Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did President Harry S. Truman?????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Did President Harry S. Truman?????

    Hate General of The Army Douglas MacArthur?????

    Did he really refer to MacArthur as "His Majesty"?????

    Having watched a Movie about Mac the other night starring gregory peck, how in the hell did Mac just not punch Truman in the nose when they finally get around to meeting?

    Should Mac have been replaced in Korea?

  • #2
    While I do like Mac and what he achieved during his service, yes he should have been fired. Was he right in what he was advocating, who knows? But he was told to stop by his superior and he didn't. So he got canned. Anyone would in any job that doesn't listen to the boss. Right or wrong.

    Quick question; shouldn't this be in the Korean War forum? Just asking.
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

    Comment


    • #3
      This approximate quote from Truman, which I have as yet been able to track down, concerning the firing of MacArthur

      "I didn't fire him because he is a stupid sonofabitch, which he is, but because he wouldn't follow orders".

      It would have certainly been an interesting court martial, the striking of the commander in chief by a five star general.
      "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #4
        Harry S. made the correct decision. Insubordination by any soldier is impermissible. Mac was a premadonna and I'm glad Truman finally called a spade a spade. As for the fist fight, I'd like to see it. I bet Harry could give as good as he got.
        If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think it is fairly safe to say that these two men did not get along very well but did Truman truly hate Mac? I don't think Truman actually ever came out and said that so we will never really know. Truman did do the right thing in "firing" Mac however for the simple reason already listed. He failed to follow the orders of the his Commander in Chief which is a bedrock principle of the Constitution of the United States in that there would be civilian control over the military.
          Now having taken an oath of enlistment and swearing to obey the orders of the President and those officers appointed above me when I joined the Navy, I got curious and went looking for the oath that Mac would have taken as an officer. Interestingly enough at the time Mac entered into the Army the oath he would have sworn in under came from an Act passed in 1884 which dictated the wording of the officers oath as thus,
          "I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
          Notice that at this time there is no reference to following the orders of the President of the United States or the officers appointed above him. This phrase had been in use in the officers oath during the period of the Revolution till after the Civil War when it was changed to this simpler form in 1884. The phrase would return to the oath in 1959.
          info from http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm
          Bill

          "God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy"

          Billy Currington

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by cst784 View Post
            I think it is fairly safe to say that these two men did not get along very well but did Truman truly hate Mac? I don't think Truman actually ever came out and said that so we will never really know. Truman did do the right thing in "firing" Mac however for the simple reason already listed. He failed to follow the orders of the his Commander in Chief which is a bedrock principle of the Constitution of the United States in that there would be civilian control over the military.
            Now having taken an oath of enlistment and swearing to obey the orders of the President and those officers appointed above me when I joined the Navy, I got curious and went looking for the oath that Mac would have taken as an officer. Interestingly enough at the time Mac entered into the Army the oath he would have sworn in under came from an Act passed in 1884 which dictated the wording of the officers oath as thus,
            "I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
            Notice that at this time there is no reference to following the orders of the President of the United States or the officers appointed above him. This phrase had been in use in the officers oath during the period of the Revolution till after the Civil War when it was changed to this simpler form in 1884. The phrase would return to the oath in 1959.
            info from http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm
            There is no need for the phrase because Secton II of the Consitution makes the President your commander-in-chief and gives him the authority to appoint officers which makes them part of the executive branch.
            Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

            Comment


            • #7
              If you thought Truman said some unkind things about the Douglas, you should have seen it when a critic gave a bad review on his daughter in a play! While more than a touch devious (he was a politician!), he also tended to wear his feelings on his sleeve.

              Douglas should have been fired many times during his career. He had more professional lives than a cat!

              I don't think it ever occurred to Douglas to bodily strike his commanding officer. That was what his friends in the Republican Party were there for! At Douglas's level of expertise and accomplishment, you got other people to do your dirty work for you.

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                If you thought Truman said some unkind things about the Douglas, you should have seen it when a critic gave a bad review on his daughter in a play! While more than a touch devious (he was a politician!), he also tended to wear his feelings on his sleeve.

                Douglas should have been fired many times during his career. He had more professional lives than a cat!

                I don't think it ever occurred to Douglas to bodily strike his commanding officer. That was what his friends in the Republican Party were there for! At Douglas's level of expertise and accomplishment, you got other people to do your dirty work for you.

