Let's Talk Bombs

[hobbit]

Having just read "Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" by Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Richard Rhodes, I thought I'd post a couple of fascinating Cold War historical tidbits he was allowed access to.

How Truman sacked General Douglas McArthur: At the height of the Korean War, Truman didn't have the public popularity to sack a man like Douglas McArthur, who'd openly defied and demeaned his commander-in-chief on numerous occasions. In order to fire McArthur once and for all, Truman knew he needed the backing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They too were sick of McArthur, considering him an anachronism, a blowhard, and an embarrassing prima dona, but in order to give their unanimous public backing to the President, they exacted an enormous toll. "We want 9 nuclear bombs to be used at our discretion with your presidential pre-approval". Truman agreed! McArthur was history. Think how different this world might be had the Joint Chiefs deployed those weapons.

Why did they want the nukes? Well they were afraid of China naturally, since a million Red Army troops poured into the conflict, but that wasn't the primary reason. Much has been written about the fire bombing campaign against Japan in 1945. Over a period of just a few months, more than 35 Japanese cities were reduced to smoldering ruins while 1.3 million Japanese civilians were incinerated. 100,000 died in a single night in Tokyo. I was aware of this infamous episode in total war history, but I have to plead ignorance to the fire bombing campaign against North Korea, one brought to light by Rhodes in his tome.

Very few people knew about the fire bombing campaign against North Korea -only the bomber crews, the brass, and the White House. It's been largely kept under wraps ever since. How bad was it? Every city, town, and village in North Korea was reduced to smoldering ruins, while two million North Korean civilians were killed. Two million! It was far and away more devastating than our fire bombing campaign against Japan. From late 1952 on, nearly the entire population of North Korea lived in dugouts, trenches, or makeshift huts...yet they wouldn't quit. The Joint Chiefs felt they had no alternative but to nuke the major population centers of North Korea and were preparing to do exactly that. It'd force China to get out and it'd finally break the will of North Korea...or so they hoped. Thank God diplomacy, such that it was, finally brought the conflict to an end.

If Stephen King’s terror scares the hell out of you, get this book. It’ll keep you up way past your bedtime for several nights in a row.

[al_2ndWolfhounds]

Thanks for sharing. This is one part of our military history of which I was not aware.

[rgrokelley]

Truman, though some think he is a great president today, was just Roosevelt's lackey. He continued Roosevelt's socialist policies, such as his "Fair Deal" which expanded Social Security to the beast it is today (it was meant to expire sometime after the Depression). He also created the United Nations, with the idea that the world's leaders would be able to solve all the world's problems, as long as we just sit down and talk about it (so how's that whole UN talky thing working for ya now?). The only reason he won reelection in 1948 was because Strom Thurmond created a third party, splitting the votes (similiar to Perot making Clinton's victory a guarantee). He is credited as desegregating the military, but he didn't have the balls to take on the Southern democrats. So what he did was give blacks equal pay, but they were still in black units. Historians who glorify him claim this as desegragation. The first UN war, which like all other UN wars, ended as a total failure (no one wins, so everyone can be happy) was mainly due to his inability to lead. McArthur, and other military generals, realized that Truman was fucking the whole thing up, which pushed another great military leader, Eisenhower, to run against him.

When Eisenhower took over he began the dismantling of the Roosevelt/Truman Federal grab for power. Eisenhower, no Kennedy, is the one who signed the first Civil Right Act. He also truly desegrageted the military. Eisenhower balanced the budget not just once, but three times. Due to his influence as the military leader he was able to keep America at peace, not through touchy-feely UN style politics, but by the threat of American force (similiar to what Reagan did in the 1980s). Convincing the Chinese that if they didn't accept peace during the Korean War, they would face extreme circumstances, was a major achievement.

[RangerBob275]

Here's a book that analyzes how NK came about and has details on the forgotten bombing campaign.
We napalmed the hell out of the North.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Flesh Thorn]

Having just read "Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" by Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Richard Rhodes

If Stephen King’s terror scares the hell out of you, get this book. It’ll keep you up way past your bedtime for several nights in a row.

I just checked and my local library has it.

