Should Truman have fired McArthur?

[??????????]

So you have a general who is taking the fight to the enemy and winning. So during the heat of things you go out and fire him? Do you agree with this lousy decision?

[kashifsakhan]

well, the thing is, Mac Arthur wanted to take the war into China, which may have very well brought the USSR into the Korean conflict, and would have led to the start of WWIII. Keeping that in mind, i'd have to say that it was a good decison.

On the otherhand, perhaps if MacArthur had stayed on, we wouldnt have had the mess in the Korean Penensula that we have now. But thats mere speculation. Who knows how the rest of the war would have panned out if MacArthur had stayed in command.

[PBrunsel]

No, MacArthur was handaling the situation. He should have had the right to defeat China, it would have saved us trouble today.

[??????????]

well, the thing is, Mac Arthur wanted to take the war into China, which may have very well brought the USSR into the Korean conflict, and would have led to the start of WWIII. Keeping that in mind, i'd have to say that it was a good decison.

On the otherhand, perhaps if MacArthur had stayed on, we wouldnt have had the mess in the Korean Penensula that we have now. But thats mere speculation. Who knows how the rest of the war would have panned out if MacArthur had stayed in command.

Yes, but the thing is the Russians were already fighting us during that war. It has been said as witnessed by allied B-29 pilots that Russians not Chinese or Koreans were piloting the MiGs over the air of Korea. I don't where a total defeat of Korea plus a defeat of China would have led but I think we would have had the worlds support in all likelihood. But of course this is better left to alternative history?

[WalterMitty]

yes.

[??????????]

yes.

Why are you against winning wars?

[J. J.]

yes.

Why are you against winning wars?

I'm not entirely sure that the retreat in US history, of the 8th Army, could be considered "winning."  When MacArthur was removed, the Korean situation was that  nearly every victory that he had won had been reversed.

MacArthur's ultimate was thinking, wishfully, "The PRC won't intervene," instead of, "What should we do if the PRC does intervene."  Truman, at Wake, ironically, asked the right question, and got the answer that they would not.

[WalterMitty]

yes.

Why are you against winning wars?

it's not that i disagree with what macarthur said.  i dont think generals should question, criticize, or offer suggestions to the president in a public manner.

[Defarge]

Yes, a general hell bent on starting WWIII is not one I'd keep on the payroll.

[Nym90]

It was the correct decision, yes.

[??????????]

Yes, a general hell bent on starting WWIII is not one I'd keep on the payroll.

Yes, effectively losing the war was much better.

[Platypus]

I'd rather draw a mid-sixed war then fght the biggerst war in human history, myself; whatever the outcome of that war may have been.

[dazzleman]

I think Truman did the right thing by firing MacArthur.  MacArthur thought he was bigger than his bosses, and refused to accept civilian control over generals.

Also, he wasn't such a great general.  Under his command, the UN forces were almost wiped out in the winter of 1950.

He was insubordinate, and Truman was well within his rights in firing him.

Matthew Ridgway did a very good job as his replacement.

[Inmate Trump]

Truman should have fired himself.

[WMS]

I think Truman did the right thing by firing MacArthur.  MacArthur thought he was bigger than his bosses, and refused to accept civilian control over generals.

Also, he wasn't such a great general.  Under his command, the UN forces were almost wiped out in the winter of 1950.

He was insubordinate, and Truman was well within his rights in firing him.

Matthew Ridgway did a very good job as his replacement.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This pretty much sums it up, especially the part in bold.
He really, really, really f***ed up in not anticipating the move by China...

[opebo]

From what I've seen of Korea we could just as well have let them have it.

But seriously, I think Truman had to fire MacArthur, if for no other reason than to preserve the pretense of civilian authority.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes.

If it weren't for McArthur, Korea would be a unified democratic state today. There would be no North Korea. North Korea was destroyed and its leadership forced into exile until McArthur's actions caused Chinese invasion which restored it.

[PBrunsel]

Yes.

If it weren't for McArthur, Korea would be a unified democratic state today. There would be no North Korea. North Korea was destroyed and its leadership forced into exile until McArthur's actions caused Chinese invasion which restored it.

Actually BRTD, the original goal was to only fight to the 48th Paralel. When it comes down to it Truman sucked as a war leader and thus he is to blame for North Korea exisitng today. Had he allowed MacArthur access to the entirte arsenal of the US Millitary there woudl be no Communist Korea or China, however there may not have been a world either.

That war could not have been won by any side as it was too early in the course of the Cold War.

[Gabu]

Had he allowed MacArthur access to the entirte arsenal of the US Millitary there woudl be no Communist Korea or China, however there may not have been a world either.

A small price to pay for the chance to blow up China, isn't it?

[J. J.]

Yes.

If it weren't for McArthur, Korea would be a unified democratic state today. There would be no North Korea. North Korea was destroyed and its leadership forced into exile until McArthur's actions caused Chinese invasion which restored it.

Actually BRTD, the original goal was to only fight to the 48th Paralel. When it comes down to it Truman sucked as a war leader and thus he is to blame for North Korea exisitng today. Had he allowed MacArthur access to the entirte arsenal of the US Millitary there woudl be no Communist Korea or China, however there may not have been a world either.

That war could not have been won by any side as it was too early in the course of the Cold War.

First, it was the 38th Parallel.

Second, the the Chinese did not enter the war, in force, until the UN forces reached the Yalu River.  Had MacArthur's intelligence, both military and personal, not failed, and had the State Department (Both Acheson and Rusk) taken warnings seriously from India, in particular, the situation might have been avoided.

I can understand what the PRC was thinking.  They were not willing to fight a war to help prop up Kim in North Korea.  They saw, however, a large army approach a border of part of China that wasn't part of China six years before.

You also had MacArthur talking with Chaing Kai-shek about an invasion of China.

Had MacArthur considered the possibility of Chinese entry, and considered a reasonable response, in the summer or early fall of 1950, we might have seen a very different end to the Korean War.

[Frodo]

Yes -Douglas MacArthur wasn't nicknamed the 'American Caesar' for nothing.  By firing General MacArthur when he blatantly and repeatedly defied him, President Truman reasserted the republican principle of civilian control over the military.  This shouldn't even be up for debate. 

[Cashcow]

No, MacArthur was handaling the situation. He should have had the right to defeat China, it would have saved us trouble today.

Yeah, I'm sure that would have been a blast.

[TomC]

Yes -Douglas MacArthur wasn't nicknamed the 'American Caesar' for nothing.  By firing General MacArthur when he blatantly and repeatedly defied him, President Truman reasserted the republican principle of civilian control over the military.  This shouldn't even be up for debate. 

Yes, exactly. It would have been a terrible precedent to allow a Genreal to disobey orders of the President.

[adam]

McArthur was a bit of a loon, he would have invaded New York if someone had told him that it would stop the "dangerous" spread of communism. I appluad my personal favorite president for his desicion.