Talk:Relief of Douglas MacArthur/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Relief of Douglas MacArthur. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

What do you mean, 'It ain't neutral?'

Wow, four lines under 'Support for Truman', but twenty eight lines under 'Support for Macarthur'. How can it possibly be thought that this article represents a neutral point of view? RichardH (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Ultimatum to China

For the life of me I can't find any primary source or direct text of MacArthur's Ultimatum to China which is supposed to be so important. It's mentioned in almsot every secondary source, but just doesn't seem to exist. Anyone who can find it please say so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timt1006 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a quote of it, but still not the primary document. See what you can do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.240.95.32 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A full text of the statement was published in The New York Times on 8 March 1951 on page 3. 165.91.65.12 (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)RKH DANG IT! wrong statement from Mac. The ultimatum was a few weeks later. Excerpts can be found in Truman's memoirs, volume two, pp 440-441. There's no confusing its tone: "The enemy must be painfully aware that a decision by the United Nations to depart from its tolerant effort to contain the war to the area of Korea, through an expansion of our military operations to its coastal areas and military bases, would doom Red China to the risk of imminent military collapse." All that's missing is the "boo-ya." 165.91.64.118 (talk)RKH —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

The communique is quoted in the article. Of course MacArthur was not aware that Truman was already attacking China's coastal areas, and was bringing up nuclear weapons. This too is covered in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What's left that needs to be cleaned up?

A tag was placed a couple months ago that the article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Since then, several editors have made improvements to the article. Is there anything else left that needs should be cleaned up? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've noticed the following:

Not all the references are filled out with publisher, author, date, etc.
The lede isn't a summary of the article. We need to make sure the info in the lede is also in the body of the article.
Some sentences are unsourced. The sources may very well be somewhere in the article, but we should try to make sure each sentence itself has a source.

Anything else? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the tool I typically use for filling out cite templates is this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Name of article

This article is called "Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur"; however, Truman himself refers to it as "relief" and this is the proper military term. The "dismissal" of a military officer is a punishment handed down by a court-martial and is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge in the United States (only enlisted soldiers are "discharged"). General MacArthur was never dismissed. Thoughts?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. If no one objects, I will rename the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to start changing the word in the text and see what people think of that.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it looks like you already did many of them, I did a few more, leaving only the quotes and article titles.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

But "relief" is a noun that has a different meaning 99.99% of the time. How about "relieving"? - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Less ambiguous possibly, more awkward probably. I'm relatively neutral, either one is definitely better than dismissal.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "relief" which sounds less awkward and more encyclopaedic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking this to the ACR. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ACR?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Relief of General Douglas MacArthur. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should leave it for a bit and see what other comments come in, we've just made the move. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated at the ACR link, I understand the issue, I have no objection to any reasonable alternative, except ones using "dismiss", I still think we should wait a bit, but maybe some comments will come in from the ACR referral.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The MacArthur Museum seems to prefer "relief". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well they would, wouldn't they. A strong vote hee for 'replacement', as it is a more value-neutral term than either relief or dismissal, and is the word that Truman used in his letter to Macarthur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.165.7 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

How about the "Truman-MacArthur Controversy"? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not too comfortable with it. It implies equivalence between the Commander in Chief and a subordinate two levels below. It seems to me that there needs to be a sense in the title that this was an action taken by Truman. Dismissal or Replacement meet that need, although I acknowledge that dismissal is ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.165.7 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hagiography masquerading as History

Why is the word 'relief' used throughout this article, rather than 'removal', 'dismissal' or 'replacement'. Relief has an air of nobility not warranted in this case. I believe that 'replaced/replacement' is a more appropriate word in this context, as that is the word Truman used in his letter to Macarthur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.165.7 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2011‎ (UTC)

MacArthur's failure to salute Truman.

The article claims MacArthur shook hands with Truman instead of saluting, which is true. The article also called this "an uncharacteristic departure from protocol for MacArthur." That is not true. According to David McCullough's Truman, MacArthur regarded saluting as archaic, and he preferred a handshake. Whether MacArthur held any animosity toward Truman is certainly open to debate, but his failure to salute Truman was not so unusual.97.73.64.166 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

David McCullough is incorrect. MacArthur was a stickler for protocol. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If MacArthur was such a stickler for protocol, why did he constantly wear his famous beat-up cap, even though it was not regulation headgear? It seems to me the burden of proof is on you. I cited a reputable historian as the source for my information. You cited nothing. 67.237.189.239 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am citing Pearlman, with a page number, unlike you. McCullough is a reputable journalist, not a historian like myself. And you may want to check the article on protocol. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're a historian? Pardon me if I take that claim with a bit of salt (I could claim to have known MacArthur personally, but that wouldn't make it true). That being said, it turns out McCullough wasn't the one who made the comment after all. I'll have to find the correct source, but I know I read that MacArthur regarded saluting as archaic.67.237.189.239 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I have that problem all the time. Let me know if you find it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Cargo trucks

In the section it is said, that the 1950 cargo trucks were of the M35-type but the article of the truck type says that it was not introduced before 1951. Which truck type is meant here? --Bomzibar (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The source does not say, but I would have thought it was the older WWII type. Switched the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Another thing: The link of reference 41 only leads to the main page and not to the article anymore. --Bomzibar (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Link rot. I've repaired it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quote and Reference 107

In the quote that is references with McCollough 1992, p. 998 it is said that Truman wanted to kick MacArthur into the North China Sea. Does that stand in the references book? If so, there should be a [sic] behind North China Sea as no such sea exists. --Bomzibar (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See for yourself Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then I will use a [sic] in my translation, you can decide on your own if you want to do so in this version. Thank you and regards --Bomzibar (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Another reference-hint: The link in reference 151 is broken and only links on the main page. --Bomzibar (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the broken link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Congressional inquiry

In the section it is said that in their testimony Marshall and the JCS stated they did not kept MacArthur always fully informed. I ask myself about what they did not kept MacArthur informed? --Bomzibar (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Many things. To name just three that are very important: (1) the government's decision on nuclear weapon deployment in 1951; (2) the government's peace overtures to China, which we still don't know much about; and (3) the commando raids and covert ops against China, which MacArthur kept recommending without knowing that the government was already undertaking them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so they did not communicate all of the government decisions immediately. Thank you --Bomzibar (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Truman's literacy in comparison

In the article, Truman is compared poorly to MacArthur in terms of schooling. I don't think that is fair, correct or appropriate. In biographies of Truman, he is said by many to have been very well-read, remarkably so:

