|
Post by Beth on Sept 29, 2016 1:26:01 GMT
The Redacted Testimony That Fully Explains Why General MacArthur Was Fired From Smithsonian Magazine link
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 29, 2016 3:37:58 GMT
It's late. I will read the link tomorrow BUT, When you disobey a direct order from the President of the United States, it may very well be to you benefit to take a trip out to the garage, reach up on that high shelf where you store your duffle bag, bring it down, dust it off, because you will be packing it for a trip in the not too distant future.
Here is the issue:
Our Constitution gives the authority of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to the President of the United States. You can argue until the second coming and beyond that MacArthur was right, or MacArthur was wrong is his outlook over how that theater should have been run. That does not matter a fart in a windstorm about your opinion or mine on the matter.
When you disobey the President, you are in fact attempting to undermine the authority vested in him by the Constitution we who have worn the uniform swore to protect and defend. That is never right.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 29, 2016 4:32:07 GMT
I agree but the article is about exactly why Truman wouldn't give his approval to McArthur to expand the war, not justifying the firing.
It does lead to an interesting side question about the solder and the Commander in Chief relationship-what if the President orders an action that is so egregious that it would bring international condemnation and against all rules of warfare-like those subject to the Nuremberg trials? I understand that there is always consequences for disobeying an order but when an order needs to be disobeyed are their checks and balance in place?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 29, 2016 10:32:35 GMT
Did President Roosevelt have trouble with Admiral Ernest King during WW2? I have heard that he disliked not only the British but everyone and ignored warnings over the danger of German U-Boats operating in US waters, apparently the German Subs had a field day in the seas around Canada and the US, and in one month lost around forty ships, and many of these were sunk just off the eastern coast.
I know that both King and Andrews knew that they were lacking in both ships and aircraft, but did they refuse the knowledge that was painfully learnt by the British during the first couple of years of the war?
I know that this is off topic, but when I saw that you were talking about Presidents and military leaders, I thought that I would add the post.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 29, 2016 10:58:18 GMT
Ernest J. King, was relieved by Nimitz as Fleet Admiral on 15 Dec. 1945. Someone must have liked King as he finished out the war in that position. However, since the rank of Fleet Admiral is a lifetime appointment, in the Mafia of the military he was a made man. There are currently no Fleet Admirals in the USN, and have not been since Nimitz died in 1966.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 29, 2016 11:14:34 GMT
I am not a conspiracy theorist, some say that General Petraeus was set up, for his fall. If so shame on him, as either Director Of CIA, or an officer in the US Military he knew what the rules were, you serve at the discretion/pleasure of the Commander and Chief/President. You don't do foolish things and you don't embarrass the president/administration.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Sept 29, 2016 14:22:13 GMT
MacArthur and King both underestimated the man inside Harry Truman! King's arrogance was such that he recognized no equals let alone any superiors. MacArthur believed that he was more popular and powerful than Truman and that Harry would be too weak politically to challenge him.
MacArthur was the Shogun of Japan but not the most powerful man in the world as he thought. As a military man Doug was a genius but he was wrong to opine that an Asian war could have been won by the US even if the A bomb was used. Truman correctly saw the future Doug envisioned would have be disastrous and correctly replaced him as the commander.
Truman has often been overlooked for his actions in bringing WW II to an end as well as preventing WW III. As the years pass by, his place in history has steadily gained more respect and his expertise more acknowledgement. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 29, 2016 14:34:43 GMT
I still have not read the link, but I would be surprised if it contained any more information in depth than, Blair did in "Forgotten War" and Millet in "War In Korea". I will see later today.
More questions, which I hope I have answers for, especially since I have not consumed my first cup of coffee. In doing so I will mention some current political subjects, however they will not be couched in political terms. I will attempt only to present the issue, and then the legal and moral answer, and not the political one.
Tom is correct, all officers serve at the pleasure of the President, regardless of rank and position.