                Pruitt
                Maybe Sutherland would throw the punch.
                Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think he was too tough on Mac

                  Truman was right in doing what he did, that's a given. MacArthur w ould have fought the whole North Korean Army and the Chinese as well if Truman wouldn't have fired him. MacArthur was a great man and an amazing general, but like General Patton, he needed to be on a short leash. The U.S just cam out of a war and it wasn't a good idea to pick another world war. He was just thinking about the image of the country and the opinion of the citizens who would have been extra crispy if the U.S went to war against the Chinese as well.


                  "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." - Winston Churchill.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Skarockater View Post
                    Truman was right in doing what he did, that's a given. MacArthur w ould have fought the whole North Korean Army and the Chinese as well if Truman wouldn't have fired him. MacArthur was a great man and an amazing general, but like General Patton, he needed to be on a short leash. The U.S just cam out of a war and it wasn't a good idea to pick another world war. He was just thinking about the image of the country and the opinion of the citizens who would have been extra crispy if the U.S went to war against the Chinese as well.


                    "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." - Winston Churchill.
                    So what you're saying is that Churchill, that Warmongering Nut, should have been attached to a short leash too?????

                    Now tell me something I didn't know.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Duke William View Post
                      So what you're saying is that Churchill, that Warmongering Nut, should have been attached to a short leash too?????

                      Now tell me something I didn't know.
                      How can you leash the Prime Minister? His party and allies controlled the government. Much like the warmongering Hitler. Only Hitler didn't have to answer to the party or the voters, he only answered to the voices in his head.
                      Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Warmongering nut?

                        Warmongering nut, uh? Do you even know who Winston Churchill was? Let me tell you something, the Nazis were warmongerings, the romans were warmongering, Winston Churchill, was a great lider. He happens to be my favorite character in history. He warned England and the world for that matter, about the Nazi war machine, maybe if they would have listen to him, if would have been possible to defeat the Nazis without destroying Europe. He warned the world again about the Soviet Union communist's iron curtain. He got England through the Second World War with an adamant spirit, and after the war was over, the people of England didn't give him a chance to lead the country. It's true that maybe he wasn't the best man to be Prime Minister in time of peace, but still. When he died, thousands of people attended his funeral. If he was such a warmongering, then why did he do all these things? Why don't you ask yourself that question? I just want to know, why you think of Churchill like that?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Skarockater,

                          I would do some more reading up on Churchill. You got the broad outline, but missed a few items in the fine print. While I would never call Winston a nut, he could be quite ferocious. Why do you think the Royal Navy was mining Norwegian teritorial waters and British troops just happened to land in Narvik after the Germans got there? Who ordered the occupation of Iceland? Who was responsible for bombing Berlin and instituting fire bombing of German cities? The British did a much more thorough job of destroying cities than the Germans did. The people of Great Britain got rid of him afte VE Day because they wanted him gone. Some of those visitors to the funeral may have been passing by to make sure he was really dead...

                          Read up a little on his Mother, Father and Brother and his wife and come back and tell us what you found. I don't mean wikipedia, either.

                          Pruitt
                          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well, it seems that I'm wrong, you're right, Chruchill was a cold ^&%$* as well. He needed to be that way, just like Stalin needed to order the shooting of russian soldiers if they retreated without permission at the Battle of Moscow. Of course, Stalin has always been a cold man and a murderer, no one is a saint. There are no perfect liders, but most of what Churchill did was the right thing to do in a time like that. That's all I'm saying, if we begin digging Churchill dirty little secrets, then everything changes, but a nutjob or a warmongering, that's just uncalled for. Just like Stalin did the right thing shooting his own soldiers if they retreated, after all, if they didn't fight, there were gonna die anyway.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Skarockater View Post
                              Warmongering nut, uh? Do you even know who Winston Churchill was? Let me tell you something, the Nazis were warmongerings, the romans were warmongering, Winston Churchill, was a great lider. He happens to be my favorite character in history. He warned England and the world for that matter, about the Nazi war machine, maybe if they would have listen to him, if would have been possible to defeat the Nazis without destroying Europe. He warned the world again about the Soviet Union communist's iron curtain. He got England through the Second World War with an adamant spirit, and after the war was over, the people of England didn't give him a chance to lead the country. It's true that maybe he wasn't the best man to be Prime Minister in time of peace, but still. When he died, thousands of people attended his funeral. If he was such a warmongering, then why did he do all these things? Why don't you ask yourself that question? I just want to know, why you think of Churchill like that?
                              I just have a personal dislike for the man. Know how he got his job as Prime Minister? For all intents and purposes, according to The Diary of Alanbrooke, Churchill staged a coup of sorts.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X