McCullough, p. 33 "He read the Bible (twice through by the time he was twelve, he later claimed), 'pored over' Plutarch's Lives, a gift from his father, and in time to come, read all of the new set of Shakespeare."
McCullough, p. 49 "He grew dutifully, conspicuously studious, spending long afternoons in the town library... 'I don't know anybody in the world that ever read as much or as constantly as he did,' remembered Ethel Noland. 'He was what you call a "book worm."' History became a passion, as he worked his way through a shelf of standard works on ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome... 'Reading history, to me, was far more than a romantic adventure. It was solid instruction and wise teaching which I somehow felt that I wanted and needed.' "
McCullough, p. 80 "'I was reading Plato's Republic this morning,' he also informed her at one point, 'and Socrates was discoursing on the ideal Republic...' "
McCullough, p. 196 "Indeed, Margaret could not recall her father sitting down quietly at home without a book in his hand."
McCullough, p. 275 "We worship Mammon; and until we go back to ancient fundamentals and return to the Giver of the Tables of Law and His teachings, these conditions are going to remain with us."
McCullough, p. 331 "All I remember is that the book he was reading was Volume III of Douglas Southall Freeman's biography of Robert E. Lee."
McCullough, p. 923 "He had been thinking about the 'lure in power,' and the example set by his hero Cincinatus, the Roman general who had turned away from power."
McCullough, p. 1098 "For as far back nearly as he could remember, Truman had held to the ideal of the mythical Roman hero Cincinatus, the patriot farmer who assumes command in his country's hour of peril, then returns to the plow."
McCullough, p. 1099 "A cartoon in the Saturday Review showed a small boy with glasses and a book under his arm, a boy very like Truman had been..."
McCullough, p. 1165 "His books became his life more and more."
McCullough, p. 1166 "...Truman had been sitting in a chair in the bedroom with several new books stacked on a table beside him. Did the President like to read himself to sleep at night, McCormick asked. 'No, young man,' said Truman, 'I like to read myself awake.' "
Truman's diary, July 16, 1945: "I thought of Carthage, Baalbek, Jerusalem, Rome, Atlantis, Peking, Babylon, Nineveh, Scipio, Ramses II, Titus, Herman, Sherman, Genghis Khan, Alexander, Darius the Great -- but Hitler only destroyed Stalingrad -- and Berlin. I hope for some sort of peace, but I fear that machines are ahead of morals by some centuries and when morals catch up perhaps there'll be no reason for any of it."
The Words of Harry S. Truman, p. 92 "There isn't any difference between Hitler and Mussolini [or] in the Tarquins of ancient Rome, in the Kings of Sparta, in Charles I of England, and Louis XIV — and Stalin. They are all just alike. Alexander I of Russia was just as much a dictator as any other that ever existed."
The Words of Harry S. Truman, p. 30 "The power of the Kremlin [1951] is more effective, more violent, more far-reaching than the power of the bloodiest of the czars, or the power of Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Louis XIV, Charles V of Spain, or the power of any other of the tyrants of the past."
The Words of Harry S. Truman, p. 23 "[The president] has more duties and powers than a Roman emperor, a general, a Hitler or a Mussolini; but he never uses those powers or prerogatives, because he is a democrat (with a small d) and because he believes in the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. But first he believes in the XXth Chapter of Exodus, the Vth Chapter of Deuteronomy, and the V, VI & VIIth chapters of the Gospel according to St. Matthew. He should be a Cincinnatus, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, a Cato, Washington, Jefferson and Jackson all in one."
The Words of Harry S. Truman, p. 24 "I wonder how far Moses would have gone if he'd taken a poll in Egypt? What would Jesus Christ have preached if he'd taken a poll in Israel? Where would the reformation have gone if Martin Luther had taken a poll?"
Walter LaFeber, on the book Talking with Harry: "Ralph Weber's fascinating discovery gives us the unvarnished Truman passing judgement on everything from Ancient Rome to nineteenth-century politics..."
Matthew Algeo, Harry Truman's Excellent Adventure: The True Story of a Great American Road Trip, page 54. "He never went to college, but Harry Truman was as well read as any president... Hihs reading list was impressive, to say the least: Plutarch, Dickens, George Eliot, William Makepeace Thackeray, every Shakespeare play and sonnet, the Koran."
David C. Unger, The Emergency State, p. 61. "Yet Truman was an intelligent, well-read man, a shrewd politician, and a World War I combat veteran."
Gary Donaldson, Modern America, p. 5. "President Truman 's decision to drop the bomb is interesting. Truman was an intelligent man; if nothing else, he was well read in the history of the world."
William Henry Chafe, The Unfinished Journey, p. 54. "Although well-read in history, Truman's experience in foreign policy was minimal."
Max J. Skidmore, After the White House, p. 123. "The Library was one of Truman's fondest achievements. He was not a scholar, but he was very well read, particularly in history..."
John McCain and Mark Salter, Hard Call, p. "Although Truman had less formal education than most of his predecessors, he was an extraordinarily well- read man... He could quote 'old Cicero' or Plutarch or Marcus Aurelius as correctly and aptly as could a Harvard scholar. And he was very well versed in the philosophy and history of the American republic. He had a genuine and animating devotion to the country's founding texts, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."
Williamson Murray, Richard Hart Sinnreich, James Lacey, The Shaping of Grand Strategy, p. 230. "Truman was smart, widely and well read, but not deeply educated."
Melanie Kühn, Iron Curtains on Paper, p. 46. "Consequently, Truman's appearance changed the situation tremendously. Not only was he was intelligent and well-read but also healthy and able to tackle much more work in the White House than Roosevelt."
Robert Mann, The Idiot's Guide to the Cold War, p. 84. "He was scrupulously honest, decisive, highly intelligent, and well read, especially in history."
Roy Jenkins, Truman, p. 13. "Truman was in some ways the superior of Roosevelt... He was at least as well read in history and biography as was Roosevelt. He was steeped in the history of the Republic and particularly the presidency, but he was also a considerable expert on the lives of the Roman emperors and of almost every great military commander in the history of the world."
Alan Brinkley, Davis Dyer, The American Presidency, p. 21. "Though remarkably well read, and eager to keep learning, he remains the only twentieth-century president without a college degree."
Margaret L. Coit, Mr. Baruch, p. 553. "He was well-read. As Senator he had taken night classes in law and carried his books home afterward. Now he was doing his homework in the White House, leaving the office at night with briefcases bulging under his arm. David Stowe... has recalled that his capacity for learning and absorption was 'tremendous.' Stowe would 'brief him,' packing an uncanny amount into three minutes and, by test, Truman could reel it all off word for word an hour or so later. When insomnia dogged him, he would read himself to sleep with the Federal budget."
Terry Golway, Give 'Em Hell, p. 21. "Although he was astonishingly well-read, he never attended college."
George Manos, Daniel Lindley, The President's Pianist, p. 31. "He was not only a firm and decisive leader. He also was an extremely intelligent and well-read man with a quick and incisive mind."
Harold Foote Gosnell, Truman's crises, p. 35. "As you know he has no formal education beyond high school, but he certainly is well read and well informed."
Robert H. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman, p. 72. "As a schoolboy in Independence Truman had been a voracious reader and music similarly fascinated him. During his later years in politics he enjoyed a reputation as a well-read man and one who had more than a passing acquaintance with music."