[hobbit]

Truman, though some think he is a great president today, was just Roosevelt's lackey. He continued Roosevelt's socialist policies, such as his "Fair Deal" which expanded Social Security to the beast it is today (it was meant to expire sometime after the Depression). He also created the United Nations, with the idea that the world's leaders would be able to solve all the world's problems, as long as we just sit down and talk about it (so how's that whole UN talky thing working for ya now?). The only reason he won reelection in 1948 was because Strom Thurmond created a third party, splitting the votes (similiar to Perot making Clinton's victory a guarantee). He is credited as desegregating the military, but he didn't have the balls to take on the Southern democrats. So what he did was give blacks equal pay, but they were still in black units. Historians who glorify him claim this as desegragation. The first UN war, which like all other UN wars, ended as a total failure (no one wins, so everyone can be happy) was mainly due to his inability to lead. McArthur, and other military generals, realized that Truman was fucking the whole thing up, which pushed another great military leader, Eisenhower, to run against him.

When Eisenhower took over he began the dismantling of the Roosevelt/Truman Federal grab for power. Eisenhower, no Kennedy, is the one who signed the first Civil Right Act. He also truly desegrageted the military. Eisenhower balanced the budget not just once, but three times. Due to his influence as the military leader he was able to keep America at peace, not through touchy-feely UN style politics, but by the threat of American force (similiar to what Reagan did in the 1980s). Convincing the Chinese that if they didn't accept peace during the Korean War, they would face extreme circumstances, was a major achievement.

This from wikipedia regarding McArthur's WWI service:

"During World War I MacArthur served in France as chief of staff of the 42nd ("Rainbow") Division. Upon his promotion to Brigadier General, he became the commander of the 84th Infantry Brigade. A few weeks before the war ended, he became division commander. During the war, MacArthur received two Distinguished Service Crosses, seven Silver Stars, a Distinguished Service Medal, and two Purple Hearts."

Pray tell, how does a colonel who was then promoted to brigadier general, who spent barely a year on the Western Front, who served as chief of staff and then as an infantry division CO, win 9 of this nation's highest medals for valor? I'll tell you how: he wrote up all the citations himself, then had his mother lobby every contact in Washington she could to promote his career. Then after turning machineguns on WWI vets in Washington, this self-promoting charlatan was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for perpetrating one of the most egregious acts of cowardice in US military history -running away from the Philippines while abandoning his command to Japanese POW camps. McArthur was a self-promoting blowhard, a coward, and a mediocre general at best. I remember perusing Battling Bastards and Corregidor web sites about 12 years ago, gleaning comments from the veterans regarding their take on McArthur. Most considered him a coward. Any other general in any other army at most points in history would have gotten a bullet for what McArthur did. Instead we gave him the medal that most other people have to jump on grenades to get.

[rgrokelley]

Truman, though some think he is a great president today, was just Roosevelt's lackey. He continued Roosevelt's socialist policies, such as his "Fair Deal" which expanded Social Security to the beast it is today (it was meant to expire sometime after the Depression). He also created the United Nations, with the idea that the world's leaders would be able to solve all the world's problems, as long as we just sit down and talk about it (so how's that whole UN talky thing working for ya now?). The only reason he won reelection in 1948 was because Strom Thurmond created a third party, splitting the votes (similiar to Perot making Clinton's victory a guarantee). He is credited as desegregating the military, but he didn't have the balls to take on the Southern democrats. So what he did was give blacks equal pay, but they were still in black units. Historians who glorify him claim this as desegragation. The first UN war, which like all other UN wars, ended as a total failure (no one wins, so everyone can be happy) was mainly due to his inability to lead. McArthur, and other military generals, realized that Truman was fucking the whole thing up, which pushed another great military leader, Eisenhower, to run against him.

When Eisenhower took over he began the dismantling of the Roosevelt/Truman Federal grab for power. Eisenhower, no Kennedy, is the one who signed the first Civil Right Act. He also truly desegrageted the military. Eisenhower balanced the budget not just once, but three times. Due to his influence as the military leader he was able to keep America at peace, not through touchy-feely UN style politics, but by the threat of American force (similiar to what Reagan did in the 1980s). Convincing the Chinese that if they didn't accept peace during the Korean War, they would face extreme circumstances, was a major achievement.

This from wikipedia regarding McArthur's WWI service:

"During World War I MacArthur served in France as chief of staff of the 42nd ("Rainbow") Division. Upon his promotion to Brigadier General, he became the commander of the 84th Infantry Brigade. A few weeks before the war ended, he became division commander. During the war, MacArthur received two Distinguished Service Crosses, seven Silver Stars, a Distinguished Service Medal, and two Purple Hearts."

