Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More than one professional historian has posited that it was the difference in view on this issue and wanting to ensure a commander who wouldn't deviate from policy on this issue that was the real reason behind removing MacArthur, not just his insubordination.
It may be one view, but MacArthur was fired for a number of reasons, not just a dispute over this. Here are some of the things that got him fired:
1. He told President Truman that the war was over in 1950 after we recaptured Seoul and were advancing up the Korean Peninsula. He assured the President that China would not intervene in the conflict and that if they did our air power would stop them cold. In fact, its estimated that as he spoke these words that over 50,000 Chinese troops were in Korea waiting to launch a counter-offensive against American soldiers.
2. After the Chinese did intervene, he sent a telegram to the President demanding extraordinary powers, including the powers to bomb communist China and stated publicly that every moment we waited would be "paid for in American and United Nations blood".
3. He made speeches to groups and issued press releases articulating what was his own foreign policy which were not approved by the President, the Joint Chiefs, or the State Department.
4. He publicly criticized orders not to bomb Communist China. These orders were an attempt by President Truman to limit the scope of the Korean War and prevent it from turning into World War III.
5. His invasion of Inchon was a success and turned the war around. But many commanders who assessed it afterwards stated it was an extremely reckless action by MacArthur that could very easily have failed and cost thousands of American lives.
In short, MacArthur violated the most cardinal rule of all for a military commander and that is that it is the President and civilians who run the military in this country--not the generals. We follow this policy precisely because we don't want to end up like the Roman Empire--a military dictatorship.
It may be one view, but MacArthur was fired for a number of reasons, not just a dispute over this. Here are some of the things that got him fired:
1. He told President Truman that the war was over in 1950 after we recaptured Seoul and were advancing up the Korean Peninsula. He assured the President that China would not intervene in the conflict and that if they did our air power would stop them cold. In fact, its estimated that as he spoke these words that over 50,000 Chinese troops were in Korea waiting to launch a counter-offensive against American soldiers.
2. After the Chinese did intervene, he sent a telegram to the President demanding extraordinary powers, including the powers to bomb communist China and stated publicly that every moment we waited would be "paid for in American and United Nations blood".
3. He made speeches to groups and issued press releases articulating what was his own foreign policy which were not approved by the President, the Joint Chiefs, or the State Department.
4. He publicly criticized orders not to bomb Communist China. These orders were an attempt by President Truman to limit the scope of the Korean War and prevent it from turning into World War III.
5. His invasion of Inchon was a success and turned the war around. But many commanders who assessed it afterwards stated it was an extremely reckless action by MacArthur that could very easily have failed and cost thousands of American lives.
In short, MacArthur violated the most cardinal rule of all for a military commander and that is that it is the President and civilians who run the military in this country--not the generals. We follow this policy precisely because we don't want to end up like the Roman Empire--a military dictatorship.
All true, more or less. Inchon was risky, but most military operations are and who better to carry that one out? It was his last great moment.
Mac really wanted to whomp China. He had plans to blockade their coast and use Taiwanese troops. Scare the hell out our Allies.
The fact that I wasn't sure tells you about how often you do see things like that on the web.
There are several threads like that going on in history and great debates right now. Go check out the depleted uranium and mass killings since 1492 threads. lol.
I was in North Korea at the time and the area is all mountains at the most so a A Bomb would not do much good if mfg plants or bases are spread out.
Japan had their Kamakazie plants spread out. Parts were assembled at one and then moved to another for add ons and to a third for final assembly and then flown to the final base where I was stationed. It was safer for them to be spread out.
I would imagine that North Korea had there bases also spread out to save on any damages.
Here is one that people do not know.
In Japan we had empty 55 gal drums that came filled with diesel fuel now sitting empty. The Airforce filled them with water...flew over North Korea and dropped them from around 30,000 ft to some target below. You did not read about that in the newspaper or hear it on the radio at the time. This info came from a fellow student in college who was stationed at the Air Base 13 miles from the Army camp I was at in Northern Japan. We were there during the same months in 1951. Small world ain't it.
Side info I know...using the A Bomb on NK would have been a waste with limited damage.
Added Info: We were NOT fighting the Russians as believed by a poster but in reality they were CHINESE who were in front of me where I was at (todays DMZ zone) Kumwha Valley.
you are quite correct regarding the effects of using a nuclear warhead in korea, at least when talking about conventional large warheads. low yield atomic artillery shells would have been effective, had we been willing to use them. though we did send the needed gun to fire said atomic shells to korea to encourage the north and the chinese to head to the negotiation tables.
as for no russians in the korean conflict, that isnt totally true. there were russians there training and flying with the NK air force. those pilots were doing a similar job that the flying tigers did during world war two in china.
as for no russians in the korean conflict, that isnt totally true. there were russians there training and flying with the NK air force. those pilots were doing a similar job that the flying tigers did during world war two in china.
