Did Pres. Truman fire MacArthur because of “military defeats”? (like Wikipedia says)

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur

“ . . . Following a series of major defeats, he was removed from command by President Harry S. Truman on 11 April 1951. . . ”
This is the second-to-last sentence of the introduction section.

Well, maybe . . .

Even though I’ve always heard that it was insubordination and the fact that MacArthur attempted to go over Truman’s head to Congress, if the military endeavor had been a straightforward success, they would not argued about this other stuff, now, would they?

* and yes, the fact that Wikipedia is basically wrong, does add a little extra spice
 
A Chinese probably wrote that sentence :D . In reality, yes, he was removed because of insubordination - he wanted to extend the war into the PRC and use nuclear weapons to cut off the neck of Korea at the Yalu.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
. . . In reality, yes, he was removed because of insubordination - he wanted to extend the war into the PRC and use nuclear weapons to cut off the neck of Korea at the Yalu.
I think Truman also threatened nuclear weapons.

In addition, Truman was being advised by the Joint Chiefs and his Secretary of State former Gen. George Marshall not to let the war widen, or else we’d be stretched thin (probably regarding Berlin most of all)
 
Truman during an interview in the 60's:

"I fired him because he wouldn’t respect the authority of the President. I didn’t fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that’s not against the laws for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail."
 
I think Truman also threatened nuclear weapons.

Well, when asked by reporters, he said the use was "always under consideration". As I posted here a couple of years ago:

Attlee made a frantic trip to the US because of some remarks made by Truman which were probably meant as boilerplate but which Attlee interpreted as meaning that the US might use nuclear weapon in Korea. https://books.google.com/books?id=GqT3AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT186 (The reputation he wrongly got for having dissuaded the US from such a rash move no doubt helped him in the 1951 campaign even if it wasn't quite enough to give Labour a plurality of the parliamentary seats).
 
This is the second-to-last sentence of the introduction section.

Well, maybe . . .

Even though I’ve always heard that it was insubordination and the fact that MacArthur attempted to go over Truman’s head to Congress, if the military endeavor had been a straightforward success, they would not argued about this other stuff, now, would they?

* and yes, the fact that Wikipedia is basically wrong, does add a little extra spice

Well, if one considers the casual relations here, MacArthur started freaking out, trying to go over the President’s head, and being openly insubordinate* as a result of the defeats the Chinese had inflicted upon him. So one could say that the defeats did indirectly lead to his relief. In the end though, it was less the defeats themselves and more how MacArthur reacted to them that sealed the deal.

*The insubordination was really always there, MacArthur freaking out over the Chinese intervention merely drove it into the open.
 
no, he was relieved due to publicly trying to force truman to expand the war,
yes, he was doing that to cover his ass for the defeats he'd suffered and role he had it them

on another note i would suggest that you read "The Generals" by Thomas E. Ricks, partially the chapters dealing with macarthur and korea (7, 9-13)
word of warning, they are not nice to him
 
Does the Wikipedia article have any citation to this fact? IMHO the military defeats gave MacArthur the reason to double down on the kind of dick he was to cover for it; and it simultaneously gave Truman the cover he needed to fire someone he never did like or trust. I dont think it was the defeats that were the real reason that Truman had, but if I remember correctly he at least used them as a reason that the people could accept.
 
Well, if one considers the casual relations here, MacArthur started freaking out, trying to go over the President’s head, and being openly insubordinate* as a result of the defeats the Chinese had inflicted upon him. So one could say that the defeats did indirectly lead to his relief. In the end though, it was less the defeats themselves and more how MacArthur reacted to them that sealed the deal.

*The insubordination was really always there, MacArthur freaking out over the Chinese intervention merely drove it into the open.
Would you agree that his insubordination alone could not have given Truman a politically acceptable reason to fire him if it wasn't for the defeats? Say he was successful in holding back the PRC further north than IOTL, say some sort of no-man's zone (early form of DMZ) developed just south of the Yalu, would Truman have been able to fire him? I think the American public would see him even more of a hero and Truman wouldn't be able to afford the political capital to fire a general who, while not triumphant was at least not a loser.
 
Would you agree that his insubordination alone could not have given Truman a politically acceptable reason to fire him if it wasn't for the defeats? Say he was successful in holding back the PRC further north than IOTL, say some sort of no-man's zone (early form of DMZ) developed just south of the Yalu, would Truman have been able to fire him? I think the American public would see him even more of a hero and Truman wouldn't be able to afford the political capital to fire a general who, while not triumphant was at least not a loser.

Yes, actually. A whole bunch of things are quite intertwined with these defeats: the defeat damaged MacArthur's credibility after all of his predictions about how the Chinese would not intervene and if they did he would handily defeat them, it led him to advocate for a incredibly stupid and militarily insane escalatory strategy that when the consequences were properly briefed in front of congressional hearings further badly damaged his credibility among congressional figures, and he would not have taken his insubordination from the private and into the public arena. Had MacArthur's forces been able to hold the Chinese at positions near the Yalu, none of these would have happened: he wouldn't have had his credibility damaged by a defeat, wouldn't have had a breakdown that leads him to advocating for a escalatory strategy, and wouldn't have acted openly insubordinate in response to the restrictions imposed on him in a very justified move to keep the war limited. In that case, yes he would not have been fired... because all of those factors were a product of the defeats.