I think with this mass of commentators observing Truman's high state of literacy, we are bound to include the little sentence I suggested earlier: "However, he was well-read in the classic histories of Rome, Greece and the Middle East." This offers a much-needed balance to the biographers who are more sympathetic to MacArthur than to Truman. Truman has quite a few of his own fans in this regard, and he is not considered the inferior of MacArthur in terms of classic education. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

McCullough fails to point out that knowledge of Latin was a requirement to enter university back then. So Franklin Roosevelt, for example, would have known Latin at least to this level. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, they both had the same classical education, but MacArthur was valedictorian of his high school. Everybody agrees that Truman was "well read", so I have gone with that. Military history seems to have been a passion with both. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Salute

I have heard of the salute slight before but never understood it. As a someone that was awarded the MOH tradition dictates that Mac would not have to salute Truman. As someone that was proud of his service Truman would have known this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.12.126 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I would not be prepared to say that Truman did not; there is no evidence that he saw it as a slight. And MacArthur, who worked in the White House under Theodore Roosevelt, knew protocol by heart. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

statement should be modified about civilian control of the military .......

" Civilian control of the military was not guaranteed by the constitution." - not true! This may be the cite's author's opinion, but the Constitution clearly states that the President is the Supreme Commander of the military. Also note: http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=45870 HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Civilian control of the military is so ingrained in America that we hardly give it a second thought. Consider the case of the Governor General of Canada, who is, under the constitution, the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces. What actually authority does he have in this role? None, really; the role is symbolic. So what is the difference? The wording is almost exactly the same. As the Wikipedia article (and the news article you cite - thanks for that!) point out, the American interpretation of the role has been something that has evolved over time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hammer is correct. The article text is wrong—it even contradicts itself. It says "Civilian control of the military was not guaranteed by the constitution." This is followed by the contradictory explanation that not just the president but also Congress is in control of the military. Well, lookie there, we have many civilians in Congress and one civilian in the Executive branch who are controlling the military, all directed to do so by the Constitution. I am fully in favor of ridding this article of the incorrect analysis. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, he's wrong, and the article is correct. The constitution merely divided responsibility for the military between the executive and the legislature. This meant that any attempt by one branch to assert control would likely involve a clash with the other. Re-read Huntington. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Two [civilian] branches of the government having a "clash" over control of the military is still civilian control of the military. It's that simple. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Along the lines of Billy Big Ears' famous a decision not to make a decision is still a decision? Okay, give me a few days while I work out another wording. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wake Island conference

This article says that MacArthur greeted Truman on the tarmac, having arrived on Wake Island the day before. It implies that the meeting between the two followed immediately. When discussing Truman's reaction to the meeting, it mentions MacArthur's appearance but nothing about timing.

I remembered something I saw in a movie about the event, and wondered if it was true or invented. I found this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-colbert/harry-truman-talks-about_b_621832.html article which supposedly quotes from " 'Plain Speaking,' an oral biography of Truman by Merle Miller." There are quotes from Truman about MacArthur's appearance, but also this, which agrees with the movie I remembered:

"I got there on time, but he was forty-five minutes late, and this meeting - - it was just between the two of us you understand....

When he walked in, I took one look at him at I said, 'Now you look here. I've come halfway around the world to meet you, but don't worry about that. I just want you to know I don't give a good goddamn what you do or think about Harry Truman, but don't you ever again keep your Commander in Chief waiting. Is that clear?'

His face got as red as a beet, but he said, he indicated that he understood what I was talking about, and we went on there."

Not sure if this is a conflict or merely additional information. If I was sure it was additional, I'd add it, but I don't want to contradict the existing article if it's better sourced than my information is. Gms3591 (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Before we go any further, you should read the article on Merle Miller. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I was not aware of the controversy. One would think, if the interviews were filmed, or even audio-taped, that the controversy could be settled, but apparently some of the interviews were not, and the only record is Miller's notes? In any case, I agree the authenticity of that quote is in doubt. Gms3591 (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Dereliction of Duty II quote re Petraeus is misrepresented

Based off a quick skim it seems that Davis is describing the political climate at the time, not his personal views, when he says Petraeus was a real war hero. The article makes it sound like the latter is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.112 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of wandering off-topic, I've expanded the quote to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

MacArthur provoking China

In his 1996 book, Inchon to Wonsan: From the Deck of a Destroyer in the Korean War, Alexander says "In short, MacArthur was undertaking to carry out his own foreign policy program independent of, and in direct contravention to, the administration in Washington, D.C., which he felt was controlled by subversives."

The recent edits by Winslowl appear at first to contravene Wikipedia's rules about WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:No original research, since they are anchored by citations to Navy action reports and deck logs. However, the attendant citations of books and articles by William Manchester, Edward J. Marolda and James Edwin Alexander are where you'll find the connection made between the destroyers assigned dangerous duty in Chinese territorial waters near Swatow, and MacArthur's attempt to rework foreign policy by inviting a hostile reaction from China.

Perhaps the recent text is too detailed, but if we rework it, let's keep the basic idea, that MacArthur was provoking a larger war. Binksternet ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 04:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Winslowl makes a fundamental mistake: the Seventh Fleet and the naval forces around Formosa were not under MacArthur's command. They were part of CINCPAC. The action must have been ordered by Washington. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

When we talk about a "larger war", we have to keep this in perspective. MacArthur did not believe that expanding the war with China would could a war in Europe with the Soviet Union. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Aside from content concerns as noted above, the formatting and expression is not suitable for a Featured Article. I'm sure it's been added in good faith but I'd recommend removing these recent edits and, if the gist of it is in fact deemed appropriate, re-writing and re-adding subsequently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, true. And after seeing the new autobiography of our friend User:Winslowl, I am even more concerned about whether this material has never been published, in which case we would be in violation of WP:No original research. Action reports and deck logs do not on their own make a story into something that has been published—they are primary sources. This story ought to be taken, at least the main thrust of it, from books and articles in WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The most relevant source I can find is the article by James Edwin Alexander.

