MacArthur and the Korean War (1 Viewer)

[Peter Reuss]

It finally dawned on me that I had little knowledge of the Korean War, so I picked up 'the Coldest Winter' by Halberstam. Great read (actually, I have the audiobook version, 33 disks )!

Halberstam absolutely HAMMERS MacArthur for his incompenance in Korea, his ego, and his lack of touch with reality. It's a theme that is played again and again in the book. Conversely, Halberstam drools over himself in praise of Ridgway and his abilities.

I hate to form opinions based on one book. Is MacArthur generally viewed in these harsh terms for his handling of Korea, or is Halberstam being a bit harsh? It sounds like MacArthur had a huge 'fan club' supporting him, so obviously somebody thought he was doing things right.

I'd love to hear other perspectives.

 

[uksubs]

It finally dawned on me that I had little knowledge of the Korean War, so I picked up 'the Coldest Winter' by Halberstam. Great read (actually, I have the audiobook version, 33 disks )!

Halberstam absolutely HAMMERS MacArthur for his incompenance in Korea, his ego, and his lack of touch with reality. It's a theme that is played again and again in the book. Conversely, Halberstam drools over himself in praise of Ridgway and his abilities.

I hate to form opinions based on one book. Is MacArthur generally viewed in these harsh terms for his handling of Korea, or is Halberstam being a bit harsh? It sounds like MacArthur had a huge 'fan club' supporting him, so obviously somebody thought he was doing things right.

I'd love to hear other perspectives.

From what I've read & seen on tv your book sounds about right , Is it true that he wanted to drop a atom bomb on china

 

[Mitch]

Peter...

I always try to, when reading any book, ask what the slant of the author is as very few are impartial and can heavily and wrongly, slant opinion. The recent Haig discussion shows this.

I think from what I have read he was certainly a soldier at heart and, viewed all situations in a military manner which, was something Trueman could not cope with or, having a general who was as popular and high profile as he was and, certainly more high profile than trueman.

Did he do thin gs he could have done better? for sure but, his sacking for me, was shown best by the comments in Dec 1973 when trueman stated:

'I fired him because he would not respect the authority of the president not because he was a dumb son of a *****'

I have read the book you quote and think he was lambasted rather unfairly again, its easy to look back with the clarity of hindsight as its always 20/20
Mitch

 

[Louis Badolato]

I am on the record as saying MacArthur should have been court marshaled and shot for disobeying direct orders from his commander and chief, and thus bringing a million Chinese soldiers into the war at the cost of thousands of American and other United Nations troops' lives.

That being said, strategically, he was far from incompetent. His invasion at Inchon, cutting the North Korean supply lines and throwing them into a panic was the textbook example of how to deal with fighting on a peninsula - if Mark Clark had handled Anzio with the same competence, thousands of allied lives would not have been wasted at Monte Cassino, etc.

 

[jazzeum]

Halberstam was on target. During WW II, he was viewed as a bit of a grandstander. He wasn't called Dugout Doug for nothing..

 

[trooper]

I am on the record as saying MacArthur should have been court marshaled and shot for disobeying direct orders from his commander and chief, and thus bringing a million Chinese soldiers into the war at the cost of thousands of American and other United Nations troops' lives.

That being said, strategically, he was far from incompetent. His invasion at Inchon, cutting the North Korean supply lines and throwing them into a panic was the textbook example of how to deal with fighting on a peninsula - if Mark Clark had handled Anzio with the same competence, thousands of allied lives would not have been wasted at Monte Cassino, etc.

Think you are absolutely right Louis.

 

[noli-poli]

We have to separate the man from politics. General Douglas McArthur is definitely the greatest tactician and strategist of all time. We would have not won WWII against the Japanese without his leadership. He is a pure WARRIOR and warriors, sans politics, will use the tools available at their disposal to win. It is unfortunate that, in Korea, he was working under civilian authority in wartime conditions...and doubly unfortunate that the country he represents villifies its great generals who do not conform to the winds of body politic. My POV

N-P

 

[Peter Reuss]

It is unfortunate that, in Korea, he was working under civilian authority in wartime conditions...and doubly unfortunate that the country he represents villifies its great generals who do not conform to the winds of body politic. My POV

N-P

Interesting point. It seems that one of the major issues was whether MacArthur should bend to the will of the politicians.

But...in a democracy, aren't even the great generals bound to follow the orders of a civilian commander-in-chief (even if they don't like the orders)? The president is the president, like him or not. It's the office that holds authority, not the person.

The biggest question I have while reading the book is this...how much did MacArthur suppress any intelligence that came in that may have shown that China was readying for war? If he had the intelligence and purposely ignored it...that is criminal. If the intelligence never reached him, that speaks ill of his staff, and, by inference, him as well. Halberstam paints a picture of a staff of sychophants, all intent only on pleasing 'the man.' If that were truly the case, MacArthur bears some of the blame for allowing a staff to be too focused on him and not on the truth and the war ahead of them.

Interesting questions

 

[Combat]

As someone named after him, he is one of the worst US generals in history if not the worst. A maniac concerned only with public relations. His conduct during WWII was an unbelievable disgrace.