Pray tell, how does a colonel who was then promoted to brigadier general, who spent barely a year on the Western Front, who served as chief of staff and then as an infantry division CO, win 9 of this nation's highest medals for valor? I'll tell you how: he wrote up all the citations himself, then had his mother lobby every contact in Washington she could to promote his career. Then after turning machineguns on WWI vets in Washington, this self-promoting charlatan was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for perpetrating one of the most egregious acts of cowardice in US military history -running away from the Philippines while abandoning his command to Japanese POW camps. McArthur was a self-promoting blowhard, a coward, and a mediocre general at best. I remember perusing Battling Bastards and Corregidor web sites about 12 years ago, gleaning comments from the veterans regarding their take on McArthur. Most considered him a coward. Any other general in any other army at most points in history would have gotten a bullet for what McArthur did. Instead we gave him the medal that most other people have to jump on grenades to get.

Hey, I'm not that big of a fan of McArthur either.

[Dan B 3/75]

Pray tell, how does a colonel who was then promoted to brigadier general, who spent barely a year on the Western Front, who served as chief of staff and then as an infantry division CO, win 9 of this nation's highest medals for valor? I'll tell you how: he wrote up all the citations himself, then had his mother lobby every contact in Washington she could to promote his career. Then after turning machineguns on WWI vets in Washington, this self-promoting charlatan was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for perpetrating one of the most egregious acts of cowardice in US military history -running away from the Philippines while abandoning his command to Japanese POW camps. McArthur was a self-promoting blowhard, a coward, and a mediocre general at best. I remember perusing Battling Bastards and Corregidor web sites about 12 years ago, gleaning comments from the veterans regarding their take on McArthur. Most considered him a coward. Any other general in any other army at most points in history would have gotten a bullet for what McArthur did. Instead we gave him the medal that most other people have to jump on grenades to get.

One of my history mags did an article on ol' Duggy Mac that was....less than flattering. LOL!

Why? Because the author called it how he saw it based on his actions.

Prior to reading that article, I was not tracking how ol' Duggy made good his exfil from the Phillipines, and when I read that, I was like...

"Huh....WTF!?"

AND the CMH to top it off! Pretty disgraceful imo.

Our leadership strength has been lacking at the General O' level since....a long time imo, not to mention civilian elected leadership.

Guys on the line learn or die, and most opt to learn. ;)

Guys in the rear...not so much.

[rgrokelley]

Pray tell, how does a colonel who was then promoted to brigadier general, who spent barely a year on the Western Front, who served as chief of staff and then as an infantry division CO, win 9 of this nation's highest medals for valor? I'll tell you how: he wrote up all the citations himself, then had his mother lobby every contact in Washington she could to promote his career. Then after turning machineguns on WWI vets in Washington, this self-promoting charlatan was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for perpetrating one of the most egregious acts of cowardice in US military history -running away from the Philippines while abandoning his command to Japanese POW camps. McArthur was a self-promoting blowhard, a coward, and a mediocre general at best. I remember perusing Battling Bastards and Corregidor web sites about 12 years ago, gleaning comments from the veterans regarding their take on McArthur. Most considered him a coward. Any other general in any other army at most points in history would have gotten a bullet for what McArthur did. Instead we gave him the medal that most other people have to jump on grenades to get.

One of my history mags did an article on ol' Duggy Mac that was....less than flattering. LOL!

Why? Because the author called it how he saw it based on his actions.

Prior to reading that article, I was not tracking how ol' Duggy made good his exfil from the Phillipines, and when I read that, I was like...

"Huh....WTF!?"

AND the CMH to top it off! Pretty disgraceful imo.

Our leadership strength has been lacking at the General O' level since....a long time imo, not to mention civilian elected leadership.

Guys on the line learn or die, and most opt to learn. ;)

Guys in the rear...not so much.

I will give McArthur the benefit of the doubt on the Phillippines. That was the time that he followed the Commander in Chief's orders. Since he was ordered to go, he could have stayed, but then he would have been used as a huge propaganda tool for the Japanese. Phillippines were going to fall no matter what, so Roosevelt realized that taking McArthur would be a huge public relations nightmare, and demoralizing to the friendlies.

