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

That's true, but is also true that in actual combat missions, the B-29s were not exactly swept from the skies over Korea. It wasn't B-29 losses alone that moved attacks to Radar bombing at Night.

Look at B-24s in the ETO, 226,775 sorties with 3,626 losses, that was 1 loss in 62.54 sorties. North Korea was far safer for bomber crewmen. This was the point I was making, and it does not invalidate that SAC Brass felt they didn't have the force they wanted.

Agreed in general but my point and more to the point was that SAC was aware they likely could neither HIT nor possibly REACH their target. And in this case it wasn't what the SAC brass so much 'wanted' (they wanted to be the ONLY service and made no bones about it :) ) it was a very real question of having the force they NEEDED to accomplish the mission given by the President let alone what MacArthur wanted.

Randy
 
It wasn't B-29 losses alone that moved attacks to Radar bombing at Night.

Given that night missions entail greater operational risks and greater inaccuracies, what other possible reasons could there have been except to lower the losses to enemy action? Pretty well all the existing literature agrees the reason was because of the threat to daylight raids posed by the MiGs… including the USAF's official history.
 
Given that night missions entail greater operational risks and greater inaccuracies, what other possible reasons could there have been except to lower the losses to enemy action? Pretty well all the existing literature agrees the reason was because of the threat to daylight raids posed by the MiGs… including the USAF's official history.
AAA seemed to have caused more writeoffs than being damaged by Fighters. Looks like the North Koreans did far better with that then they are normally credited with
 
AAA seemed to have caused more writeoffs than being damaged by Fighters. Looks like the North Koreans did far better with that then they are normally credited with

From what I've read, the North Koreans are generally well credited with their AAA work. Even in cases where they did no damage, they tended to be able to force aircraft into approaches or maneuvers that ruined their accuracy and missed their targets on quite a large number of occassions. The Soviet guns did their jobs. That doesn't answer the question I asked, though...
 
Given that night missions entail greater operational risks and greater inaccuracies, what other possible reasons could there have been except to lower the losses to enemy action? Pretty well all the existing literature agrees the reason was because of the threat to daylight raids posed by the MiGs… including the USAF's official history.

AAA seemed to have caused more writeoffs than being damaged by Fighters. Looks like the North Koreans did far better with that then they are normally credited with

Noted we may be having a "forest-for-the-trees" moment; Let me be clear here the fighters were NOT the only danger and while it was pointed out at the time that the Air Force was being a bit obsessive on the question of the B-36 versus fighters the US military was already well on the way to developing a AAA and missile system that could easily counter the B-36 and as it was known at the time (1950) neither the B-29 or B-50 could likely approach a well defended target. Part of the assumption in Korea was that the North Koreans did not in fact have 'modern' AAA weapons which was true of the deployed forces but demonstrably NOT true for targets in North Korea. Similarly the Chinese were well able to defend the Yalu river bridges from air attack.

Randy
 
I don't understand. Would that break some kind of rule on this board?
So, that's a 'yes' then?

IMMEDIATE BANNING OFFENSES
People can be banned for various reasons, but some are a lot more common than others. The following always result in immediate banning. Other things are decided on a case by case basis.

[...] - Advocating genocide or other mass murder [...]
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/forum-rules-and-guidelines.173163/
 
How is it genocide or mass murder? It's war.

In war, you kill the other side's soldiers until they surrender. Then, you stop.

But, since I disagree with the prevailing bias on this board against Mac, I guess my days are numbered. Let me number them further: zero. I won't be logging back in.

Enjoy your echo chamber.
Dropping more than 30 nuclear weapons on Manchuria and across other parts of China will not just "kill the other sides soldiers". It will kill millions of civilians, and is definitely mass murder.
But don't worry, none of them would have been bigger martyrs than you.
 