 

[maddadicus]

As someone named after him, he is one of the worst US generals in history if not the worst. A maniac concerned only with public relations. His conduct during WWII was an unbelievable disgrace.

Well after Pearl Harbor, he still had not put the Philippines on war footing and left his entire air force clustered together on the ground to be destroyed in minutes..Of course there was his inability to defeat or at least hinder an enemy invasion force 1/2 of his total strength. Guess he could have used all those planes, after all...Michael

 

[Mitch]

Is that not a bit eutopian? Its the office that holds the power not the man and in a democracy? That would be great if it worked but, not just with this general but many before and since have had issues with orders that either make no sense or are unworkable in action.

Look at any office with power military or civillian and you will always find more 'yes' men than contrary so, saying his staff were sycophants, whilst, possibly true does not offer any further explanation and, allows the author to come to the conclusions he wanted to before embarking on his discourse. How many generals etc get told 'no' by their subordinates especially, in the era they were active? not many I can think of.

The post is the ideal and rarely (if ever) has the individual reached the ideal and that is where you get the conflict its happening now in the US and the UK where the military is at odds with civillian leaders expecting the undeliverable.

I don't think he was sacked because of disrespect to the ideal of the office but, disrespect to the man which, trueman could not tolerate.
Mitch

 

[jazzeum]

He was fired because in our constitutional system the President is the Commander in Chief and he wouldn't follow orders. Doug was right: one of the worst ever. Just ask what the Navy in WW II thought of him.

 

[UKReb]

Should MacArthur have been sacked?-Absolutely the same as Haig should have been but for different reasons

As others have posted here Truman was within his constitutional authority as the sole voice of foreign policy in the US Government to relieve MacArthur as C in C Far East.

Truman's decision was not just based on not agreeing with MacArthur's proposals but primarily because of Macarthur's public non-acceptance of their rejection by the Truman Administration.

Korea was fought as a political war for political goals-it was not a total war and a complete victory was never it's goal. MacArthur completely failed to grasp that-It's as simple as that.

Reb

 

[Spitfrnd]

... Doug was right: one of the worst ever. Just ask what the Navy in WW II thought of him.

I'll vote for that as well. My father served under him in the Pacific and believe me the Navy was not alone in those thoughts. There were more than a few in the ranks that wanted to shoot him during his "triumphant return" "landing" photo op.

 

[Peter Reuss]

Should MacArthur have been sacked?-Absolutely the same as Haig should have been but for different reasons

As others have posted here Truman was within his constitutional authority as the sole voice of foreign policy in the US Government to relieve MacArthur as C in C Far East.

Truman's decision was not just based on not agreeing with MacArthur's proposals but primarily because of Macarthur's public non-acceptance of their rejection by the Truman Administration.

Korea was fought as a political war for political goals-it was not a total war and a complete victory was never it's goal. MacArthur completely failed to grasp that-It's as simple as that.

Reb

In my limited knowledge this is exactly my understanding of the situation. MacArthur and Truman had very different visions of what the war should entail, and in the case, the President had the authority to make the final orders.

A total war against China would have been a disaster! The US has weapons, but not the unending manpower of the Chinese.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Yes even the Russians were smart enough not to star a war with China at that point. Besides, who would be making these fine figures without our friends in China?

 

[Scott]

President Truman had "been there and done that" in WW I. People saw him as President in civilian clothes next to MacArthur in uniform and misjudged.

 

[Terp152]

It finally dawned on me that I had little knowledge of the Korean War, so I picked up 'the Coldest Winter' by Halberstam. Great read (actually, I have the audiobook version, 33 disks )!

Late to the thread, sorry. Listened to same book on CD back and forth to work. Good book, too bad Halberstam died in a car wreck.

Most admirals and gen'ls resisted the Inchon landings. Mac was a god after that and no one could oppose him. I've read other accounts of the available intel that indicated the Chinese were coming. Mac dismissed that because it didn't conform to his view of what he wanted to do.

 

[Gideon]

Interesting point. It seems that one of the major issues was whether MacArthur should bend to the will of the politicians.

But...in a democracy, aren't even the great generals bound to follow the orders of a civilian commander-in-chief (even if they don't like the orders)? The president is the president, like him or not. It's the office that holds authority, not the person.

The biggest question I have while reading the book is this...how much did MacArthur suppress any intelligence that came in that may have shown that China was readying for war? If he had the intelligence and purposely ignored it...that is criminal. If the intelligence never reached him, that speaks ill of his staff, and, by inference, him as well. Halberstam paints a picture of a staff of sychophants, all intent only on pleasing 'the man.' If that were truly the case, MacArthur bears some of the blame for allowing a staff to be too focused on him and not on the truth and the war ahead of them.

Interesting questions

The President is also the CnC. If the military starts forming its own opinions and acts upon them then we live in a different type of country. It's the chain of command. The military is bound to it.

MacArthur was capable, yes but also made mistakes like any human being. He was also an incredibly conflicted individual and, frankly - from what I've seen, an a$$hat.