Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 4th, 2017, 02:06 PM   #1
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: portland maine
Posts: 2,022
Korean war question


If Pres. Truman followed General MacArthur 's request to allow Chiang 's nationalist army invade China opening a second front might that have changed the outcome of the "war"?
Port is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 4th, 2017, 02:15 PM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 3,809

Quote:
Originally Posted by Port View Post
If Pres. Truman followed General MacArthur 's request to allow Chiang 's nationalist army invade China opening a second front might that have changed the outcome of the "war"?
I could have succeeded if properly supported, especially as MacArthur wanted, with nukes. Without them, even likely with them, upon landing the Chinese Nationalist's divisions (who weren't themselves prepared for such a mission) would mostly likely have been encircled and eliminated, like Bay of Pigs. It wasn't like they were spending all of '50 in Taiwan training for the small possibility that the US would support them in an invasion, they were completely unready for large scale combat operations, the last major one they did was to support themselves the year before when they got chased off the mainland by the commies. Furthermore, MacArthur's bluff carried out would have also triggered a Russian response, either an outright invasion of Germany, or at least a limited attack, as a way of letting us know officially that our aggression in China would not be allowed. The UN wouldn't stop it, both the US and USSR have veto power on any security council resolution (the only sort that hold weight). NATO would have backed the US. Likely that situation in Europe would escalate out of control, the Soviet Union had nukes too in '50 and that would mean WWIII starting when both major powers possess the ability to use their stockpiles and keep making more to use.
aggienation is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 02:27 PM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: uk
Posts: 1,456

I tend to agree that WW3 would have been by far the most likely outcome.
paranoid marvin is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 03:09 PM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 3,809

Quote:
Originally Posted by paranoid marvin View Post
I tend to agree that WW3 would have been by far the most likely outcome.
So did Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley.

Though I still think the whole thing was a political ploy by Mac to cause Mao to limit reinforcing the PVA expeditionary force fighting in Korea. UN forces still held some real cards but when Mac tried to go "all in" his wife Truman intervened, telling him he's not allowed to bet the farm, and dragged him from the ear from the game.
aggienation is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 03:50 PM   #5

jgrooms's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Shawnee
Posts: 310

Mac was a Theater Commander trying to set national policy.

When his communications with Spain, Portugal & Japan were intercepted he had for all practical purposes committed treason.

Truman, at great political risk, rightly sacked the sob & saved us from wwwiii.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jgrooms is online now  
Old January 4th, 2017, 04:08 PM   #6
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 3,809

Treason? lol

Ike made deals with other countries in WWII, string him up too. Oh wait, he was allowed to cause he was a theater commander.
aggienation is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 04:17 PM   #7
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 7,922

Macarthur was not the president; Truman was. As a soldier he was required to defer to and obey his Commander in Chief, something he found very difficult to do because he believed he was better, smarter and superior. He needed to be fired in the worst possible way. Thank heaven Truman did it when he did.
royal744 is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 04:21 PM   #8
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 3,809

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
Macarthur was not the president; Truman was. As a soldier he was required to defer to and obey his Commander in Chief, something he found very difficult to do because he believed he was better, smarter and superior. He needed to be fired in the worst possible way. Thank heaven Truman did it when he did.
Fired yes. For insubordination. Calling it treason waters down that word far more than Mr. Webster would be okay with.
aggienation is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 08:32 PM   #9

A Vietnamese's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: meo
Posts: 1,275

Quote:
Originally Posted by Port View Post
If Pres. Truman followed General MacArthur 's request to allow Chiang 's nationalist army invade China opening a second front might that have changed the outcome of the "war"?
They would be crushed like a bug and counter invaded without US help. The reason China sucks in Korea is because of their logistic problem. While it may be a war on two fronts, US would have to handle both front. Fighting in China mainland gonna be a blow for US and Taiwan. And didnt Stalin has a defend pact with China or something?
A Vietnamese is online now  
Old January 5th, 2017, 02:56 AM   #10

jgrooms's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Shawnee
Posts: 310

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
Fired yes. For insubordination. Calling it treason waters down that word far more than Mr. Webster would be okay with.

Webster:

the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
"they were convicted of treason"
synonyms:treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion; high treason, lèse-majesté; apostasy; literaryperfidy
"the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
the action of betraying someone or something.
plural noun: treasons
"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
synonyms:treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion; high treason, lèse-majesté; apostasy; literaryperfidy
"the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jgrooms is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
korean, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How would Americans view the Korean war if America lost the Korean War? Ashiusx Speculative History 12 August 26th, 2014 01:15 AM
South Korean Propaganda during the Korean War Ashiusx Asian History 75 August 18th, 2014 06:07 AM
Polite question about my question;“The Chronicles of Froissart” rufusandricky Medieval and Byzantine History 6 August 17th, 2013 12:49 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.