Skip to comments.China and North Korea: General MacArthur is Vindicated
Posted on 03/31/2013 8:00:51 AM PDT by Amerisraelhere
And President Truman has been proven wrong.
The great and honorable legacy of President Truman is the United States being the first nation to officially recognize the re-establishment of the State of Israel.
But with regard to his handling of the illegal Chinese military involvement and attack against U.S. and allied troops in Korea, Truman was flat out wrong.
The following is from the fourth chapter entiltled "Korea" in the book written by General Douglas MacArthur- "Revitalizing A Nation":
["While I was not consulted prior to the President's decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision, from a military standpoint, proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces.
We defeated the Northern Korean armies. Our victory was complete and our objectives within reach when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.
This created a new war and an entirely new situation--a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders--a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy.
While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old."]
"...the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old."
MacArthur's proposed "drastic revision of strategic planning":
["Apart from the military need as I saw it to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made mandatory--
For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay, and at a saving of countless American and Allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff."]
"For entertaining these views,...I have been severely criticized..."
How Washington responded to MacArthur's proposed new strategy to deal with a drastic situation:
["I called for reinforcements, but was informed reinforcements were not available.I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy build-up north of the Yalu; if not permitted to utilized the friendly Chinese forces of some 600,000 men on Formosa; if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without; and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory."]
["The tradgedy is that since the advent of the war with Red China there has been no definition of the political policy which would provide a solution for the new problems thereby created.
This has resulted in a policy vacum hertofore unknown to war"]
Concerning the criticism from Truman that Big Mac's proposed new revised strategy would result in WWIII involving the Soviet Union, MacArthur wrote:
["The reason given for such a course has little validity. It has been argued in justification and seemingly to soothe the public concern that the application of conventional war measures against our enemy might provoke the Soviet into launching the Third World War,
Yet, since the end of the Second World War, without committing a single soldier to battle, the Soviet, aided by our own political blunders, has gained a dominion over territory and peoples without parallel in all of history--a dominion which it will take years for it to assimilate and administer.
What then would be its purpose in provoking a war of most doubtful result to the Communist cause? I have strong doubt that the start of a major war anywhere enters the Soviet plans at this stage"]
And here's the kicker:
["There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China.
They are blind to history's clear lesson. For history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war.
It points to no single instance where the end has justified the means--where appeasement has led us to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and sucessively greater demands, until, as in blackmail, violence beomes the only alternative.
"...it lays the basis for new and sucessively greater demands,...like blackmail..."
["All men of good conscience earnestly seek peace. The method alone is in issue. Some, with me, would acheive peace through a prompt and decisive victory at a saving of human life., others through appeasement and compromise of moral principal, with less regard for human life.
The one course follows our great American tradition, the other but can lead to unending slaughter and our country's moral debasement."]
We would not be experiencing the current danger and problems with North Korea and China today if Big Mac had been listened to.
I totally agree, although I still commend him for bombing Japan
Comintern.... in this time frame the Soviets and the Red Chinee were buddies. Managed by Stalin. Therefore the compromise of intel on the chinee horde probably was accomplished simply, through the perfumed coterie of army intel pukes who were Macarthur’s “court jesters”. Meanwhile the ground intel advance people knew the chinee were over the yalu, lots of them and coming.
Don’t forget Mac was willing to stop them with nukes since they were after all fodder for the Soviets. But the geniuses with loaded diapers at State were worried this would “bring in” the sovs. The sovs were already “in” there, with 26K troops post WWII, in yet another proxy war of their expansion. So one could say the continuation of the penetration by the Soviets of the FDR admin into the Truman haberdashery closet was quite effective. The red scare and the pussy in the white house. Appeasement has always lead to needless death of warriors. And politicians always lie. Never discount McCarthur’s emperor status at that point. He Was seriously right about Indochina- never get in a land war there (so, of course we did despite Eisenhower warning of the mil/indust complex-—sound familiar?)
Sino-Soviet split happened later with a sino-soviet border war that has been largely overlooked.
Parenthetically WEB Griffin has his character McCoy in the thick of this with some interesting plausibilities of the time and the nascent OSS/CIA vs. Army intel.
But, uh it’s OK we have John Kerry on the case... a comintern operative puke gigolo. A cast of characters and we are in bad hands.... again.
Almond’s “Don’t let a bunch of Chinese laundrymen push you around” comment to Col Faith is certainly proof enough for me that he knew. However, the bigger question is what stopped Walton Walker from reporting (or being heard) on the real situation on the western, 8th Army side. The 8th Cav got badly beat up by Chinese forces at Unsan nearly a month before the Chinese general offensive and 5th Cav was prevented by Chinese forces from relieving them. Yet, weeks later, the plan was put in motion to “advance to contact” ...
And now we have useful idiot Dempsey in charge of the military, a Muslim in charge of the CIA, and a traitorous, lying cabal running the Whitehouse. Meanwhile, the Chinese have so thoroughly hacked into our infrastructure that they could shut down areas of our electric grid, pipelines and communications. Their proxy, North Korea, is becoming increasingly bellicose, and the Chinese aren’t doing a thing about an increasingly dangerous situation. They’ve recently murdered US citizens working abroad, attacked Vietnamese fisherman, and they’ve threatened Japan’s Self Defense Forces. Frankly, this all makes me a bit nervous, to say the least, and all we can talk about as a nation are gay marriage and gun control.
Patton, McCarthy, MacArthur, Churchill.......all great men,with vision, vindicated.
MacArthur was probably the worst general we ever had. He blew the defense of the Philippines. He got a medal of honor for leaving everyone else to suffer the Bataan death march. His campaigns in the pacific were largely designed to give him a role for political reasons. The island hopping campaign could have easily succeeded without any of his land campaigns. Without any resupply due to the USN perfection of the Herman style of submarine warfare, New Guinea, Borneo, the Philippines, all would have been unable to strike out and interfere. They could have barely avoided starvation.
The Philippines campaign was mostly conducted because he said ‘i shall return’.
He also gets the credit for the landing at Inchon, as though the USN and USMC had never heard of amphibious warfare.
And while Inchon was fine, he never gets any credit for the defeats down to Pusan.
He did a moderately ok job on occupation duty, because he could be an ersatz monarch.
And last,, everybody was telling him the Chinese were massing and he ignored it all.
He cost uncountable US soldier lives thru his incompetence. He likely prolonged WWII and Korea.
We could have defeated the red Chinese and North Koreans , but Patton would have gotten thrown off the continent by the red Army ( unless we nuked them)
Linbacker2 proved leMay correct. And if watergate hadn’t destroyed Nixon , south Vietnam would still exist
The Chinese had spies in the White House who told them in advance Truman would not use nuclear weapons. Had Truman been the other way the Chinese would not have invaded in the first place.