"On Korea, MacArthur was right " Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 19 Aug 2017 4:19 p.m. PST |
"Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government: Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by Federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as thorough and complete as they should be. "These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a ten-fold beacon in the night: Duty, honor, country." — Gen. Douglas MacArthur, at the U.S. Military Academy, May 12, 1962 The 1950-53 Korean War tested, as no other war prior or since, the U.S. military's subservience to civilian control. Ironically, President Harry Truman fired MacArthur for insubordination when the five-star general was the supreme commander of U.N. forces in Korea (88 percent of which were American)…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
Legion 4 | 20 Aug 2017 6:25 a.m. PST |
20/20 hindsight is usually 90%+. The situation with the Norks, IMO, the only way the South[both military & civilian], US and UN troops[it's still a UN mission. We flew the UN flag on our Guard Posts and Base Camp on the DMZ still in the '80s when I was there '84-'85.] will not suffer losses. Is if China intervenes e.g. as Japan did to Manchuria before WWII. And that was quite bloody. This intervention may or may not be bloodless. But those losses would primarily be between the Norks & PRC … And that is on them … really is their call. Both of them were not ever shy about taking losses. That is the reality of the situation, IMO. However, it appears the PRC "likes" the way things are there. Regardless of what they say otherwise. |
StarCruiser | 20 Aug 2017 8:00 a.m. PST |
Yes – of course MacArthur was right. Truman was being a coward. China almost certainly would reinforce the NORKs and soon as they were loosing the "revolution". Mao was very intent on exporting Communism to the rest of Asia at that time. The Soviets were providing him with anything he needed to help in that effort (shy of nukes). MacArthur knew that if those bridges were taken out, China would have much harder time of moving it's forces into the Korean peninsula. We could control the sea routes quite easily since we had a massive fleet to work with, and the Air Force could keep China's troops out of the air as well… |
ScoutJock | 20 Aug 2017 9:36 a.m. PST |
Right up to the point where the Russians said "Fine, let's see if you are willing to trade Germany for Korea. There are lots of reasons they wouldn't have, but it was a possibility. WW3 was the next step, the nukes go boom and we are a half century less advanced than we are now. Assuming we survived. |
Legion 4 | 20 Aug 2017 2:57 p.m. PST |
I think few is anyone wanted to start WWIII, especially with the ROK being the spark. If the WP crossed the inter-German Border heading to the Channel. Well that may have been a different situation. But even then I'm not sure if anyone would want to go nuclear. Possibly save for a few. Fortunately it never got that far. And we didn't have to find out. The deployment of NBC WMDs in wide use is almost too horrible to think about. |
Dynaman8789 | 21 Aug 2017 4:11 a.m. PST |
MacArthur was also VERY good at changing his opinion and acting like he thought that way all along. > The Soviets were providing him with anything he needed to help in that effort They (The Russians) gave them just enough to continue fighting and not a drop more. |
Legion 4 | 21 Aug 2017 7:11 a.m. PST |
IIRC Stalin wanted to keep the war going to keep the US/UN "busy", gather intel, etc., … One of the main reasons, if I understood it correctly, the war continued as well. Was the UN said if captured Norks or PRC troops wanted to stay in the South they could. However, the Communists would not hear of it. They wanted all their POWs returned. Some say that let the war go on for more than a year/ more than it should have. Also it is said that Stalin's death added to end of open warfare between the UN and the Communists. For obvious reasons. And I think that is true, IMO. That being said, there were a few Nork & PRC "uprisings" in the UN POW Camps. And those had to be putting down very "ruthlessly" in some cases. To return order to those camps. As the war was finally winding down. The South's leadership did not want the war to end with a divided Korea. So they opened the gates of the POW camps the South controlled. In "protest" it was said to ending the war with the Koreas not united under the South's leadership. And it appears overwhelmingly the POWs from the PRC and the North blended in and fade in to the South's population. Some former PRC troops even managed to make it to Taiwan. And so as we see the legacy of the Korean War still haunts the West to this day. With a truce in place, no end of the war and two Koreas, not one. Should the US/South Koreans/UN continued the war until Korea was united under the South's control ? There is a number of things to consider. But IMO the bottom line is the PRC pretty much had/has an almost unending supply of troops. And they were not afraid to take high loses. Before the war actually ended in the truce. To the very last minute, the PRC was going on a "land grab" to take and hold every inch of terrain they could. With the US/UN trying to hold as much as they could as well. The borders between the Koreas have changed very, very little if any since the last day of open hostilities in the summer of '53. |
Virginia Tory | 24 Aug 2017 11:16 a.m. PST |
MacArthur was also way out of his lane, making national policy (or advocating it) publicly. Korea wasn't the first time he did this. He was already in trouble over other things he'd said re: US policy toward China. |
|