• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MacArthur at Inchon

swing_voter

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
13,042
Reaction score
8,462
Location
'Murica
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Did Inchon prove MacArthur was a military genius?

I don't think much of his performance during WWII.
 
Did Inchon prove MacArthur was a military genius?

I don't think much of his performance during WWII.

I think MacArthurs actions, both domestically and as commander in Korea, show that he fully understood the threat of communism.

That’s good enough
 
Did Inchon prove MacArthur was a military genius?

I don't think much of his performance during WWII.

No. In fact MacArthur's actions after Inchon showed how limited he was as a commander. He was just 20 miles from Seoul, facing minimal resistance, but it took two weeks to get there. On top of that, he decided to go for Seoul instead of cutting off the retreating North Koreans, despite being in a perfect position to do so.

Inchon was clever, but MacArthur proceeded to ruin it by clamping down on his stupid mistakes by then leading UN forces north and willfully ignoring that the Chinese were planning on intervening, which then resulted in the longest retreat in US history.

It's very telling that after he was fired and returned home, his popularity sunk once everyone realized he was really a delusional, raving lunatic obsessed with his own self-glory.
 
Did Inchon prove MacArthur was a military genius?

I don't think much of his performance during WWII.

Wouldn't call it "genius". What it did show was that he was bold and willing to take chances most commanders wouldn't. In retrospect the North Koreans were overextended and exhausted. When their supply lines were cut by the landings and breakout they ran like rabbits.
 
Wouldn't call it "genius". What it did show was that he was bold and willing to take chances most commanders wouldn't. In retrospect the North Koreans were overextended and exhausted. When their supply lines were cut by the landings and breakout they ran like rabbits.

I envision some 2nd Lieutenant coming up with the "Let's go around them" suggestion... And GenMac taking all the credit.
 
“Dugout” Doug!

CITATION:
The President of the United States of America, in the name of Congress, takes pleasure in presenting the Medal of Honor to General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur (ASN: 0-57), United States Army, for conspicuous leadership in preparing the Philippine Islands to resist conquest, for gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against invading Japanese forces, and for the heroic conduct of defensive and offensive operations on the Bataan Peninsula. General MacArthur mobilized, trained, and led an army which has received world acclaim for its gallant defense against a tremendous superiority of enemy forces in men and arms. His utter disregard of personal danger under heavy fire and aerial bombardment, his calm judgment in each crisis, inspired his troops, galvanized the spirit of resistance of the Filipino people, and confirmed the faith of the American people in their Armed Forces.
- from the link

Douglas MacArthur - Recipient -
 
Gen. MacArthur's Inchon landing was the perfect military maneuver: it was a surprise attack on a lightly defended target that was essential to the enemy.

After Inchon Zhou Enlai told the United States through India that the Communist Chinese government would not oppose the presence of South Korean troops in North Korea, but it would not allow American troops to reach the Yalu River, which was the border between North Korea and Communist China. The Communist Chinese had legitimate security concerns: in 1931 Japan invaded Manchuria through Korea.

After Inchon Walter Lippmann wrote that the United States should conquer the southern half of North Korea, and leave the northern half as a buffer zone between Communist China and the United States. By conquering half of North Korea, and annexing it to South Korea, North Korea would not be strong enough to again threaten South Korea. Instead, MacArthur demanded unconditional surrender of the North Korean government, and moved to the Yalu River. As a result, the War in Korea continued for another three years.
Subsequent events have proved Walter Lippmann right: a more restrained response to North Korean aggression would have achieved a better result sooner, and less expensively in lives lost, buildings destroyed, and money spent.
 
Last edited:
I used to like MacArthur, but that was because I didn't know my history.

Ergo, anyone seriously defending MacArthur needs to do some more reading. The man was a psychopath, and I say that as someone who was no fan of Truman, who very likely was racist.
 
Did Inchon prove MacArthur was a military genius?

I don't think much of his performance during WWII.

MacArthur was a great general. His only problem in Korea was that he wanted to actually win and was under the mistaken belief that USG also wanted to win. That difference is what led to him being sacked.
 
I used to like MacArthur, but that was because I didn't know my history.