Alexander, James Edwin (February 1997). "'Who's In Charge Here?' – The destroyer John A. Bole (DD-755) got up close to the Chinese in 1951". Naval History. 11 (1). Annapolis, Maryland: U.S. Naval Institute: 48–50.

I don't have the article itself, just the title scraped from an online search, but its sub-title tells us a lot about what can be found. Anybody have a copy? Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

EBSCO only goes back to 1999. I'll have to look for a paper copy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have the article. It can be downloaded from http://www.usni.org/proceedings-and-naval-history-archives. Cost is $4. Winslowl (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I now have the article, too, after spending four bucks. The magazine article was three pages long, but its text, rewritten by Alexander in condensed form to fit the magazine, is largely contained within Alexander's 1996 book, Inchon to Wonsan, spread out from pages 67 to 85 to 91 and then more specifically 166–173. So if you are looking for bang for your buck, get the whole book. New, it's $29; used it's anywhere from $3 to $17 on Amazon.

Alexander certainly fingers MacArthur as having tried to goad China into firing upon American naval units, which they refused to do. There's no original research being done on Wikipedia with regard to that idea. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I avoided using Alexander's 1996 book, Inchon to Wonsan as a reference since, although the pertinent information is factual, some of the writing is fiction, e.g. the ship's name, the narrator's name and rate, his sweetheart, the month the ship arrived in Korean waters, etc. All of the significant incidents are factual, but many occurred on other ships and some combat activities described in the book had occurred while the John A. Bole was still in California.

None of what I wrote is based on personal observation. I had reported aboard the Bole 16 days before 11 April as assistant engineering officer. The morning of 11 April, I was aware that we were close to the Chinese coast on a secret and potentially dangerous mission. My General Quarters station was in the after engine room and I recall it as being the longest and most boring General Quarters period of my life, 5-3/4 hours. Noon meal was brought to us on station. Crew members going up for a pit stop reported seeing the junks and I assumed they were curious fishing vessels. Later they reported a lot of aircraft. After we secured from General Quarters I considered the whole operation to be a non-event. Since it was secret it was not discussed and I forgot about it until 43 years later when Jim Alexander at a ship's reunion told me he had succeeded in getting the operation declassified under the Freedom of Information Act and was preparing to write about it. I was flabbergasted and confirmed his description of events with others whom I knew had been in a position to see what was occurring.Winslowl (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Would be interested in this. On the ground, Ridgway had prepared an offensive known as Operation Rugged, and pressed MacArthur for permission to launch it. On 15 March 1951, the day after Seoul had be recaptured a second time, Truman had responded to a reporter's question about whether UN forces would again be allowed to move north of the 38th Parallel by saying that it would be "a tactical matter for the field commander". MacArthur thereupon gave Ridgway permission to launch his attack, setting an objective line north of the 38th Parallel that would secure Seoul's water supply. He did so without consulting with Washington until the attack actually began on 5 April 1951. It was making steady progress when MacArthur was relieved on 11 April.

The Naval operations that we are talking could have been part of MacArthur putting pressure on the Chinese. (Alexander's claim that Taiwanese troops were highly trained and well-equipped is wrong.) And while MacArthur did press Washington to authorise covert operations against mainland China, he was unaware that these operations were already being carried out! We really need a better source. The connection with MacArthur's dismissal remains a hypothesis, and is Original Research. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rule against users engaging in their own original research does not apply to authors such as James Edwin Alexander. Alexander did perform his own research and he did put forward his explicit conclusion that MacArthur wanted to goad China into firing upon US forces. Is it a hypothesis? Certainly. But it's not against Wikipedia policy to mention it, I think with attribution to Alexander as it is not a widely held notion. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not a widely held notion because the incident remained secret for 43 years. My reviews of the Navy deck logs make it evident to me that there was an attempt by involved senior naval authorities to prevent the role of the three destroyers from ever becoming pubic. After all, most, if not all, shared MacArthur's views concerning the handicap placed on them by the restrictions Washington was placing on operations. Very few, if any, approved of MacArthur's actions in publicly defying the Commander-in-Chief. Assuming they had been operating under the direct orders of MacArthur, orders that they personally approved of and would, themselves, have been insubordinate with respect to MacArthur had they not carried them out, nevertheless could have been implicated had the roles of the destroyers become public.

Had it not been for Alexander this incident would never have come to light. Unfortunately, Alexander's revelations did not reach a large audience. Deck logs are required to document the presence of other vessels that might affect the navigation of a vessel. The logs of the Bole make no mention of the 47 junks that impeded the Bole's navigation. In 1951, deck logs were hand written, then within a day or two, typed by the ship's office and signed a day or more later by the officer who wrote them. This left a lot of opportunity for "cooking the books" and it appears to me this was done on orders of higher authority. I personally knew there were numerous junks out there that should have been logged. They were not logged. The above is one item of several I discovered in the deck logs and will be subjects of further research, but not suitable for Wikipedia at this point.Winslowl (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There are several reasons that I, personally, cannot accept the probability or even the possibility, that MacArthur was unaware of what the Navy was doing. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and MacArthur were very concerned about reports that China might be preparing for an invasion of Taiwan. The order for redeployment of Task Force 77 to the Formosa strait could possibly have originated in Washington and most certainly approved by Washington.

With respect to the stationing of the destroyers near the mainland, I cannot conceive of that order originating from either Washington, ComNavFE or ComSeventhFleet considering the temperament of the latter two and the policies of the administration. Only MacArthur had the temperament to place a ship with over 250 crewmembers at high risk of capture or loss of life. Washington wanted to contain the war, so such a move would have been counterproductive in its eyes. The admirals may have agreed with their theater commander that the risk was worth the potential benefit in terms of total lives lost and resources expended by war's end, but would never have assumed the responsibility without the the theater commander's approval, particularly since they would have been acting counter to national policy.

