonable arguments that it was not imperialism. It certainly didn't call itself imperialism, as British imperialism did. I fail to see why, given that this is supposed to be an objective resource, 'expansionism' is unsatisfactory. It communicates the same meaning without being tendentious. /s/ User:SpottedToad

"expansionism" has the same objectivity as "imperialism" but is much less accurate in this regard. Check the dictionary, Merriam-Webster defines imperialism as a policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world. Random House Dictionary defines it: the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. It seems to me that that definition covers the satellite countries of Eastern Europe which we're actually talking about here. "Expansionism," [Merriam-Webster = a policy of increasing a country's size by expanding its territory] on the other hand, focuses on how the USSR annexed territory (which it did in the case of the Baltic states and Ukraine, East Prussia, etc.) That expansionism was not at issue for the Truman Doctrine. Rjensen (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentences[edit]

(1) "The Truman Doctrine was an American foreign policy created to counter Communist geopolitical expansion during the Cold War."

Comment: "to counter Communist geopolitical expansion" is incorrect. The first two examples given are US intervention in Greece and Turkey. In the case of Greece, the US intervened in the Greek Civil War by sending US military advisors and military aid to suppress the Greek Leftist movement. The Soviets did not back the Greek communist struggle. So it's not "geopolitical expansion" but a local civil war for control of the country.

(2) "It was first announced to Congress by President Harry S. Truman on March 12, 1947[1]:547-9 and further developed on July 12, 1948 when he pledged to contain threats to Greece and Turkey."

Comment: "to contain threats to Greece and Turkey" is incorrect. As I just explained, there was no "threat to" Greece--it was an internal struggle for power between the local Leftists who had liberated the country from the Nazis and the royalists and rightists who had been installed into power by the British after WWII was over.

(3) "American military force was usually not involved, but Congress appropriated free gifts of financial aid to support the economies and the militaries of Greece and Turkey."

First Comment: "American military force was usually not involved" is inaccurate or at best misleading. The US did provide military advisers and major military aid to the Greek govt. The US was building air bases in Turkey.
Second Comment: "free gifts of financial aid to support the economies and the militaries of Greece and Turkey" is poorly written and misleading. "free gifts" is redundant. More important, US aid was primarily military to Greece and Turkey so that should be mentioned first.

(4) "More generally, the Truman Doctrine implied American support for other nations threatened by Soviet communism."

