Discussion:
What if Gen. Douglas MacArthur had refused to be relieved of duty
(too old to reply)
Byker
2019-11-24 18:33:33 UTC
Permalink
While it wasn't made known until after his death in 1972, reportedly Pres.
Harry Truman's most paranoid fear during the Korean War wasn't an escalation
into WWIII. It was when he relieved Gen. Douglas MacArthur of command, and
he feared the great I-shall-return war hero would refuse to step down, and
the Chief Exec would have a military mutiny on hands. Being ever the dutiful
soldier, MacArthur obeyed. MacArthur returned to the States to a hero's
welcome and ticker-tape parades, while Truman was reviled and there were
loud demands for his impeachment on Capitol Hill. His approval rating
dropped to 23%, the lowest of any president EVER. He could only seethe as
MacArthur toured the country, making patriotic, inflammatory speeches.

He felt vindicated after what happened in France in 1958 and 1961, when the
generals refused to withdraw from Algeria and France teetered on the brink
of civil war:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1958_crisis_in_France


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_putsch_of_1961

Just think what might happen today if the Prez ordered action taken against
protesting war veterans like when President Herbert Hoover ordered the U.S.
Army to clear the "Bonus Army's" campsite in 1932. Army Chief of Staff Major
General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry,
supported by six tanks, assisted by one Major Dwight Eisenhower. The Bonus
Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, with two
deaths, and their shelters and belongings burned:


Try that today and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would probably confront the
President and say in effect, "Mr. (Mrs.?) President, we will no longer
follow your orders." Game over...
Dimensional Traveler
2019-11-24 19:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
While it wasn't made known until after his death in 1972, reportedly Pres.
Harry Truman's most paranoid fear during the Korean War wasn't an escalation
into WWIII. It was when he relieved Gen. Douglas MacArthur of command, and
he feared the great I-shall-return war hero would refuse to step down, and
the Chief Exec would have a military mutiny on hands. Being ever the dutiful
soldier, MacArthur obeyed. MacArthur returned to the States to a hero's
welcome and ticker-tape parades, while Truman was reviled and there were
loud demands for his impeachment on Capitol Hill. His approval rating
dropped to 23%, the lowest of any president EVER. He could only seethe as
MacArthur toured the country, making patriotic, inflammatory speeches.
He felt vindicated after what happened in France in 1958 and 1961, when the
generals refused to withdraw from Algeria and France teetered on the brink
http://youtu.be/IfUXmOw2GC0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1958_crisis_in_France
http://youtu.be/QG8Rcr2nqbk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_putsch_of_1961
Just think what might happen today if the Prez ordered action taken against
protesting war veterans like when President Herbert Hoover ordered the U.S.
Army to clear the "Bonus Army's" campsite in 1932. Army Chief of Staff Major
General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry,
supported by six tanks, assisted by one Major Dwight Eisenhower. The Bonus
Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, with two
http://youtu.be/sNOsIB5VMSQ
Try that today and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would probably confront the
President and say in effect, "Mr. (Mrs.?) President, we will no longer
follow your orders." Game over...
I think en masse resignations would be what happened rather than
refusing orders and trying to stay in their positions.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Byker
2019-11-24 23:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
Try that today and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would probably confront the
President and say in effect, "Mr. (Mrs.?) President, we will no longer
follow your orders." Game over...
I think en masse resignations would be what happened rather than refusing
orders and trying to stay in their positions.
The Chief Exec might take them seriously if he/she looked out an Oval Office
window and stared down the barrels of a half-dozen tanks...
Phil McGregor
2019-11-25 00:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by Byker
Try that today and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would probably confront the
President and say in effect, "Mr. (Mrs.?) President, we will no longer
follow your orders." Game over...
I think en masse resignations would be what happened rather than refusing
orders and trying to stay in their positions.
The Chief Exec might take them seriously if he/she looked out an Oval Office
window and stared down the barrels of a half-dozen tanks...
Maybe.

It would also signal the end (or the beginning of the end) of anything
resembling democracy in the Republic and its recreation as a Banana
Republic or Military Dictatorship.

I suspect that American military leaders might have understood this
...

Phil McGregor
Dimensional Traveler
2019-11-25 03:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by Byker
Post by Byker
Try that today and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would probably confront the
President and say in effect, "Mr. (Mrs.?) President, we will no longer
follow your orders." Game over...
I think en masse resignations would be what happened rather than refusing
orders and trying to stay in their positions.
The Chief Exec might take them seriously if he/she looked out an Oval Office
window and stared down the barrels of a half-dozen tanks...
Maybe.
It would also signal the end (or the beginning of the end) of anything
resembling democracy in the Republic and its recreation as a Banana
Republic or Military Dictatorship.
I suspect that American military leaders might have understood this
...
I'm certain they understand that. A position on the Joint Chiefs is at
least as much a political post as a military one.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
SolomonW
2019-11-25 09:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
While it wasn't made known until after his death in 1972, reportedly Pres.
Harry Truman's most paranoid fear during the Korean War wasn't an escalation
into WWIII. It was when he relieved Gen. Douglas MacArthur of command, and
he feared the great I-shall-return war hero would refuse to step down
How could MacArthur refuse to be relieved? The police would have been
called.
Rich Rostrom
2019-11-26 19:09:01 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Byker
While it wasn't made known until after his death in 1972, reportedly Pres.
Harry Truman's most paranoid fear during the Korean War wasn't an escalation
into WWIII. It was when he relieved Gen. Douglas MacArthur of command, and
he feared the great I-shall-return war hero would refuse to step down, and
the Chief Exec would have a military mutiny on hands. Being ever the dutiful
soldier, MacArthur obeyed. MacArthur returned to the States to a hero's
welcome and ticker-tape parades, while Truman was reviled and there were
loud demands for his impeachment on Capitol Hill. His approval rating
dropped to 23%, the lowest of any president EVER. He could only seethe as
MacArthur toured the country, making patriotic, inflammatory speeches.
If Macarthur had refused an explicit lawful order
from the commander in chief, he would have been
arrested and court-martialed. Whatever the public
may have thought, Macarthur had almost no friends
in the Army aside from his toadies.

Omar Bradley was then Army C-in-C and Chairman of
JCS. He was anti-Macarthur, and urged Truman to
relieve him.

The probable effect would have been to discredit
Macarthur. He would have to try to justify his
defiance by claiming that he was right and everyone
else was wrong about what to do in Korea. This
would lead to a critical examination of his actions,
exposing the bungling which allowed the Chinese
attack to succeed.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Loading...