The deck logs of the Bole match the movements and events on the fictitious Borland in Alexander's 1996 book, Inchon to Wonsan beginning 24 September when the Borland received orders to immediately proceed to Sasebo, which they did, leaving behind several crew members on authorized liberty. Alexander cites evidence that preparation for the heightened possibility of the Bole being captured by the Chinese may have been initiated at that point with planning being initiated at an earlier date. VADM A. D. Struble was relieved by VADM H. M. Martin as Com7thFlt on 28 March, 4 days after Bole seems to have commenced preparation for its role in the 11 April action, thus involving yet another admiral in an action counter to national policy. I cannot perceive of anyone but MacArthur ordering the action, especially since it was MacArthur who was reported as having alerted the right wing governments of Spain and Portugal.Winslowl (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I did a re-edit. I had to eliminate mention of the other two destroyers since I am not aware of any published article mentioning them. I also removed all references to logs, etc. The formatting of the references may require some correcting.Winslowl (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am proposing to delete the first paragraph of this sub-section and add a new sub-section entitled "Diplomatic dispatch intercepts" immediately before this one. The proposed sub-section to read as follows:

In 1951 the National Security Agency (NSA) routinely eavesdropped on foreign diplomatic dispatches to their capitals of friends and foes alike. Knowledge of the NSA's practice was a tightly held secret at the time known to only a very few, not even MacArthur. March 1951 intercepts of dispatches from the Tokyo embassies of Spain and Portugal, both run by right-wing dictatorships, described conversations with General MacArthur in which the general expressed confidence that he would succeed in expanding the Korean War into a full-scale conflict with the Chinese Communists. The information was passed to Truman in mid-March and only he and 3 or 4 of his closest advisers were aware of its nature. Truman was enraged to learn that MacArthur was not only trying to increase public support for his position on conducting the war, but had informed foreign governments that he planned to initiate actions that were counter to United States policy. Truman had no choice but to relieve MacArthur of his commands at the first opportunity, but was unable to act immediately since he could not reveal the existence of the intercepts and because of MacArthur's popularity with the public and political support in Congress.

Following the release on April 5th by Representative Martin of MacArthur's letter dated March 20th, Truman concluded he could relieve MacArthur of his commands without unacceptably damaging his own ability to successfully govern.

References will be: Goulden, Joseph C. (1982). Korea, The Untold Story of the War (1st McGraw-Hill Paperback edition 1983 ed.). Chapter 18: McGraw-Hill Book Company. pp. 476–478. ISBN 0-07-023580-5.

Marshall, Charles Burton. "Interview Transcript of Oral History Interview with Charles Burton Marshall by Niel M. Johnson in Washington, DC, June 21 and 23, 1989, pp. 115-117". Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Retrieved 27 October 2015.

Nitze, Paul H. (1989) From Hiroshima to Glasnost, (Details pending, awaiting receipt of book)

Comments are welcome.Winslowl (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The National Security Agency (NSA) was not created until 1952. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Goulden referred to it as the NSA, but in 1951 it was the AFSA (Armed Forces Security Agency). Due to some shortcomings, changes were made and it was redesignated the NSA in 1952. Goulden was either unaware of the name change or chose not to confuse his readers.Winslowl (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You can view the entire Charles Burton Marshall oral history interview at https://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/marshall.htm Winslowl (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons

Is someone able to check the references on Macarthur's denial he ever advocated the us of nuclear weapons? The reason I ask is that in "The Origins of the Korean War, Volume 2" (Princeton), p.750, author Bruce Cumings says the following: "According to British sources, on December 9, 1950, MacArthur requested commander's discretion to use atomic weapons. On December 24 he submitted a "a list of retardation targets" for which he needed twenty six atomic bombs. He also wanted four to drop on the "invasion forces" and four more for "critical concentrations of enemy air power."" AND "The United States came closest to using atomic weapons in early April 1951, precisely the time that Truman removed MacArthur. Although the documents are sketchy on this episode, it would appear that, as with the removal of rollback-advocate Louis Johnson, Truman nearly traded MacArthur for his atomic policies. On March 10, 1951, MacArthur asked for something he called a "'D'Day atomic capability" to retain air superiority in the Korean theatre (meaning he would hit Manchurian airfields with atomic weapons)." Archival references are given. (Aside: it does seem odd the Cumings is forced to rely on British sources). Given the JCS recommended their use perhaps the Wikipedia article is technically correct that MacArthur never advocated the use of nuclear weapons but that would only be because he didn't have to.

A common criticism of Cumings was his heavy reliance on British sources; but the article is written from American sources, so perhaps there is a bias the other way. (Cumings' claims that the south attacked the north attracted most of the controversy about his book.) Schnabel is very highly reliable, as he was an official historian both of the Korean War and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have double-checked much of it against the primary documents. The British source of the 9 December 1950 comment probably arises from notes of the December 1950 meetings between British and US officials. This is intriguing, but I am not given a lot of confidence from what I have been able to double-check (such as the plan to seal off the peninsula, and Ridgway's consideration of tactical nuclear weapon use in June 1951). I haven't got Cumings here, so I'll have to get hold of a copy and find out what sources her was using. If need be, we can get a British Wikipedian to check with Kew. I am willing to add the above to the article, sourced to Cumings; but not to change the conclusion, which remains the consensus among historians, and is not necessary in conflict with the above. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Cumings puts in quote marks "'D'Day atomic capability" so presumably this is from a document MacArthur wrote or authorised. This indicates a fact in contradictions with 'consensus among historians' you mention.

Not necessarily. It seems to be in relation to the possibility of a Soviet attack already mentioned, which caused Truman to release bomb assemblies from the stockpile and send them to Guam. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Those paragraphs and even the references are repeated in large part in "Spring Thaw For for Korea's cold war?" Bruce Cumings, pp.14-23 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol.48 No.3 April. available at https://books.google.com.au/books?id=cgsAAAAAMBAJ&lpg

Got that here, but it doesn't give a source. Cumings has repeated this in a number of other articles, but the source points back to the book.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: Cumings Chapter 21 footnote 136 for the first reference are as follows "FO317, piece no.84073, Bouchier to FO, December 9, 1950; G-3 Operations file, box 37-A, "Actions Necessary to Conclude the Korean Operations," July 6, 1951, Annex A, July 1951; Willoughby Papers, box 8, interviews with Bob Considine and Jim Lucas in 1954, printed in New York Times, April 6, 1964"

The FO message is the source of the 9 December 1950 claim. Checked the second part. It is about the plan to seal off Korea with radioactive poisons, as already mentioned in the article. While it was considered at Washington's request, no request was made, nor did he recommend it. The bit about Ridgway is similar; he was asked to designate atomic bomb targets. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