Ergo, anyone seriously defending MacArthur needs to do some more reading. The man was a psychopath, and I say that as someone who was no fan of Truman, who very likely was racist.

I recommend McCullough’s “Truman.” It’s about a million pages; I am listening to it as an Audible offering. I am presently at September or so 1948, during the election campaign. It is very informative. My dad was a WW2 vet and he always said that Truman was underrated, in his opinion.
 
MacArthur was a great general. His only problem in Korea was that he wanted to actually win and was under the mistaken belief that USG also wanted to win. That difference is what led to him being sacked.

Spoken like someone who truly has no idea what he is talking about.

I know you try really hard to pull off the intellectual heavyweight routine, but it would help if you actually made good points.
 
In reality, there's very little about MacArthur's military career that actually suggests he was a great general.

He got himself a division right before the end of the WWI, thanks in large part to his mother lobbying for him to get one. During the interwar years he was involved in the Bonus Army fiasco, and then just prior to his initial retirement insisted that he be awarded the first Purple Heart. When recalled to active service he was given command of the Philippines, where he then failed to put in practice the very war plans he helped design when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. He then bugged out (in fairness he was ordered too), but then insisted on getting a Medal of Honor (the citation which he authored himself), while denying it to General Wainwright, who had remained behind with his men and was forced to surrender. He then set up his headquarters in Australia, surrounding himself with Yes Men while spending the rest of the war being a pain in the ass to the Navy. He insisted on re-taking the Philippines, after doing so appointed a Japanese Collaborator to rule because he knew that MacArthur had been given a cash payment from the former Filipino President.

While occupying Japan he washed over the various crimes of the Japanese Emperor, and in Korea he willfully ignored the evidence of the impending Chinese offensive, resulting in a disaster for the UN forces that was averted only after Ridgeway took command. Its no small surprise that after MacArthur returned to the US, calls for him to run for President dropped off considerably once he was allowed to speak freely and everyone realized what an pompous, egotistical jackass he was.

He's not the worst American General (Inchon was clever, and his performance as a field commander was decent), but he was one of the most egregious, and hugely overrated. Someone once told me that it was good that Patton had died in Europe because had he lived he almost certainly would have found himself under MacArthur in Korea, and probably would have fragged the mother****er.
 
MacArthur was a great general. His only problem in Korea was that he wanted to actually win and was under the mistaken belief that USG also wanted to win. That difference is what led to him being sacked.

The US government had no interest in starting a global nuclear war. When that’s your definition of “winning” you’ve already lost.
 
The US government had no interest in starting a global nuclear war. When that’s your definition of “winning” you’ve already lost.
Neither China nor Korea had nuclear weapons at the time. Of course, that wasn't the real reason anyway.
 
Neither China nor Korea had nuclear weapons at the time. Of course, that's not the real reason, is it?

The Soviet Union did, was already heavily involved in Korea, and was run by a man who would have had absolutely no problem with pushing the button.

If the US had “wanted to lose” no troops would have been sent to Korea in the first place. Your little conspiracy theory has absolutely no basis in fact.
 
The Soviet Union did, was already heavily involved in Korea, and was run by a man who would have had absolutely no problem with pushing the button.

Of course. Naturally you would disapprove of any course of action that could've upset Stalin.

If the US had “wanted to lose” no troops would have been sent to Korea in the first place.

They didn't precisely want to lose. By 1950 some of them realized that Stalin wasn't their man, so they did prefer for South Korea to remain free. But they also had enemies at home, who would benefit from any unambiguous military victories over the communist bloc. Thus the need to pretend that actually winning was impossible because reasons.
 
Of course. Naturally you would disapprove of any course of action that could've upset Stalin.



They didn't precisely want to lose. By 1950 some of them realized that Stalin wasn't their man, so they did prefer for South Korea to remain free. But they also had enemies at home, who would benefit from any unambiguous military victories over the communist bloc. Thus the need to pretend that actually winning was impossible because reasons.

I disapprove of any action which would have ended in nuclear war. In case you missed it, the US getting nuked is not, in fact, a good thing :rolleyes:

So in other words you’ve got nothing more than hysterical accusations without the slightest shred of evidence to back up your claims.....as usual.
 
Back
Top Bottom