What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Derailing Thread Part Two

Just finished researching about how Truman fired MacArthur and why.

Very interesting stuff including the effect MacArthur had on the Far East.
The UN gave MacArthur his war mandate instead of Congress in defiance of the American Constitution. And Truman went along with it.

On the one hand Congress didn't understand how bad things were in the region or how problematic the Communists were going to make the East and Middle East. They were busy dismantling the military and spending the money on everything else. Promoting "self" over community even though most of America was developing community service clubs like Sunshine, Lions, Elks, and etc. The notion of having a global community so shortly after a world war wouldn't have been difficult to promote.
MacArthur on the other hand wanted to win the war against communism and acted like we had unlimited rescourses and was trying to get us into a war with China. (He almost succeeded) MacArthur was right about needing to take the action but for the wrong reasons. MacArthur was wrong about Russia and China's military abilities in the area. (He wasn't given the intelligence information) Taiwan was a mess of idiots and cowards in control of their military and lost every precious rescourses we gave them to their enemies.


Today we are dealing with the aftermath. Instead of the military being apolitical they must be politically savvy or else. The Middle East is in chaos due to the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of despots using Muslim extremism as a tool. China is on the brink of financial meltdown as well due to their obnoxious blend of communism banking and free market economic development.
Japan isn't going to be any help either due to their financial crisis as well.

No one today understands that the mess the world is in today actually stems from Congress in 1950's-60.

An ounce of prevention would have been worth ten pounds of cure.
 
JohnDB said:
MacArthur on the other hand wanted to win the war against communism and acted like we had unlimited rescourses and was trying to get us into a war with China. (He almost succeeded).
Click to expand...

We did fight Chinese troops in Korea. Didn't go so well. The PLA pushed US troops from the Yalu back to their original starting line, and then dug in. US troops could not budge them for 3 years. Invading mainland China would have been hideously expensive, in men and material. Unless they used nukes.

The Middle East is in chaos due to the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of despots using Muslim extremism as a tool.
Click to expand...

An additional factor. Middle Eastern food prices went to the moon when bankers started QE. Various tribes fought for the oil spots, so that they would have food to trade for oil. Extremists took advantage of the chaos to push their agenda.
 
Last edited:
Michael74 said:
We did fight Chinese troops in Korea. Didn't go so well. The PLA pushed US troops from the Yalu back to the original starting line, and then dug in. US troops could not budge them for 3 years. Invading mainland China would have been hideously expensive, in men and material. Unless they used nukes.
Click to expand...
Yeah...agreed.
But at that point in history about 75-80% of our Air Force rescourses were committed to the region. China didn't engage their Air Force because it was Korea and were waiting for us to cross the 38 parallel. And their Anti Aircraft were actually beneficial to them moreso than expending planes due to the "river" meandering and being the border. (They shot down a lot of planes)

We didn't have the rescourses for a larger war that MacArthur wanted so he could win and bring stability to the area. What we had was committed to Korea.
Both the Civil Control of the military and the lack of understanding by Civil Authorities and the politics practiced by the military all were at fault for this debacle.

MacArthur looked at the problem as a world problem that was going to affect American and European interests. (As what happens when authority comes from the UN)
American Politicians are interested in one thing... getting re-elected by Americans.

What I am saying is that the problems on the world stage today are a direct result of Truman having to fire MacArthur instead of really listening to what the problem was.
 
Michael74 said:
Interesting. How would you have solved the situation, if you had been in charge?
Click to expand...
I actually would have thumbed my nose at the UN and asked Congress for the war. Then because we were at war in the late 40's and 50's our military assets in the area would have never fallen much. I'd have boxed in both Russia and China and kept them from ever starting to get agressive. Dividing Germany after WWII was one of the worst ideas. (The politicians really were clueless)
Stalin's brutality of his own people was already known... communism was known to be what it was then. The only way for communism to work is if it continually grabs up thriving free market economies. MacArthur understood that much... unlike the politicians at home.

We also were the creators of the UN. After the League of Nations failure and the resulting World War for a brief period (during this debacle) they actually had a few decent ideas about what needed to be done.
Also because of our poor handling of this stage the UN degenerated into this cesspool we have today of thieves and America bashers.

What also was interesting was that MacArthur had nuclear weapons at his disposal staged in Guam. (Nevermind the plane that crashed off the California coast...they made more) He would have ignored Britain's demand for approval... especially if it wasn't the UN. But he actually didn't like or wanted to use them on account of the civilian casualties.

Patton and MacArthur both wanted to stop Stalin. Truman never once got a clue that something was really wrong with letting them be.
 
Also...
Taiwan was considered an exile of criminal prisoners from China. Their crime? Being Christian and free market capitalists.
That should have been a great big clue then that Russia was meddling in Chinese politics.
Petty dictators like North Korea has or the ongoing lawlessness in Burma wouldn't exist today. Literally billions of people would be having better lives and the opium trade would be non-existent.
 
Setting up the UN could have been handled better.

Allowing Stalin to control Eastern Europe was a mistake.

I'm not sure American voters would have supported millions of drafted men being kept in the military for several more years. The boys wanted to come home, and their families wanted them back. The promise was they could come home after Germany and Japan surrendered. The American people were isolationist until Japan chose the absurd strategy of attacking Pearl, and Hitler chose the even more absurd strategy of declaring war on the USA.

Maybe some sort of special forces operation in China to help them. Allowing Chiang and Li to fight a de facto civil war within the Nationalist Party, while they were at war with Mao, was silly. Allowing Li to alienate the people by printing hyper inflation led to defeat. China needed one competent leader, and troops well supplied by the US. A leader that the people had confidence in, and would follow. Mao won because he inspired confidence in the people, and he was better tactician than either Chiang or Li. His troops were also kept supplied by Stalin. Mao did not desperately resort to alienating the people by printing hyper inflation, the way Li did.

A similar mistake was made in Vietnam. The south was winning the war when Diem was in charge, using Vietnamese troops. Supporting a coup against competent Diem, in favor of an incompetent military leader, led to defeat. Even sending in US troops could not remedy the situation, because the South didn't have one competent leader that the people would follow. Someone who knew how to deploy his troops efficiently.
 
Last edited:
So they place there faith and hope and trust in people they have never met and who they don't even know, and people who do not even know them either to govern and rule there life.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top