And footnote 138 for the second paragraph mentioned. (The quote above is the first four sentences of the paragraph.) "G-3 Operations file, box 38-A, "Actions Necessary"; Vandenberg Papers, box 86, Vandenberg to Norstad, March 14, 1951; MA, RG6, box 1, Stratemeyer to MacArthur, March 31, 1950; Walter S. Poole, History of the JCS, vol. 4, The Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Policy (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1983), pp.151-52. Tjej (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Have Poole here. It is about the build up of forces in Europe. Page number could be wrong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That's definitely the pages in the reference which are repeated in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article mentioned above. Oddly I can't see Poole's book listed in Cuming's bibliography. I added the next sentence to the first quote which is " ... On December 24 he submitted a "a list of retardation targets" for which he needed twenty six atomic bombs. He also wanted four to drop on the "invasion forces" and four more for "critical concentrations of enemy air power."" On face value he seems surreal that Cumings can quote a document like this, unless this quote is just the second hand British notes, and MacArthur can confidently deny he ever advocated the use of nuclear weapons. Given the military crisis facing the UN forces at the end of 1950 I was actually surprised to hear MacArthur's claim he hadn't advocated their use. FYI: The Wikipedia article on MacArthur himself repeats the points of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur#South_to_the_Naktong.2C_North_to_the_Yalu. Tjej (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dates & Nuclear Weapons

In the Nuclear weapons section in mentions "In 1985 Richard Nixon recalled discussing the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with MacArthur" That got to be a typo, 1965 is more believable - briefly by months before MacArthur's death. Wfoj3 (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The statement is saying that in 1985 Nixon recalled the discussion, not that the discussion took place in 1985. Of course if the reference mentions when the discussion with Mac did take place, it might be worth adding but I don't have access to the book. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Does not follow

"An apolitical military was an American tradition, but one that was difficult to uphold in an era when American forces were employed overseas in large numbers. The principle of civilian control of the military was also ingrained, but the rising complexity of military technology led to the creation of a professional military. This made civilian control increasingly problematic when coupled with the constitutional division of powers between the President as commander-in-chief, and the Congress with its power to raise armies, maintain a navy, and wage wars."

I'd like to suggest a re-write of the above paragraph. The conclusions do not at all follow from the facts given. The US armed forces have indeed been apolitical. There is nothing inherent in overseas deployment that should change that, whether in large or small numbers. Likewise, the complexity of modern technology and the rise of a professional military are not, in any way, a force that weakens civilian control. Indeed one could argue the opposite - that modern technology makes civilian control easier, not harder. Consider the obvious example of LBJ's personal involvement in selection of bombing targets in Vietnam; this is a level of tactical control that, say, Woodrow Wilson could not have had. Finally, the separation of powers is written into the Constitution and the President has been understood as commander in chief since the 1790s when George Washington personally led troops while sitting as President (the only President to do so).

MacArthur had a long history both of insubordination and of pretty openly advocating insubordination. He had allowed his name to be circulated as a Presidential candidate. MacArthur, not the system, was deeply at fault. I'd like to at least break the implied causal chains in that paragraph as a start.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is why the dismissal is so important, and that goes to the constitutional crisis. The matter is about the very meaning of the president's role as commander in chief, and of that of the Congress (not the president) to wage wars. Historians have argued the "commander in chief" was intended to largely symbolic, like that exercised by the British monarch. And the apolitical military was an ideal, rather than a reality throughout the history of the republic; war is inherently political in nature, and there has been a long history of military involvement in domestic matters. As the article makes clear, MacArthur did not have a long history of "insubordination". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course he did. My god. At any rate, the cited paragraph is nonsensical. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article makes some very definite statements about issues that are very definitely disputed. For example, it largely relies on books from 1972 and 1985 to justify the section that completely disavows MacArthur's consideration of nuclear force in Korea. I can point to much more recent reliable works that support the claim that MacArthur requested atomic bombs, including Stanley Weintraub's MacArthur's War, Richard Rhodes's Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. We also have his 1954 interview where he spoke of the strategy he would have employed:

"I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria from just across the Yalu River from Antung (northwestern tip of Korea) to the neighborhood of Hunchun." Considine reproduced in New York Times

Even a publication that this article cites in the same paragraph presents a different narrative than the article provides:

Roger Dingman, "Diplomacy During the War," International Security 13, no. 3 (1988-1989): 57 [1] (citing the "Minutes of MacArthur-Collins-Vandenberg conference")
- "when Vandenberg asked MacArthur about how he might cut off Chinese communist forces if they entered the fighting, the old general replied that he saw 'a unique use for the atomic bomb' in isolating them in North Korea. If Vandenberg would 'sweeten up' the B-29 force at his disposal, the job could be done."

Neither of these indicate that MacArthur did or did not advocate, but this possibility (or at the very least this interview) isn't even mentioned, while "MacArthur did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons to recover the situation" is stated as fact. That is telling. I get the overwhelming impression that one or a handful of editors have confused a Wikipedia page for an apologia or at least a thesis: this article is presenting an argument, and I can't help but believe that individual editors have rendered judgement on various reliable sources, excluding those sources that they believe to be inaccurate. This is not to say that these editors are not correct in their judgement, but such a determination is not a Wikipedia editor's job. It appears that sources that contradict the editors' beliefs have been left off of the article, which gives the false impression of consensus. --137.54.46.152 (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have checked Weintraub, Alexander and Rhodes, but there is no support for the claim. I have added the 1954 interview to the article. The Vandenberg comment is interesting, but refers to July 1950. Note that B-29s on Guam could not operate over Manchuria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Mea culpa: I did not mean to suggest that MacArthur wanted to use the a-bomb to "recover the situation"; just that he openly considered the bomb usage, which the article does not include. Still, key thing: MacArthur's words are his words, and how his words are interpreted by reliable sources are just that, so the B-29 issue isn't really pertinent here. It's not up to WP editors to determine that an interpretation is incorrect.

As to the sources you checked:
- Here is Rhodes's page 444 (in case we have different versions here's a rough transcription):
  - "MacArthur had grandiose plans to block a Chinese or Soviet invasion if it came.... Macarthur pointed out to an emissary from the Joint Chiefs that routes that led the country from Manchuria and Vladivostok had 'many tunnels and bridges. I see here a unique use for the atomic bomb - to strike a blocking blow-which would require a six-month repair job." Rhodes, 444.
- Here is Weinstaub, page 263 (From the chapter called "The Nuclear Option")
  - "[MacArthur] sent the Pentagon a list of what he described as 'retardation targets' for which he wanted thirty-four atomic bombs. Four were (in Paul Nitze fashion) to drop on Chinese troop masses and four were for 'critical conccentrations of enemy air power.' Since no such airfields existed in Korea, the bombs had to be meant for Manchuria." (Weinstaub adds in a footnote that a secret study commissioned by the Army determined that thirty-four nuclear bombs would not be enough.)