King was an Anglophobe. He was also an arrogant, womanizing bastard of no great moral standing. He was tolerated only because he was absolutely brilliant. I am fully aware of his shortcomings, particularly as they relate to our oldest ally, but I think the dispute between King and the RN has been overplayed. Again Blair goes in to this whole affair in depth in Volume I of the two part "Hitler's U Boat War". It is very true that we got our clock cleaned in the early days of 1942 with Operation Drumbeat. The RN thought that it was caused King flowing resources needed to fight the U Boats along the east coast of Canada and the US to the Pacific. Blair refutes this allegation, and provides tabular evidence as an appendix to back up his statements. Blair was no King lover, and I have seen the evidence. The long and short of it is that the Two Ocean Fleet Navy envisioned at the close of 1940 had yet to produce the resources to do both, and King had to set priorities to address the most pressing requirements. He knew what he was doing and I believe he made the correct decisions, and was willing to accept the losses of merchant shipping. War ain't fun, and you don't always get to do, all that needs doing.
What if the President:
A soldier has the obligation to obey all lawful orders. If an officer finds that in good conscience he cannot obey an order, he still may not disobey, but he may refuse to carry out an order, stating his reasons, and under certain circumstances submit his resignation.
In recent days we have seen two statements from a Presidential candidate one of which is in violation of the laws of war, and the other so provocative, that if given as an order, may very well cause a refusal to obey. The first is an unlawful order. The second falls into the egregious category. Let's examine them.
I order you to torture prisoners to obtain information--- This would be an unlawful order emanating from the President, as it is clearly against the Law of War, and any officer receiving such an order has the obligation to refuse to obey.
I order you Captain, to, if your ship is surrounded by small craft, the crews of which are slipping you the single digit salute, to blow them out of the water forthwith. That is a lawful order, however it is well within the rights of the Captain in question to refuse to obey, or ignore the order, based upon that very narrow set of circumstances.
Were the destroyer in question surrounded, the single digit salute being given, and the actions of the offenders otherwise so dangerous as to place the destroyer in danger, then that Captain should obey.
Two similar circumstances changed only by the amount of danger presented by the offenders to the US ship and crew. No one has the right, neither us or them, to interfere with the freedom of navigation on the high seas, without lawful cause.
Intervention: Truman wanted no wider war in Asia, and neither did our allies or the United Nations under whom we had the lawful authority to operate in Korea. MacArthur's actions, particularly those of cozying up to Nationalist China, and wanting them to commit troops, would have caused a conflagration in Asia, and with the USSR and Communist China being so cozy at the time, probably world conflict. The China Lobby and his Republican Allies in Congress, led primarily by Speaker Martin, had great influence on MacArthur, and Mac bought their crap hook line and sinker. He thought those people were going to pave his way to the Presidency.
Always remember that when George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, and Joe Collins ALL recommend the relief of a Five Star General and holder of the Medal of Honor, what that Five Star did was beyond egregious.
I don't know if any of you heard the President on CNN last night at Fort Lee, before a military crowd. The event was non-political in terms of taking sides in the current election. I believe he gave the most cogent, reasonable, and far sighted reason I have ever heard against the large scale intervention in Syria. By large scale keep in mind that most estimates put the commitment at the level of two corps. He gave several reasons, and if you are interested in what he had to say I suggest you Google it, as I am sure it must be on line by now.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 29, 2016 14:52:28 GMT
I would suppose that from 1945 onward, that none of the western allies wanted to fight any more wars, the British and the French still had their colonies and other places in the middle east that forced them to deploy troops, so the last thing on their minds was to fight the Soviets over Eastern Europe.
Churchill warned of what would happen if we stand back and let Russia kick the Eastern Europeans about, but apart from committing to another full scale war with a jaded army and pretty much no money in the bank, they consolidated with what they had.
I have seen interviews with British troops that visited Berlin after May 1945 and how hostile the Soviet soldiers were to them, they said that the commie troops basically said leave now and keep out, as we fought for this city and not you.