That is correct...and more than one returned Korean POW told of being interrogated by Soviets while in captivity, and there have been numerous unconfirmed reports of still-missing Korean WAR POWs who were shipped to the USSR and were there for years.
But, Russian forces were not involved in any way in a conventional sense, nor in ways that would result in making in obvious to the world that they were actively trying to kill us, as the Chinese were.
But the Russians weren't averse to turning the "cold war" hot on occasion.
I recall reading somwhere that Ike, upon taking office, made a "veiled threat" of atomic attack. Can anybody verify that?
The story of a “nuclear threat” against the Chinese being the reason peace negotiations to end the Korean conflict began in earnest, entered popular history by way of Eisenhower’s own memoirs. In them, he related how just after becoming president he let it be known through various diplomatic back channels that the U.S. would employ nuclear weapons against China if that country continued or expanded it’s military role in Korea. Unfortunately, there is no actual evidence from the time period that supports Eisenhower’s claim. What little documentation that has been made available from Chinese sources likewise do not mention or acknowledge receipt of such a threat. If anything, all indications are that China was quite confident the U.S. would not use nuclear weapons out of fear of generating negative world opinion and the possibility of touching off a war with the Soviet Union.
What can be said with certainty is that Eisenhower did consider nukes an option if their use would bring a decisive conclusion to the war and allow the U.S. to end it’s military involvement on the Korean penninsula. The first indication of this took place in early 1953. General Mark Clark had developed “Oplan 8-52” which called for airborne and amphibious assaults on North Korea, naval air operations against China and Manchuria, and a naval blockade of China itself. Eisenhower ordered Clark to revise “Oplan 8-52” so that it would now include possible nuclear strikes on North Korean or Chinese positions. At a National Security Council meeting held in February 1953, Eisenhower proposed the use of tactical nukes against Kaesong which was occupied by the North Koreans. During this same meeting, Eisenhower stated the U.S. government must view the atomic bomb as “simply another weapon in our arsenal”. Greater reliance on atomic weapons for deterrence purposes was also the cornerstone of Eisenhower’s “New Look” defense policy which began to take shape over the course of 1953. The large scale buildup of conventional military forces begun under Truman was curtailed drastically and more emphasis was placed on expanding both long range airpower and America’s nuclear arsenal. To explain this shift in strategic thinking, Eisenhower declared “The United States cannot afford to preclude itself from using nuclear weapons even in a local situation, if such use will best advance U.S. security interests”.
This new doctrine manifested itself repeatedly throughout the Eisenhower presidency. The U.S. offered the French three tactical nukes to help break the seige at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. In speaking to the merits of their usage, Chief of Staff for the Air Force, General Nathan Twining said “You could take all day to drop a bomb, make sure you get it in the right place and clean those Commies out of there. And the French would come marching out of Dien Bien Phu in fine shape”. The French politely declined the offer. In 1955, when the Communist Chinese launched military assaults on the Nationalist controlled islands of Quemoy and Matsu in the Formosa Strait, use of atomic weapons against China was strongly considered. During an NSC meeting on March the 10th, Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles said “If we defend Quemoy and Matsu, we’ll have to use atomic weapons. They alone will be effective against the mainland airfields”. In answer to a question posed to him on March 16th about the Quemoy-Matsu matter, Eisenhower stated “A-bombs can be used…as you use a bullet”. In any event, the crisis abated without the need to resort to an atomic attack on China or it’s forces in the Formosa Strait. Quemoy and Matsu became the center of conflict between the Communists and Nationalists again in 1958. Eisenhower publicly ordered the dispatch of nuclear capable howitzers to Quemoy and that alone was enough to get the Chinese to back down immediately.
But despite the apparent willingness of Eisenhower to use or threaten to use nukes to stop Communist aggression world wide, I do not believe that is the actual reason the Korean War came to an end. Instead, I would have to agree with what other posters have stated; that being that the death of Stalin removed the greatest impediment preventing meaningful peace talks from taking place. In addition, the man who succeeded Stalin, Georgi Malenkov, was much more liberal and reform minded, at least by Soviet standards. One thing he wished to do was cut Russian military spending, especially those costs associated with bankrolling the North Koreans and Chinese. This, coupled with the Chinese who themselves now wished to discontinue their direct involvement in Korea, did far more to bring the war to a close than any real or imagined “nuclear threat”.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Go check out the depleted uranium and mass killings since 1492 threads. lol.