As it stands, this Wikipedia page that contradicts your typical social studies textbook (see Fleming & Kaufman (1990), "The Forgotten War: Korea"), the sources that it relies on, and MacArthur's own words, but most egregiously it does so without even acknowledging that it is doing so. Not only does it fairly defiantly state that MacArthur did not support atomic bombings (which is contestable enough), but it pretends like that is an uncontroversial statement.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have incorporated some additional sources. I have moved the July 1950 deliberations (expanded a bit) up to their chronological place, so people don't get confused about that. I have added additional material from Rhodes, Cuming and Crane to the nuclear weapons section. Do we still want to remove the first statement? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks great! Though I still have concerns over the discrimination on sources. For example, apparently Cummings and Weinstaub disagree. Per your text, Cummings says that MacArthur did not recommend dropping the bomb, and he sent a list of sites that would require 26 atom bombs (... since this wasn't a recommendation, I guess Cummings argues that Macarthur sent this list ... for fun?) But Weinstaub says that MacArthur did advocate that these bombs be dropped and that the number was 34, also detailing a John Hopkins study (secretly commissioned by the army) that determined that 34 bombs would not be sufficient. Is there a Wikipedia-policy related reason why one reliable source is being relied on to the exclusion of another reliable source?--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Weintraub says "He also sent the Pentagon a list of what he described as 'retardation targets' for which he wanted thirty four atomic bombs." So Wienstaub and Cumings are in agreement except on the number. I normally avoid using Weintraub when he doesn't say where he gets his information from, as in this case; but Crane also says thirty four. By comparing Cumings with Crane, I find the document they both are using is "Action to Conclude Operations in Korea" dated July 1951. (I note in passing that Ridgway revised the figure to 38 in May 1951.) I've gone with 34. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems dangerous (re: Weinstaub) ... only because it is not a Wikipedia editor's job to evaluate a reliable source (that constitutes Original Research). If it meets the standards of a reliable source (and a scholarly work by Weinstaub certainly does), then that is really the end of the discussion. It is also okay to include disagreement ... if another reliable source says 38, that number should be included in addition to the 34: Wikipedia articles are not meant to present a uniform perspective on a debate (just the opposite!). Relatedly, can Weinstaub and Crane can be reconciled with the current line, which reads, "Although MacArthur did not recommend that atomic bombs should be employed" --199.111.209.187 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they can, because Macarthur submitting a plan does not constitute "recommending" or "advocating" it. A similar situation happens further down, where the Joint Chiefs insist that they only "concurred" with the relief of MacArthur, and did not "recommended" it. I inserted a note saying that Cumings says 26, while Weintraub and Crane say 34. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That dichotomy in language is absent from Weintraub, who says MacArthur "wanted" thirty-four atomic bombs. Nor is it found in Russell D. Buhite in Douglas MacArthur: Statecraft and Stagecraft in America's East Asian Policy: "Evidence strongly suggests that [MacArthur] did wish to use the bomb and made his wishes clear to Washington" (137). Nor is it found in Beau Grosscup's Strategic Terror. Once again, the article presents something as unequivocally true, when, in fact, it appears that not only is there considerable debate, but the article's stance is the minority position.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Schnabel is the official history of the Korean War and of the Joint Chiefs, and his statements represent the consensus among historians. And Weintraub says this:

Despite that, when queried by the Joint Chiefs later in the month [of December 1950] about how he would respond to Soviet intervention, or even more massive Chinese intervention, intended to drive reeling UN troops completely from Korea, MacArthur again refused to consider using the Bomb. It It would be practical, he thought, only to prevent or protect the ultimate fallback. The war might have to be widened. he suggested to forestall termination of his mission.

The 24 December plan is in response to this request from the Joint Chiefs for a contingency plan covering this scenario, but it definitely does not represent MacArthur's preferred turn of events. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You are making conclusions that the authors do not make, that's a WP:OR issue. You are also stating disputed information as fact based on your preferred authors, another WP:OR issue. (And another is your evaluation of Schnabel, which is coupled with a flaw in thinking that a 1972 consensus is a modern consensus.) The consensus seems to be that MacArthur wanted those bombs dropped, but regardless - that does not matter: what matters is that multiple reliable sources say that MacArthur, indeed, wanted and advocated for the bombs. It's not one or two questionable authors; it's multiple historians. (And yes ... that is the Weintraub paragraph ... chronologically before the paragraph in which he details that MacArthur wanted the bomb ... also, very convenient to leave out the statement that caused Weintraub to lead with "Despite that" in your selection ... that MacArthur requested field commander's discretion to employ nuclear weapons, and that nuclear weapons be stockpiled in Okinawa.)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I searched for MacArthur and the bombs just to get an overview of where various modern authors stand - I'm including some textbooks here, not as reliable sources we should use, but just to show how widespread this is:

Authors Who Explicitly Say MacArthur Advocated or Wanted to Use the Bomb	Authors Who Maintain His Submitted Plan Was Not What He Wanted
Post-2000
Weintraub,"wanted", 2000 Grosscup, "wanted", 2006 Buhite, "he did wish to use the bomb, and he made his wishes clear to Washington," 2008 William C. Martel, "General Douglas MacArthur, who wanted to use atomic bombs against China in retalliation for its direct involvement in the Korean War," Victory in War: Foundations of Modern Strategy, 131, 2011 Thérèse Delpech, "MacArthur requested 34 nuclear bombs against invasion forces," Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century, 2012, 71 Paul M. Edwards, "asked for," Korean War Almanac 153, 2006 Jürgen Kleiner, "asked for," Korea: A Century of Change, 89, 2001 George Tindall and David Emory Shi, "asked for," America: A Narrative History, 1237 Bruce Cummings, "suggestion," North Korea: Another Country, 21, 2011 T. V. Paul, "On several occasions, MacArthur made requests to the president for the release of nuclear weapons to his command for use," The Tradition of Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons, 2009, Charles Piddock, "MacArthur wanted to strike Manchuria and other Chinese cities with nuclear weapons," North Korea, 2007, 35. Arthur L. Herman, "MacArthur's idea [was to use] 20 to 30 bombs.... The Strategic Air Command's ability ... would have made the plan feasible, even at the cost of exhausting America's existing nuclear arsenal, albeit (as MacArthur would have argued) as the price for achieving final victory," Douglas MacArthur: American Warrior, 2017, 800. Pradyumna P. Karan, Unryu Suganuma, "MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons to attack China," Japan after 3/11, 2016, 210.
Pre-2000
Richard K. Betts, "requested ... for use," Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear Balance, 1987, 36 Rosemary Foot, "request to use atomic weapons", The Wrong War, 1985, 114-115 Michio Kaku, Daniel Axelrod, "MacArthur ... was obsessed with using nuclear weapons on China," To Win a Nuclear War, 1987, 75	John Lewis Gaddis, says his submission was only in response to the JCS, The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War, 1987, 116

