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

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."
We sure don't make presidents like we used to

In the end, I think the only way to truly know the ability of a general is to see how they perform when "all the chips are down" and the fate of their nation is at stake. Zhukov's defensive and later offensive battles in 1941-43 and Manstein who was a key commander in the invasion of Soviet Union and then salvaged the German front after Stalingrad (1942-43) each showed their excellence in these situations. Fortunately, the US has never faced an "all the chips are down" situation in modern times.
I mean, the defense of the Phillipines in 1941 and the defense of South Korea in the winter of 1950-51 were essentially that. They weren't nearly as important as Stalingrad on a strategic level, but they were just as difficult on a tactical level. And MacArthur managed to bungle them both brilliantly.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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."
Well, who am I to contradict President Truman?

'Tis a shame that one of his predecessors, President Hoover, didn't have the same sensible attitude.
 
but with Dunkirk, I think the British did

I agree. They also faced an "all chips are down" situation in the early stages of the battle of the Atlantic. One can also argue that the Battle of Britain was also a similar situation as a clear defeat of the RAF could have led to a cross channel invasion.

Because the Royal Navy did not overmatch the Kriegsmarine several times over and that the RAF was in no real danger of ever losing the BoB
 
. . . I think it was largely instinct: every other major war in American history had seen the US forces mobilize up from miniscule to massive and powerful size in order fight it only to be absolutely disbanded back down . . .
In 1949/50 the US Navy came very close to being gutted, as it was being viewed as superfluous in the nuclear age (see Revolt of the Admirals). The Korean War, completely reversed that opinion.

Ric350
I think it's very much human nature. We are worried about the here and now. It's both our strength and our weakness.

In fact, taking a hint from where Harry Turtledove talks about a "soldiers' time" in his Colonization series, I kind of wish that was still the norm. Because, yes indeed, there are real negatives to having a permanent military.
 
Well in the Navy’s case it wasnt simply force reduction, it was service abandonment.

I often wonder what the butterflies would have been if NK waited even one more year before attacking the south:
- Navy gets no angle deck/catapult carriers and existing carriers are scrapped as too expensive to run/maintain/store. Navy becomes a littoral force.
- Navy looses all jet aircraft to USAF, as well as other aircraft, except those deemed deemed useful for coastal patrol.
- Marines are incorporated into the Army as a “Ranger like” force, but at a fraction of the its WW2 size. Paris Island facility closed.
- Douglas aircraft, even with very good jet designs, gets shunned by USAF as a “Navy company”. As a result, they focus on commercial aircraft, but the loss of military revenue is a mortal blow, and with the company in financial trouble, is bought by Convair.
- With Navy enlistments way down, as military career paths are now only made in the USAF and Army, Annapolis is forced to close its doors.

Ric350
 
MacArthur had a long history of not getting along with presidents, he liked roosevelt as a person but the two often came to blows, to the point where macarthur yelled at roosevelt so hard that macarthur left the white house and threw up on the front steps

and i dont think this won him any points with truman
 
MacArthur had a long history of not getting along with presidents, he liked roosevelt as a person but the two often came to blows, to the point where macarthur yelled at roosevelt so hard that macarthur left the white house and threw up on the front steps

and i dont think this won him any points with truman

When was that?
 

nbcman

Donor
MacArthur had a long history of not getting along with presidents, he liked roosevelt as a person but the two often came to blows, to the point where macarthur yelled at roosevelt so hard that macarthur left the white house and threw up on the front steps

and i dont think this won him any points with truman

When was that?

In 1934 during a disagreement over the Army's budget according to MacArthur's Reminiscences autobiograpy published in 1964:

Nor do General MacArthur's reminiscences contribute many facts that have hitherto been unpublished or unknown. There are numerous new details —‐some of them significant—and a few anecdotal gems, including an account of the time General MacArthur—then Army Chief of Staff—“vomited on the steps of the White House.” His sickness followed a heated session with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, then in his first term of office, who proposed to cut the Army budget by 51 per cent. MacArthur records it thus:

“I spoke recklessly, and said something to the general effect that when we lost the next war, and an American boy, lying in the mud with an enemy bayonet through his belly, and an enemy foot on his dying throat, spat out his last curse, I wanted the name not to be MacArthur, but Roosevelt.

“The President was livid. ‘You must not talk that way to the President!’, he roared. He was, of course, right...I said that I was sorry and apologized...I told him he had my resignation as Chief of Staff...‘Don't be foolish, Douglas; you and the budget must get together on this’.”
 
Well in the Navy’s case it wasnt simply force reduction, it was service abandonment.