In short, MacArthur was fired because he fucked up not only with the defeats, but also in handling the political fallout that came with them.
 
Last edited:
Digression: If Ike does not run in '52 does MacArthur get the Republican nomination over Taft and Warren like Eisenhower did, and become the 34th President of the United States?
 
Digression: If Ike does not run in '52 does MacArthur get the Republican nomination over Taft and Warren like Eisenhower did, and become the 34th President of the United States?
He's the general who lost Korea and had a break down and got fired. No way he's getting the nomination. If he is somehow seen as the one the front runner and eventual nominee, then it is possible that Truman doesnt pull out of the race after the New Hampshire primary. Truman may want the showdown. Yes, Truman can run for a third term, he is grandfathered in as the sitting president when the 22nd Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1947; last president able to go an unfettered number of terms.
 
The book could neither be a well-researched nor well-reasoned book if it were "nice" to MacArthur.
chapt. 7, page 105,
"in 1951, macarthur's persistent dabbling in politics and his refusal to follow order would lead to the most dramatic relief of a general in the history of the U.S. military. macarthur's legacy would be limited in the military realm-- he was an influence on william westmoreland and had little impact after that-- but it would be poisonous in american politics, warping president johnson's discourse with his generals about the conduct of the vietnam war."

it blames the majority of the us army's current issues to a lack of leadership that can be traced strait back to diamond doug
 
chapt. 7, page 105,
"in 1951, macarthur's persistent dabbling in politics and his refusal to follow order would lead to the most dramatic relief of a general in the history of the U.S. military. macarthur's legacy would be limited in the military realm-- he was an influence on william westmoreland and had little impact after that-- but it would be poisonous in american politics, warping president johnson's discourse with his generals about the conduct of the vietnam war."

it blames the majority of the us army's current issues to a lack of leadership that can be traced strait back to diamond doug

And rightfully so. MacArthur had badly neglected the training of the forces under his command. Incredibly basic and rudimentary soldiering skills like maintaining a tight perimiter at night, constructing mutually supporting positions, and digging in when halted for any length of time had been almost completely forgotten among army forces (although, not among the Marines, as their remarkable performance at Chosin would show). These were critical to the defeat of American troops by Chinese forces, who were otherwise at a disadvantage by every single quantitative measurement including, contrary to popular belief, numerically. Pretty much the only thing that can be said in his defense is that this wasn’t unique to MacArthur: every US army command in the late-40s had badly neglected training, discipline, and force readiness, partly because demobilization left the army with little will or resources for it. Had US forces been facing Soviet mechanized troops instead of Chinese light infantry, they likely would have been outright annihilated instead of mauled and routed.
 
(although, not among the Marines, as their remarkable performance at Chosin would show).
chapter 10 is titled "Army generals fail at Chosin"
chapter 11 is titled "O.P. Smith succeeds at Chosin"
and to bring it back around to the point
page 202
"inside the army macarthur is remembered, if at all as an embarrassment, except perhaps at west point. 'macarthur was guilty of contumacy*, which a general must never allow himself to be,' conclude Gen. Bruce Clarke, a hero of the battle of the bulge who was later the u.s. army commander in europe"

*contumacy: stubborn refusal to obey or comply with authority,
 
And rightfully so. MacArthur had badly neglected the training of the forces under his command. Incredibly basic and rudimentary soldiering skills like maintaining a tight perimiter at night, constructing mutually supporting positions, and digging in when halted for any length of time had been almost completely forgotten among army forces (although, not among the Marines, as their remarkable performance at Chosin would show). These were critical to the defeat of American troops by Chinese forces, who were otherwise at a disadvantage by every single quantitative measurement including, contrary to popular belief, numerically. Pretty much the only thing that can be said in his defense is that this wasn’t unique to MacArthur: every US army command in the late-40s had badly neglected training, discipline, and force readiness, partly because demobilization left the army with little will or resources for it. Had US forces been facing Soviet mechanized troops instead of Chinese light infantry, they likely would have been outright annihilated instead of mauled and routed.

I had a look at RAND declassified reporting of the budget post WW2 and the Army was screwed hard. It was like policymakers thought the nuclear monopoly and the Air Force was so all important they didn’t even need an Army.

It started off an amazing interagency fight in the armed forces like never seen since.

Still the Weimar German officers trained religiously often without pay or with worthless money and with scraps and farm equipment so there was no justification for letting discipline slide.

The nuclear monopoly was a big part of it, but so was the army really never having to face the Germans when they were at their prime not shall we say tenderized so I feel they came off WW2 with more self confidence.

Democratic Presidents really lost faith in the generals after Korea and have had a habit of really micromanaging wars.
 
Top