So if we cast our minds forward to what the Russians are doing in Aleppo, then we can see that even today that everything is down to the old alliance of the USA/UK and the French.
The UK and the USA have told the Russians to their face just what they think off their bombing tactics, the French have mumbled something too, but everyone else has said nothing and are just happy letting us confront the Ruskies on their killing of civilians.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 29, 2016 15:17:16 GMT
War is a game of risk and reward, just like sitting down at the Blackjack tables in Vegas.
If you have little in the way of resources to commit, then you take your seat at the low stakes table, and still keep your bets small and manageable.
In the immediate aftermath of WWII none of the Western Nations were in a position to wage global conflict. Keep in mind that NATO had yet to take shape, SEATO was not even thought about yet, Europe and Japan were in economic ruin, and the world in general was sick and tired of conflict. Under those circumstances, conditions are ripe for a bully to enter onto the field of play. That is exactly what happened. The question is, do you have enough resources to take a baseball bat and beat the body of the bully to a bloody pulp, or content yourself with punching the bastard in the nose, and in so doing say - You take one step further, and your ass is mine, - and during the same period gather your strength and cement your relationships to the point where that baseball bat has meaning. Korea was a nose punch. NATO and our other alliances and actions were the turning of the lathe to make that baseball bat a reality.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 29, 2016 15:32:48 GMT
Yes I agree, but if I dig around a bit through history books, I will see that the Russians and Chinese were always backing the trouble makers, you know, countries that were no good. They did this to cause the west as much trouble as possible, even if it meant providing weapons and advisors. China knows that the fat pudding who resides over North Korea is a nut case, but they back him. Russia also backs Iran, which is also ruled by a bunch of backward idiots. In fact try and find a decent nation what China and Russia backs.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 29, 2016 15:53:13 GMT
Nation states do not have friends, they have national interests, that are in alignment with the national interest of others.
China has absolutely no desire to engage in conflict with North Korea. The refugee problem alone would bankrupt them. They will play a waiting game, because their primary national interest is the viability of the Chinese economy.
Russia has been a paranoid state for two thousand years, and is not likely to change. Can't say that I blame them, after century upon century of invasion inspired conflict. They wish to share in the western prosperity, but at the same time also wish a buffer between east and west. Russia, is a powerful, but hollow enemy. This current period will pass away though with the changing of generations, just like our own western societies are in a current period of transition.
We here in the west must come to grips with the idea that the year is not 1950, and those of us of a certain age cannot relive, or live like we are frozen in time. We must adapt to the new realities, and make those new realities as strong and solid as possible, because the past is not going to come back.
The same is true in Russia, and for that matter China. I am not saying do not be watchful. I am also not saying not to give them a good military, diplomatic, or economic punch in the nose when such is deserved. What I am saying is very much like the old song from World War I - How ya going to keep them down on the farm after they have seen Paree. Russia and China will change and that change will be brought about by the rising expectations of the Russian and Chinese people. Don't look for it tomorrow, or next week, but it is coming.
Bad actors will always be abroad in the world. There is not one damned thing that can be done about it directly. It is the indirect approach, using all the elements of DIME, that can reduce the support of the bad actor, and inhibit their very existence. Don't look to the immediate, for this is a multi-hundred year problem, and the efforts to combat it will be equally as long and very complicated. There are simple problems, but on the world stage no simple answers.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 29, 2016 16:07:07 GMT
I will take issue with one of the things you said Ian.
There ARE NO countries that are no good. There are leaders in countries that are no good.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 29, 2016 18:36:17 GMT
I will take issue with one of the things you said Ian. There ARE NO countries that are no good. There are leaders in countries that are no good. I think though that there are countries like Russia, China and others who have a historic mindset that makes it difficult to play well with others. It will take generations to change that mindset even with what the Western world particularly considers good leadership.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 29, 2016 19:44:14 GMT
I agree with you Chuck, that every nation looks after their own interests and have vested interests in the countries that benefit them, but what Beth said is also true, that nations like Russia and Chine like upsetting the apple cart.
|
|