Not upset at all. Just not a fan of less than courteous conversation in any setting, and more so when deliberate and repetitive. Opinion need not be couched in less than courtesy. I did give my opinion and left it at that. You have added a level of discourse to reply to. Concerning what was taught during your formative years, and a hint of the generation of that time, I was schooled in both POTUS and both wars..WW2 and Civil. It is where my lifelong pursuit of knowledge began and I have always been grateful for same.
You were the only one that was upset and the only one that was not courteous. Next you started with being insulting to someone with a different opinion. Get real. Read what you posted. It's all there in black and white. You attacked the man over his opinion. He was courteous to you. You were just flat out rude.
Yes, he was. The definitive historical work on the subject is H.W. Brands: The General vs. The President, and clarifies the context and reasoning by POTUS for exercising the option of relief of command, in his capacity as Commander in Chief. The rule of excision that was implemented by the Congressional hearing, and not made public until the 1970s, is fascinating.
A slight clarification: again, I am not upset, at all. You are welcome to express how you think I feel. I can appreciate your interpretation, and your opinion. We have a difference of definition of words. I will remember to disagree with comments acceptable to you, in the future. Is "sod off" acceptable to you, in my future replies to you? Should I close this reply by me with "OK, simmer down"?
The issue with respect of MacArthur in Korea boiled down to this. MacArthur wanted to take the war to the North Koreans and clean them out. As a staunch anti-communist, I can sympathize with that objective, but were we ready to start World War III? It could have started right there because the Communist Chinese had already brought their troops in to save the North Korean Army and crazy, evil Stalin was in the wings in Russia. Truman called Korea “a police action” was not ready to begin a wider war. Therefore, when MacArthur sharply differed with the President, Truman relieved him. I think that Truman was correct because civilian control of the military is essential to our democracy. I point the many military coups that have occurred in history because the military got out of control. MacArthur came back and made his appeal to Congress in the famous “old soldiers never die” speech. There were those wanted him to run for president, but that eventually died down. Here is a button from the period.
This is essentially correct information, but it was much more than that as to the decision. The Congressional Hearings, not released until the 70s, and not known to the public at the time or until the 70s, make the decision much more incredibly complicated. As a few examples, The Chinses has already positioned 35 Divisions of the border. The Soviets had ensured the cooperation of their puppet regime and Head of State in North Korea. The intent of the Soviets was to commit a buffer zone between the Soviet Union and U.S. military interests in Asia, and use the Red Chinese as a wall of resistance. The Soviets assumed the North Korean military forces would be defeated, and to ensure this, and to commit the Red Chinese to full participation, promises of arms, equipment money and Soviet troops were denied to North Korea, using a trickling fishing approach of just enough line to keep the North Koreans committed, but not enough not to fail (to this day, the North Koreans have never forgiven the Soviet duplicity). POTUS and our military leaders were in possession of secrets and plans, including military movements by the Communists. MacArthur was not informed, for a simple reason...he had already publicly disagreed with the strategy shared with the public by POTUS, and MacArthur wanted to essentially commit the U.S. to exactly the sort of tactic that General Patton espoused at the conclusion of WW2; invade the Soviet Union now, or in MacArthur's plan, invade the Red Chinese now. The U.S. could not have defeated the Soviets then, and could not have defeated the Red Chinese in the Korean conflict, if the MacArthur plan was followed. POTUS decided to exercise the UN option, and prevent a cataclysmic war, that our military leaders predicted would be atomic. The U.S., unknown to the Red Chinese and the Soviet Union, was in possession of intelligence that solidified the Soviet readiness status of atomic weaponry. It was not pretty. There was grave concern, more than scary, and more than concern, really, that MacArthur would slip and make the Communists aware of our intelligence. After all, MacArthur had boisterously and publicly shared our lack of military preparation already, on many occasions. so, he had to go. Was Truman right? Consider that the Truman Doctrine survives. The MacArthur Doctrine does not.
Yes, the one other factor that @charley mentioned and I should have covered with the "Who lost China?" movement. MacArthur definitely had China on his mind along with North Korea. Given the right provocation, which would not have needed to have been much, he would have wanted to "clean out" the Communist Chinese as well. That would have resulted a huge war, much larger than the one MacArthur was already fighting. And yes, atomic weapons were on the table, and a guy like Stalin would have used them.
I concur in entirety. The folly of General MacArthur has had a lasting sobering consideration by every POTUS, and thank goodness our modern military leaders are well versed in global considerations than in any previous time in history. No longer do we blindly approve our military command and control selectees at the highest level. This is a good thing. MAD is real, and undeniable as a possibility to be avoided, and recovery of a MAD event would not be possible at all, and is completely unacceptable as a path of Doctrine for political consideration. Thank goodness. It is hard to pass judgement on any POTUS, without the experience of serving in the position. However, My one comment concerning POTUS Trump, is that he may have been swinging the cat a little to much by the tail, to see if it could survive. Posturing is fine, if the other side adheres to the same negotiation rules. North Korea does not have such restraints or consideration of self preservation. Red China is not the deterrent that it once was, on the actions and political decisions of North Korea.
For wanting to be too aggressive in taking back all of Korea and wanting to bomb China for supplying the North with troops and help
It's interesting that MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton were all involved in routing the Bonus Army from Washington DC in 1932. WWI veterans were demanding their service bonuses early, due to the Great Depression, and 17,000 of them along with their families and friends camped in DC. Hoover called in the army to disperse them. MacArthur twice disobeyed Hoover's orders to not cross the Anacostia bridge on the night of July 28, 1932. He did so anyway, with Patton commanding 6 tanks. Eisenhower called him a dumb SOB for leading an action against fellow veterans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army My uncle served in the Pacific during WWII. He never said a word about it.
There was reason why Franklin Roosevelt said that MacArthur and Huey Long were “The most dangerous men in America.” Still the blame for the raid on the veterans bonus camp lies with Herbert Hoover.
Part of my point there was that MacArthur was not afraid to disobey direct orders from POTUS, much earlier in his career.
If you are pushing me to trash MacArthur totally, you are not going to get it. He pulled more than his weight during World War II and Korea. Was he egotistical and temperamental? Absolutely, but no one is perfect. He is an important and largely positive figure in American history. If you need to condemn him, go ahead, but you will do it without my collaboration.
He has a mixed legacy and I'm not arguing either side. Even Benedict Arnold had a stellar military career. We have to look at the complete picture with any historical figure and try to see beyond how they may have been "branded".
A few years ago some American politicians wanted to make the commanding general of the Afghanistan war a five-star general. Unfortunately the general was discovered to have a girlfriend.