I often wonder what the butterflies would have been if NK waited even one more year before attacking the south:
- Navy gets no angle deck/catapult carriers and existing carriers are scrapped as too expensive to run/maintain/store. Navy becomes a littoral force.
- Navy looses all jet aircraft to USAF, as well as other aircraft, except those deemed deemed useful for coastal patrol.
- Marines are incorporated into the Army as a “Ranger like” force, but at a fraction of the its WW2 size. Paris Island facility closed.
- Douglas aircraft, even with very good jet designs, gets shunned by USAF as a “Navy company”. As a result, they focus on commercial aircraft, but the loss of military revenue is a mortal blow, and with the company in financial trouble, is bought by Convair.
- With Navy enlistments way down, as military career paths are now only made in the USAF and Army, Annapolis is forced to close its doors.

Ric350

Good speculation (bad outcomes), let me try to add a silver lining, No Annapolis!

Navy football is weakened. - OK there is that whole America is weaker thing you were on about, but we have establish priorities here, Navy football is weakened- maybe it is worth it. Go Army, beat Navy.
 
690095XA.JPG

To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment
By Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz, 2018.

https://books.google.com/books?id=g...announcement went off like a grenade”&f=false

‘ . . . Truman’s announcement went off like a grenade. . . Within forty-eight hours more than two hundred thousand telegrams flooded the White House and Congress—many of them calling for impeachment. “IMPEACH THE IMBECILE” and “IMPEACH THE LITTLE WARD POLITICIAN FROM KANSAS CITY” were typical. Cars were plastered with signs and stickers reading, “Oust President Truman.” The president was burned in effigy and damned as a traitor. Several state legislatures formally condemned him. Across the nation, flags were flown upside down and at half-mast. Petitions demanding Truman’s removal circulated widely. . . ’
When Truman fired MacArthur on April 11, 1951, it was a very big deal.
 
Well in the Navy’s case it wasnt simply force reduction, it was service abandonment.

I often wonder what the butterflies would have been if NK waited even one more year before attacking the south:
- Navy gets no angle deck/catapult carriers and existing carriers are scrapped as too expensive to run/maintain/store. Navy becomes a littoral force.
- Navy looses all jet aircraft to USAF, as well as other aircraft, except those deemed deemed useful for coastal patrol.
- Marines are incorporated into the Army as a “Ranger like” force, but at a fraction of the its WW2 size. Paris Island facility closed.
- Douglas aircraft, even with very good jet designs, gets shunned by USAF as a “Navy company”. As a result, they focus on commercial aircraft, but the loss of military revenue is a mortal blow, and with the company in financial trouble, is bought by Convair.
- With Navy enlistments way down, as military career paths are now only made in the USAF and Army, Annapolis is forced to close its doors.

Ric350
But the 'Revolt of the Admirals' had already occurred, and Carl Vinson and James Van Zant on the House Armed Services Committee would not left that USAF wishlist go thru, even if new SecNav Matthews was cowed into going along with it.
 
Ric350 wrote:
Well in the Navy’s case it wasn’t simply force reduction, it was service abandonment.

I often wonder what the butterflies would have been if NK waited even one more year before attacking the south:
- Navy gets no angle deck/catapult carriers and existing carriers are scrapped as too expensive to run/maintain/store. Navy becomes a littoral force.
- Navy loses all jet aircraft to USAF, as well as other aircraft, except those deemed deemed useful for coastal patrol.
- Marines are incorporated into the Army as a “Ranger like” force, but at a fraction of the its WW2 size. Paris Island facility closed.
- Douglas aircraft, even with very good jet designs, gets shunned by USAF as a “Navy company”. As a result, they focus on commercial aircraft, but the loss of military revenue is a mortal blow, and with the company in financial trouble, is bought by Convair.
- With Navy enlistments way down, as military career paths are now only made in the USAF and Army, Annapolis is forced to close its doors.