(I actually discovered the Gaddis disagreement with Foot and Betts through another book, which mentioned that they take opposing sides.) You have confidently sided with Gaddis, when clearly many other disagree. You cannot simply decide that Gaddis is correct because that is your preferred version. But more to the point - we have multiple instances of MacArthur making his desire known:

The retardation sites (disputed, but clearly considered a request by many)
The conversation with Vandberg
The postwar conversation

This isn't a difficult case.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Gaddis either - I don't have that book here. Weinstaub and Grosscup are both referring to the December 1950 contingency plan. Saying that MacArthur "wanted" 34 bombs to carry out the plan is not the same as saying he wanted to carry out the plan. So there is no disagreement there. The second one is the teleconference with Bolte, and again is in response to a question from the JCS. The 1954 conversation is interesting, but we also have the 1960 legal challenge to Truman. All of this is now in the article...

The whole nuclear section is perhaps unduly large, given that some books on the dismissal (eg Pearlman (2008), Alexander (2013)) scarcely mention it. The key point is the quote from Truman in the middle hinting that nuclear weapons had been handed over to MacArthur (historians are divided on whether he intended this (Cumings) or just had his foot in his mouth (Alexander, Crane)). This caused concern among European allies, particularly Britain, as described in the next section. How important that was in the decision to remove is also debatable.

In the light of our recent revisions to the article, are you satisfied with the it as it now stands? Hawkeye7 (talk)

Section Break

Quick recap. In my first post, I said,

"I can point to much more recent reliable works that support the claim that MacArthur requested atomic bombs"

You responded,

"I have checked Weintraub, Alexander and Rhodes, but there is no support for the claim."

Then, like now, you seem to be willfully misreading some of authors, which is very concerning. You seem to be actively trying to distort words in order to elevate MacArthur away from what the sources say about him–noticeable when you use the phrase "MacArthur reportedly said," for example, when the interview veracity is not disputed. Martel, Buhite, Paul, Betts and Foot all unequivocally say that MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against China. (Truth be told, more than just those make that point unequivocally, but I figure they are the most explicit.) All are reliable sources.

I have removed claims like "he did not support nuclear weapons in Korea" - reliable sources clearly dispute this, and it is not our job to pick which reliable sources we like more. (Using your standards, we could just as easily have a sentence saying he did support using nuclear weapons - since multiple reliable sources report that.) I have also toned down some of the language (there was a lot of hyperbole ... like "forced to"). I shortened the section and increased the prominence of the Truman quote (while also trimming the less relevant portions of the quotation). I also restructured the section so that we say what actually happened before we start saying what was later said about what happened. Assuming these edits are okay with you, then I'd be satisfied in removing the neutrality tag.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511003346/http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/Michael-Pearlman.aspx to http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/michael-pearlman.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613185432/http://digitalvaults.org/record/3392.html to http://www.digitalvaults.org/record/3392.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606160748/http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/an-old-soldier-is-still-in-the-fray/1044379 to http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/an-old-soldier-is-still-in-the-fray/1044379

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041114113920/http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/jfq1406.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/jfq1406.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Article title

I'm curious as to why this isn't named "Truman's relief of Douglas MacArthur" or even "Harry Truman's relief of Douglas MacArthur". We don't usually use personal titles in article titles. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The article has been renamed a couple of times. It was originally named "Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur". Most of the discussion revolved around the term "relief". This is the formal legal and military term, but is not one that is widely comprehended. Indeed, that is the issue with the whole article: the more you understand the issues involved, the more that understanding influences your perception of them. The decision to refer to them in the unusual way the article title does was taken to avoid creating a false equivalence between the president and a general. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, "relief" is still used in the title, so I don't see why "Relief of Douglas MacArthur" wouldn't be the most parsimonious option. The spirit of WP:HONORIFIC (yes, I know it doesn't refer directly to article titles) is that titles used where they are unnecessary are aggrandizing. This title could be made completely unambiguous without titles, and yet it uses them. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 12:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur → Relief of Douglas MacArthur – Numerous previous discussions about the name of this article have not reached a consensus. A lot of the disagreement has been about the use of the technical term "relief", which I do not propose to change at the moment. However, the current title both uses unnecessary honorifics (WP:HONORIFIC) and is unnecessarily long and detailed. The proposed title addresses both those concerns. Previous discussions have also raised the concern that the two individuals involved here (Truman and MacArthur) should not be portrayed as equals; the proposed title renders that concern moot. There is no preference in phraseology that I can see among reliable sources; therefore, there is no clear reason to not use the briefest possible unambigious title. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Support, as proposer. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RM#Nom. Dekimasuよ! 12:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment. I don't want to vote against this move, since I don't have a really strong feeling and I guess I could go either way. But here's a thought that maybe tells against it: the current title is just a little more descriptive, and a lot of readers who click around Wikipedia aimlessly learning things may just find the longer title a little more alluring, for example if they are interested in Truman but don't have much of a feeling about MacArthur. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced of the claim that the current title is unnecessarily long and detailed. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Shinealittlelight: Article titles aren't supposed to do the job of drawing readers in. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, after all. Very many of our pages could be retitled in a more exciting way; we don't do it because we have a guideline that says otherwise; see WP:PRECISE. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, and maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'alluring' for that reason. Recognizability is a criterion, though, and I think the current title is a bit more recognizable. The policy calls on us to use editorial judgment to weigh this against concision and other factors. I really don't have a strong feeling either way, as I stated, but I do think your proposal is a move away from recognizability in favor of concision. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is too unwieldy. What about if we used 'Firing' instead of 'Relief'? (i.e. 'Firing of Douglas MacArthur') Lepricavark (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: I, too, would prefer a non-technical term in place of "relief". However, that discussion has tended to get acrimonious very quickly (see the history of this talk page) and so I would prefer to at least address the length issue, which is tractable. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. I think Vanamonde makes several good points, and the proposed title works better than the current one. — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.