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

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.

IIRC, the actual possible plan discussed involved the mass use of tactical nuclear weapons against the PRC, which although quite likely very dumb due to probably not turning out how like the perpetrators would like, is not the same as nuking every major population center in the country (which yeah, is actual mass murder). In the same way that bombing an army, even with high amounts of collateral damage, is probably less of an atrocity than intentionally leveling mostly civilian cities. Which of course Truman, not MacArthur actually did.

In fact, it's possible that MacArthur's chivalry with regards to civilian targets may have cost lives once. Some argue that MacArthur held back on bombing Manila in WW2 due to fear of civilian casualties, which slowed the American advance and gave more time for the retreating IJA to continue engaging in the Rape of Manila. I wonder if that incident influenced MacArthur's attitudes in Korea.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
IIRC, the actual possible plan discussed involved the mass use of tactical nuclear weapons against the PRC, which although quite likely very dumb due to probably not turning out how like the perpetrators would like, is not the same as nuking every major population center in the country (which yeah, is actual mass murder). In the same way that bombing an army, even with high amounts of collateral damage, is probably less of an atrocity than intentionally leveling mostly civilian cities. Which of course Truman, not MacArthur actually did.

In fact, it's possible that MacArthur's chivalry with regards to civilian targets may have cost lives once. Some argue that MacArthur held back on bombing Manila in WW2 due to fear of civilian casualties, which slowed the American advance and gave more time for the retreating IJA to continue engaging in the Rape of Manila. I wonder if that incident influenced MacArthur's attitudes in Korea.
The difficulty here is that you are effectively asking me why I took an action THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

I asked the poster to clarify his post. The poster, instead of giving any sort of answer, asked if it was wrong, then, before any Mod responded, effectively blew a valve and left in a snit.

No action was taken because, as I noted, the issue is not cut and dried.
 
The difficulty here is that you are effectively asking me why I took an action THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

I asked the poster to clarify his post. The poster, instead of giving any sort of answer, asked if it was wrong, then, before any Mod responded, effectively blew a valve and left in a snit.

No action was taken because, as I noted, the issue is not cut and dried.

??? I never objected to anything you did? I objected to posters demanding that you do something which you then didn't do. So it seems we're in agreement?
 
??? I never objected to anything you did? I objected to posters demanding that you do something which you then didn't do. So it seems we're in agreement?
Where did anyone ask for a ban?

Also, do you not see a difference between "nuking China was an option Truman could have taken" and "we should have nuked China, then at least they wouldn't have stayed communist"?
 
Last edited:

Ian_W

Banned
Where did anyone ask for a ban?

Also, do you not see a difference between "nuking China was an option Truman could have taken" and "we should have nuked China, then at least they wouldn't have stayed communist"?

I'm really not sure why people think doing a series of atrocities that make the Rape of Nanking look like a tea party would help the Nationalists and their American allies re-take China.

It is way more likely that China recovers (lets face it, they recovered from the Great Leap Forward), gets it's own nuclear force and is pretty darn implacable towards the United States.

Is half of Korea really worth that ?
 
I'm really not sure why people think doing a series of atrocities that make the Rape of Nanking look like a tea party would help the Nationalists and their American allies re-take China.

It is way more likely that China recovers (lets face it, they recovered from the Great Leap Forward), gets it's own nuclear force and is pretty darn implacable towards the United States.

Is half of Korea really worth that ?
And of course it makes it very clear to everyone else that the US is willing to use the 'nuclear holocaust' option to effect regime change.
This will prompt everyone to acquire nukes of their own, plus it will make the Russians think they might want to get a few more friendly governments around, so break out the nukes.
 
Where did anyone ask for a ban?

Also, do you not see a difference between "nuking China was an option Truman could have taken" and "we should have nuked China, then at least they wouldn't have stayed communist"?

You clearly did, by going around citing the rules and going "INSTANT BANNABLE OFFENSE!!" in all-bold. It's rather unfortunate to see a thread derailed immediately towards arcane rules lawyering. I don't think anyone would be worse off if our reaction to posts that we believe warrant moderation was to 1. report it and 2. move on.
 
You clearly did, by going around citing the rules and going "INSTANT BANNABLE OFFENSE!!" in all-bold. It's rather unfortunate to see a thread derailed immediately towards arcane rules lawyering. I don't think anyone would be worse off if our reaction to posts that we believe warrant moderation was to 1. report it and 2. move on.
No, I didn't. He explicitly asked if his post was against the rules. I then quoted the rules. Nowhere did I ask for him to be banned.
 
Top