Martathag wrote:
But the 'Revolt of the Admirals' had already occurred, and Carl Vinson and James Van Zant on the House Armed Services Committee would not left that USAF wish list go thru, even if new SecNav Matthews was cowed into going along with it

Secretary of Defense Johnson straight out TOLD the Secretary of the Navy that he (and the President) felt the Navy was obsolete and that the Marine Corps was no longer needed and that the upcoming (FYI 1950) budget cuts reflected that opinion and that they were poised to pass Congress despite some ‘minor’ opposition. It had already been proposed, (and as noted Vinson and Van Zant were opposed but it was still going to go in front of Congress where it was expected to pass) that in early FY 1950 all Navy aviation assets were to be transferred to the USAF and Congress would consider either demobilizing the Marines, (which only they can do btw) or folding them into the Army which the Army was not pleased with. (On the up side they would also receive the FY1950 Marine Corps budget with the move so there was that aspect)

Secretary of the Navy Matthews, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_P._Matthews) was SUPPORTIVE of the Navy budget and force cuts and was instrumental as the civilian “executioner” for uniformed Navy personnel that had been supportive of the “Revolt of the Admirals”. In fact the majority of the American public were supportive of the cuts, and the demobilization of the Navy and Army as required and requested by Truman right up until the Korean war broke out. The Navy not only lost public RP and support over the “revolt” they lost credibility and public sympathy as well and as it was Truman was very much on track to getting pretty much everything he wanted in military cuts by 1952. (Note that was around a 99% decrease in spending in all services except the Air Force from 1948 levels and an 80% cut in the Air Force budget itself)

Yes there was some pushback from Congress and the press of the period but it wasn’t until the outbreak of the Korean war that this became widespread and the results of the 1948 election had convinced Truman that he had a majority of the US populations support in cutting defense spending to the bone. (One of the points of contention between Truman and Dewey was defense spending which Dewey was willing to suggest raising taxes to do whereas Truman was adamant about defense cuts and lowering taxes)

Truman was outraged to find out the Navy couldn’t blockade North Korea when ordered to do so. Less so when it was pointed out it was essentially his fault.

He took the election of 1948 as a mandate that the people of the United States WANTED him to continue to cut the military budget by leaps and bounds and he packed the Department of Defense with goal in mind. There was NO opposition in the DoD to the cuts, little in Congress and apparently none in the general public which is why NATO among others were in a panic.

Randy
 
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

It says "Following a series of major defeats...", not "Because of a series of major defeat..."

Which is entirely correct, if not comprehensive. But this is only the intro para. The actual body of the article goes into detail on the affair, and makes it clear that Macarthur's insubordination was the decisive factor.

So Wiki is not wrong.
 
When Truman fired MacArthur on April 11, 1951, it was a very big deal.
...good grief. So Truman's options were either "take the chance of impeachment by firing an egotistical jackass" or "let an egotistical jackass drag the US into a wider war, complete with using nuclear weapons on a wide scale and leading up to a potential early nuclear Armageddon, as well as erode the Presidential authority because said egotistical jackass decided to go over and above his head, disregarding the chain of command".

I think it's safe to say he made the right choice here. MacArthur was basically engaging in a bloodless revolt because he wasn't allowed to win the war he wanted.
 

A. Danov

Banned
McArthur wanted to drop 50 (yes, 50) atomic bombs.

Personally, I like MacArthur.

As for "nuclear Armaggeddon" ...not even close. We're talking about April 1951. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country

299 US vs 5 Soviet as of 1950. Not even a fight.

China had no nuclear weapons, and Stalin would never have exposed the Motherland to American A-bombs for the benefit of the Koreans and Chinese. And even if he went full stupid and did, The USSR's ability to deliver nuclear weapons to anywhere outside Eurasia was effectively nil at the time.

Stalin knew this, and he knew that the price for "communist brotherhood in the face of capitalist aggression" (or whatever nonsense he would have said) would have been a glow-in-the-dark USSR.

My conclusion: MacArthur was correct to call for atomic weapons vs the Chinese. And Truman was a moralizing idiot whose dithering first lost China to an ideology worse than Nazism, then let them set up a puppet state in NK.
 
Personally, I like MacArthur.

As for "nuclear Armaggeddon" ...not even close. We're talking about April 1951. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country

299 US vs 5 Soviet as of 1950. Not even a fight.

China had no nuclear weapons, and Stalin would never have exposed the Motherland to American A-bombs for the benefit of the Koreans and Chinese. And even if he went full stupid and did, The USSR's ability to deliver nuclear weapons to anywhere outside Eurasia was effectively nil at the time.

Stalin knew this, and he knew that the price for "communist brotherhood in the face of capitalist aggression" (or whatever nonsense he would have said) would have been a glow-in-the-dark USSR.

My conclusion: MacArthur was correct to call for atomic weapons vs the Chinese. And Truman was a moralizing idiot whose dithering first lost China to an ideology worse than Nazism, then let them set up a puppet state in NK.

The atomic bombs would've turned southern Manchuria into a nuclear wasteland on par with Chernobyl, which would've begun affecting the local environments of both China and a newly-united Korea. Radiation tends to spread over a long period of time.
 
Top