Comment: As I just explained, US support was not necessarily a response to the Soviets (e.g. in Greece). Also, US aid was provided to various governments the US wanted to maintain in power, not to "nations." In the Greek Civil War for example, much of "the nation" wanted the Leftist movement to win.
Final comment: The Truman Doctrine cannot be understood without the Moscow Conference of 1944 and the Percentages Agreement in which Churchill and Stalin agreed to divide Europe into Western and Soviet spheres of influence. So this agreement should be introduced in the first paragraph. It was the reason the US felt free to intervene in Greece but did not intervene in Yugoslavia, which also came under local communist control. This was also the reason the Soviets did not intervene in Greece despite repeated Greek Leftist requests. NYCJosh (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
We follow the RS=Reliable Sources--look at the books: 1) "President Truman, alarmed by British weakness and the possibility of Soviet expansion into the eastern Mediterranean, responded with the Truman Doctrine" William J. Duiker, ‎Jackson J. Spielvogel - 2006 -p 721; 2) "George C. Marshall and his undersecretary, Dean Acheson, urged Truman to frighten a reluctant Congress with the specter of Communist expansion and its threat to the United States in order to get aid for Greece and Turkey." James Gilbert Ryan, ‎Leonard C. Schlup - 2006 p 382; 3) "The president achieved public backing and early success opposing communist expansion in Greece and Turkey with the Truman Doctrine" Lori Lyn Bogle - 2001; 4) "The Marshal plan, NATO, and the Truman Doctrine blocked Soviet expansion in Europe," James Abrahamson, ‎Andrew O'Meara - 2008 - p 35; 5) "Soviet communism overran Eastern Europe and pushed menacingly toward Greece. For a time, the United States hesitated, then on March 12,1947, President Harry S Truman, in a bold move, announced what became known as the Truman Doctrine, declaring the determination of the United States to block Soviet communist expansion." Frank Kowalski, ‎Robert Eldridge - 2014; 6) " the Truman Doctrine had provided aid to Greece and Turkey to resist Communist expansion. " Raymond H. Geselbracht - 2015 ; 7) "support Greece and Turkey economically and militarily to keep them from falling prey to Soviet expansion." Nomi Prins - 2014--note the order is economically and militarily; 8) "The Truman Doctrine was also justified through the "Domino Theory." The logic worked as follows: If Greece were lost to the communist cause, Turkey would be untenable (for the Soviet Union would move in and take control of the Dardanelles), and if this happened, it had clear implications for the Middle East." Karen A. Feste - 1992. etc etc.. NYCJosh does not tell us what reliable sources, if any, he is basing his opinions on. -- which puts his comments in the category of WP:OR ("original research) Rjensen (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I tried to balance things out with some appropriate qualifications. There are a number sources I can cite if you need them. I'll start with <ref>Preponderance of Power, which won the National Book Award in 1992.GPRamirez5 (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The very first citation you give to Preponderance of Power refutes your argumentAnd emphasizes American opposition to the expansion of Soviet power. It states: "Truman administration officials believed they could not not risk a leftist takeover [in Greece]. Once in power, whether or not aided by the Kremlin, the Greek Communists might provide the Soviets with a presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and endanger US national security." p 75 Rjensen (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it supports my argument because the passage--as the first sentence you quote says--is about what the US "believed," not what was actually happening. To summarize the domino theory--as the second sentence you quote does--is not the same thing as confirming the domino theory. Framing it in terms of belief in itself puts its credibility in question.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The issue in this little discussion is what motivated the USA -- see point #1 above [article says "The Truman Doctrine was an American foreign policy created to counter Communist geopolitical expansion during the Cold War." Comment by NYCJosh: "to counter Communist geopolitical expansion" is incorrect. . Rjensen (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Let’s imagine I were to write the lead of the Cominform article to say this:

“The Cominform was founded to block the penetration of American imperialism into the Peoples’ Democracies of eastern Europe and prevent the reemergence of Hitlerism.”

Would you consider that NPOV? Because that’s an accurate description of their motivations. But it comes with a little bit of baggage, you might say. The underlying assumption in talking about Soviet expansion in the late 1940s is that such expansion existed—and whether or not it existed is in dispute. Even when you count Czechoslovakia, you have to acknowledge that Stalin was in the process of losing Yugoslavia, and while the West “lost China,” Mao was nobody’s puppet. In 1947, the Soviets were in a worse position than they were at the end of WWII, not better.

When you frame it as “Communist expansion” you promote the myth of the International Communist Conspiracy, which again is refuted by the prompt schism that erupted between Tito and Stalin, and later between Mao and Kruschev. Eventually even Nixon realized that the myth of monolithic “international Communism” was ideological nonsense, and he went to China. (This is actually one of the ways the we won the Cold War).GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to NYCJosh and GPRamirez5, Stalin did ultimately aid the Greek communists, although it was too little and too late: "Undoubtedly, U.S. support enabled the Greek regime to prevail over the rebels. But victory was significantly advanced because Stalin 'never once said a word,' as Churchill said, when the British assaulted Greek Communists in 1944–1945 and, as noted earlier, the Soviet leader refused to send aid or grant exile to Greek Communists in 1945–1946. ... To be sure, Stalin finally approved limited military aid for the Greek Communists in June 1947, and the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia broke relations with the Greek government in August 1947. Notably, however, Stalin did not invite the Greek Communists to the first Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) meeting in September, nor did the Soviet Union or any Communist state—to the chagrin and dismay of the KKE—recognize the Communist–led 'Free Greece' regime that was formed in December. Most important, by early 1948, just six months after agreeing to provide aid, Stalin decided to halt support for the Greek rebels."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I knew that. Some historians think that the Truman Doctrine actually drew the Soviets into Greece when they wanted to stay out. And I thought the specificity of my claim was acknowledged with the phrase "at this time", but apparently it doesn't come through. I added some clarification that I was referring to spring 1947.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
TimesAreChanging, where is this long quote from?
Offner, Arnold A. (2002). Another Such Victory: President Truman and the Cold War, 1945-1953. Stanford University Press. p. 207. ISBN 9780804747745. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)