[hobbit]

I will give McArthur the benefit of the doubt on the Philippines. That was the time that he followed the Commander in Chief's orders. Since he was ordered to go, he could have stayed, but then he would have been used as a huge propaganda tool for the Japanese. Philippines were going to fall no matter what, so Roosevelt realized that taking McArthur would be a huge public relations nightmare, and demoralizing to the friendlies.

Maybe so, but then the same argument could be made for Eisenhower during the Battle of the Bulge when German troops fluent in English, dressed in American military garb, were all over behind our lines looking to knock Ike off. Rather than fleeing to England, he went into hiding in the basement of a French chateau for two weeks until all the infiltrators could be found. Not even Montgomery, who was scurrying around the front in an open jeep, knew where he was, an episode over which the British field marshal made great purchase in his autobiography after the war, coming very close to calling Ike a coward. That was unfair of course. Had our Western Theater commander been captured or killed by German commandos, it would have been a far greater disaster than McArthur ending up in a Japanese POW camp.

As to labeling Truman Roosevelt's "lackey", that's not only unfair but completely inaccurate. Senator Harry S. Truman had his mug shot on the cover of Time magazine for the first of 9 times in 1943, a year before he was placed on the ticket with Roosevelt. He'd headed up the "Truman Committee" which was credited with saving the US $15 billion in military supply graft -equivalent to at least $150 billion in today's dollars. He busted a lot of heads along the way and made a lot of political enemies, but he endeared himself to the American taxpayer/voter. That was a fact not missed by the democratic party election committee which took the unprecedented expedient of bumping a standing vice president, Henry A. Wallace (whom they considered "too liberal") off of the 1944 ticket, replacing him with Senator Harry S. Truman. And let's never forget who ushered in the age of atomic warfare, taking sole responsibility on himself for having given the order. Unlike our current president, when Harry Truman said “the buck stops here”, he meant it.

One more point that should be touched upon: Animosity between McArthur and Truman didn't start with the Korean War, rather it started in WWI. McArthur was CO of the 42nd Infantry Division, Captain Harry S. Truman his commander of artillery. When American forces were decimated during the Battle of Ourcq, recriminations pointed to a lack of artillery support. McArthur blamed Truman for the massacre, but whose fault was it really? The artillery commander awaiting orders from his division CO, or the division commander trying to pass blame off on anyone but himself? Who bares ultimate responsibility in such cases, especially in the military? I’ve often wondered if Stanley Kubrick and Calder Willingham based their screenplay for “Paths of Glory” at least partially on this McArthur/Truman hostility. Though the movie plays out within the French army, the similarities are striking.

[Rock Island Ranger]

Im not near the Historian you gents are nor as aware of details surrounding Gen. Mac. The details I DO know speak to an egomaniac who words "I" have returned make me blanch. Something like 8 different film segments having him step off a landing craft putting him in a "special light" seem arrogant at best. Poetic, an Orator of repute, but seldom cast victory at the foot of those who sacrficed the most. He was not above taking credit for what others did for him. HE did not free the Phillipines. Thousands of men and women did who fought, actually fought, freed the Phillipines.

IKE, different man altogether. Very few things have I seen about him lead me to any conclusion other than he was an excellent leader and loved by his men. A man who had the weight of Europe on his shoulders and made some incredibly ballsy calls. Men typically dont love their commanders when the commanders are blundering ego driven dick weeds.

[Jim]

One more point that should be touched upon: Animosity between McArthur and Truman didn't start with the Korean War, rather it started in WWI. McArthur was CO of the 42nd Infantry Division, Captain Harry S. Truman his commander of artillery. When American forces were decimated during the Battle of Ourcq, recriminations pointed to a lack of artillery support. McArthur blamed Truman for the massacre, but whose fault was it really? The artillery commander awaiting orders from his division CO, or the division commander trying to pass blame off on anyone but himself? Who bares ultimate responsibility in such cases, especially in the military? I’ve often wondered if Stanley Kubrick and Calder Willingham based their screenplay for “Paths of Glory” at least partially on this McArthur/Truman hostility. Though the movie plays out within the French army, the similarities are striking.

Truman commanded a field artillery battery in the 35th Infantry Division in WWI. Missouri Army National Guard. He was a popular commander and the members of "Captain Harry's" battery supported his political aspirations in the post-war years.