Actually no since the US wasn't giving Britain, (or anyone else, even most of the Pentagon) and accurate assessment of the US nuclear capability. Stalin was basically using what the USSR could do and assuming comparative efforts in the US. You may not a 'slight' flaw in this thinking :) The thing was he was well aware that the US had no clear idea of Soviet capability so running a bluff was pretty easy as the US has to assume that the USSR effort was comparative to our own. (Again it has basic flaws but in the case of the US that would amount to being more careful whereas the USSR was being more provocative)

I believe during that period Philby was the chief British intelligence liaison in Washington, as well as their liaison with the the CIA. So while no “official” assessments may have been shared, Philby was in a position to know intent, if not specific capabilities. In the book “American Caesar” it was stated that MacArthur and his staff had suspicions that the Chinese must be getting very good intel on US deployments and plans. Of coarse this could be dismissed as “excuses”, but maybe not.

Ric350
 
Did you just advocate the use of nuclear weapons?
So, that's a 'yes' then?
IMMEDIATE BANNING OFFENSES

[...] - Advocating genocide or other mass murder [...]
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/forum-rules-and-guidelines.173163/

How is it genocide or mass murder? It's war.

In war, you kill the other side's soldiers until they surrender. Then, you stop. . .
nuclear weapons were terrible development, but I don't think it's genocide.

genocide is when you know you have a choice.

For example, I've read that Eisenhower viewed the targeting of cities with nuclear missiles as part of this whole threat–counter threat business as a really awful development, but he did not see a better alternative.

------------------------

A lot of cases of genocide is starvation in which the government or army uses passive means of "not helping" but know exactly what they are doing. It is an accidentally on purpose, sorry not sorry type of thing, with very real and high human costs. Fitting this pattern are Stalin starving out the Ukraine in the 1930s (the Holodomor), Bengali 1971, Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge years 1975-78, and East Timor starting in '75 and continuing in intermittent fashion for about the next two decades.
 
. . . or other mass murder.
Well then, please paint me a relatively optimistic scenario in which there is not targeting of cities in the cold war, there are not close calls in both '62 and '83, like two airline carriers passing scarily close, etc.

Or, maybe both sides rather learn their lesson from '62, which kind of happened in OTL, but more, in which more builds from it.
 
Last edited:
Curtis Lemay, but also a whole lot of other people, basically believed, look, it's pretty much inevitable that we're going to have a big cataclysmic war with the Soviet Union. It's better to have the war sooner when it's less awful, and also when we have a lead, than later.

Someone who did not believe this was seemingly Ronald Reagan.

Reagan looked at the long game. He asked, who would want to live under such a system? And he thought the cold war would be won when the Russia govt. attended to the actual wishes of their citizens, and stopped trying to impose their system aboard. I'm going to pull a C-SPAN video to this effect.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?322687-1/the-reagan-enigma&desktop=
Please see 18:30 into video; also 35:20 into it.

* it was another speech by Thomas Reed in which he talked about Reagan asking, Who would want to live under such a system?
 
Last edited:
What does any of this have to with with the fact that the poster who I was quoting is, with the full benefit of hindsight, saying he thinks the US should have nuked China during the Korean War?
 
Curtis Lemay, but also a whole lot of other people, basically believed, look, it's pretty much inevitable that we're going to have a big cataclysmic war with the Soviet Union. It's better to have the war sooner when it's less awful, and also when we have a lead, than later.

Amazing that after World War 1 people were still using this crap argument
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As someone who thinks for example, the atomic bombing of Japan was unjustified, you're being absolutely absurd for trying to ban people for arguing about the ethics for the other side.
There is a really important difference, that you may be missing. The use of/need for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nakasaki can be argued, and Lord has it been, both here and pretty much anywhere else folks talk about history for extended periods. Any search on the terms here will spew out tons of threads, some very interesting and in great detail.

The difference is when one advocates for mass usage of Special Weapons that did not occur IOTL. That is problematic, depending on exactly how the issue is approached, especially when the advocacy leans into "kill them all, God will know his own" territory.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
So turtledove book about ww3 would be banned if written here?
No idea. Never read it.

It isn't the use of nuclear weapons that is an issue. It is how the use is approached (Hell, I nuked half of Europe in AANW, but it was part of the narrative). There is a difference between it being an organic part of a written T/L or story and "Hell ya! Nuke 'em until the glow! Damned Commies!"

EDIT: I just read the outline of this book on Fandom. I am reminded why I no longer read Turtledove. But to the question, since it part of a fictional narrative, no the work would not result in a Ban (some really rough handling in post-1900, but no Mod actions)
 
Last edited:
Top