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.
I have a theory regarding both Patton and McArthur. They were both effective war generals. The problem arose after the war. Both men wanted to keep fighting....keep killing enemies that no longer existed. Such men can be valuable assets during true global threats. Such men are inclined to become macro killers when the threat is imagined more than real.
The NSA had a listening post in Japan after WWII. Did they intercept McArthur's communications and forward them to Truman? I find this theory to be somewhat plausible.
Before panties get bunched up. I have no access to classified material. I do read books...while books are still available.
I think any soldier who wants to use weapons of mass destruction on innocent targets needs to be relieved. Civilians with similar goals? Why....we sometimes elect them. Murderers are rank amateurs..until they get elected. Or become the "power behind the throne".
Cannot claim to agree.
After WWII, MacArthur became the "Viceroy" of Occupied Japan. On nearly all fronts, he did a splendid job. As David Halberstam wrote, "MacArthur needed to be worshiped and the Japanese needed to worship the man who had conquered them." Their needs dovetailed perfectly.
In any case, he ran into trouble during wartime.
I doubt the NSA or anyone else needed to intercept Mac's communications. He was shooting his mouth off to the press. I doubt Truman was happy every morning upon picking up the newspaper.
As for Patton, he died in a car accident soon after WWII had ended.
Not familiar with Burrell. I deal with primary sources for the majority of my work. When I read secondary works it's mostly to see what sources they're citing.
I have a theory regarding both Patton and McArthur. They were both effective war generals. The problem arose after the war. Both men wanted to keep fighting....keep killing enemies that no longer existed. Such men can be valuable assets during true global threats. Such men are inclined to become macro killers when the threat is imagined more than real.
I respectfully disagree, at least in the case of Patton, and possibly McArthur. In the case of Patton, Roosevelt (and to a lesser extent Truman, his successor) were on a U.N.-type path of "go along to get along." It was obvious to Patton and should have been obvious to others that the Soviet Union was an ally right up to V-E Day but not thereafter. At that point Stalin was effectively continuing the war while the West laid down its arms.
The case with McArthur is far cloudier. First, he was insubordinate. On the other hand, a credible argument could be made that NK was used as a proxy by the Soviet Union and China to wedge the West off the Asian mainland and thus should have been counterattacked. We saw all the glories of a totally defensive war in Vietnam. We put our troops in harm's way to be shot at but gave them limited ability to defend aggressively. One can argue that when one side goes to war they put their territories at risk and I think that's the better argument. Jordan, for example, went to war against Israel and lost territories. Ditto Syria. When the Communists, through North Korea and North Vietnam went to war, it should have been clear that it was "all in."
Having said that, that's a decision for a President and not a general.
Lighten up on the General. Yes, he was rightly fired for insubordination. Yes, his strategy was flawed after the collapse of the North Korean advance. But give him credit, his invasion at Inchon was sheer genius and reversed the course of that war and it was he that caused the North Korean collapse.
Yes, he was a prima donna. But note that his armies had the fewest casualties of any during World War II. His island hopping strategy save thousands of American lives and perhaps accelerated the end of the war thereby saving civilian lives as well. His nickname of "Dugout Doug" was unjustified. In his book "American Caesar," William Manchester muses what might have happened if he had been in command in Italy rather than Mark Clark.
His plan for the reconstruction of Japan was also stellar. He was able to nip Communism in the bud, reduce the Emperor to a figurehead without a civil war or even serious opposition. His plan, more than anything else, was responsible for giving women a greater voice in government.
Overall, I'd say his pluses far outweighed his minuses (especially since he didn't trigger a nuclear World War III.) Now, if we could just learn WTF he was thinking on December 8 when he lost his Air Force.
Lighten up on the General. Yes, he was rightly fired for insubordination. Yes, his strategy was flawed after the collapse of the North Korean advance. But give him credit, his invasion at Inchon was sheer genius and reversed the course of that war and it was he that caused the North Korean collapse.
Yes, he was a prima donna. But note that his armies had the fewest casualties of any during World War II. His island hopping strategy save thousands of American lives and perhaps accelerated the end of the war thereby saving civilian lives as well. His nickname of "Dugout Doug" was unjustified. In his book "American Caesar," William Manchester muses what might have happened if he had been in command in Italy rather than Mark Clark.
His plan for the reconstruction of Japan was also stellar. He was able to nip Communism in the bud, reduce the Emperor to a figurehead without a civil war or even serious opposition. His plan, more than anything else, was responsible for giving women a greater voice in government.
Overall, I'd say his pluses far outweighed his minuses (especially since he didn't trigger a nuclear World War III.) Now, if we could just learn WTF he was thinking on December 8 when he lost his Air Force.
Well, the subject of the thread is why Mac was relieved.
Discussing MacArthur up to and including Inchon would justifiably inspire much admiration and accolades. I agree he was a great General and a hero with a fascinating persona.
One of these days I am going to drive down to Norfolk and pay my respects.
No Such Agency states that the NSA does not exist.
Patton, writing to Eisenhower, September 1940:
Quote:
"It seems highly probable that I will get one of the next two armored divisions. If I do, I shall ask for you as either Chief of Staff, which I should prefer, or as a regimental commander. You can tell me which you want. Hoping we are together in a long and BLOODY war." [allcaps emphasis Patton]
I guess World War II wasn't 'long and BLOODY' enough to slake Patton's thirst.
I guess World War II wasn't 'long and BLOODY' enough to slake Patton's thirst.
As Patton once said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
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.