[hobbit]

One more point that should be touched upon: Animosity between McArthur and Truman didn't start with the Korean War, rather it started in WWI. McArthur was CO of the 42nd Infantry Division, Captain Harry S. Truman his commander of artillery. When American forces were decimated during the Battle of Ourcq, recriminations pointed to a lack of artillery support. McArthur blamed Truman for the massacre, but whose fault was it really? The artillery commander awaiting orders from his division CO, or the division commander trying to pass blame off on anyone but himself? Who bares ultimate responsibility in such cases, especially in the military? I’ve often wondered if Stanley Kubrick and Calder Willingham based their screenplay for “Paths of Glory” at least partially on this McArthur/Truman hostility. Though the movie plays out within the French army, the similarities are striking.

Truman commanded a field artillery battery in the 35th Infantry Division in WWI. Missouri Army National Guard. He was a popular commander and the members of "Captain Harry's" battery supported his political aspirations in the post-war years.

This from Douglas McArthur's wikipedia bio. It would seem to indicate that Truman's battery was under McArthur's command at the time. If not, I stand corrected:

"MacArthur and Donovan had crossed paths under less than ideal circumstances during the Hundred Days Offensive. Donovan's battalion had been decimated in battle at the Ourcq. MacArthur arrived after the battle's close, as the wounded Donovan was being taken out by stretcher, and demanded an explanation of the battalion's heavy casualties. Donovan correctly explained that they had received no artillery support; whereupon MacArthur sought out and castigated the artillery commander responsible for the area: Captain Harry S. Truman, the man who would one day relieve MacArthur of command for insubordination."

[K.Ingraham]

Which goes to show why you do not use Wikipedia for anything but the most basic facts, like "Harry Truman was a president of the United States". Beyond that, forget it.
You'd have to do some actual research to determine the location of those divisions on the day, and who was opconned to whom and how support was divvied out etc. I'm not sure a mere battery commander would be in charge of the DS guns for a battalion in a neighboring division. Communication technology in 1918 didn't allow for 'on the fly' reorganisation.

OKelley got it right concerning Mac's leaving the PI & the Eisenhower metaphor doesn't cut it for reason already explained above. MacArthur had to be pulled for political reasons and his bogus MoH (SOLDIERS DO NOT EARN THE CMH. That is a CIVILIAN medal is is NOT to be confused with the MoH.). MacArthur and that B17 commander, Colin Kelly, who supposedly sunk a Jap battleship, were made heros for propaganda purposes at a time when the nation desperately needed them, having our asses handed to us by a bunch of "near sighted bucktoothed gardeners".
Back to that incompetent loser MacArthur. He deserves scorn not for leaving the PI, but for his utterly incompetent defence of the PI. He ignored prewar planning, gave up too often, too soon and failed to see to it that staff procedures occured to support the orders he did give. Why is there such a shortage of popular histories of the liberation of the Phillippines or New Guinea campaigns? Aside from his bungling of the early New Guinea fighting (thank you Australian Gen Hobart, for preventing another allied fiasco) MacArthur required that all press coverage from the SWPTO was about him. All media releases went through his staff. Therefor, no one knows or remembers outstanding commanders like Ekelberger (sic) who commanded 6th Army in the P.I. liberation.
When CG of 6th Army was unfortunate to have had Time magazine put him on the cover one week, Dugout Doug had this commander, whose troops were in action, leave the AO, fly out to Mac's HQ off of western New Guinea, basically 2-3 days away from Ekelberger's command. Why? So Mac could wave that copy of time in E.'s face and berate him, telling him that "there is only one commader in this theater and dont you forget who that is" (paraphrased).
The liberation of the PI was some of the most bitter, tough ground combat fought by the US in the war. Today it is entirely forgotten, (aside from that wee US Navy near-fiasco where the Japs snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, but that's still another story) Thr entire role of the US Army in the Pacific has been sidelined by Mac, who basically let popular history believe that the Pacific was a Marine war. It wasn't. Far more soldiers, far many more amphib landings were made by the Army, whcih fought over the worse terrain of the American slice of WW2, with the possible exception of the CBI. In my best professional historian's voice "fuck MacArthur" for his semi-incompetent vainglorious leadership and for stealing the valor of his soldiers and sailors.
Korea was my primary scholarly focus but there is just too much to write about Mac's command failures throughout the war, the A-Bomb issue, the genocidal bombing campaign of Korea and its still-felt consequences to write tonight. Too much writing due for school and work. Maybe later.