|
There was a US presence, and there were deaths, granted, but I don't see how MacArthur being involved prior to it escalating would have caused anything bad to happen.
If anything, MacArthur's advisement about Korea and Vietnam should have probably been listened to. Truman would have decided not to be involved in Korea, and Kennedy could have prevented the Vietnam "police action."
Saying "we can win, but only if we use nuclear weapons" is not the same as saying "mr. president, let's nuke the fuck out of 'em!"
And MacArthur was right. We didn't use nuclear weapons and we lost. MacArthur knew the score. He also knew that the military decision to use a nuclear weapon was in the hands of the president. He let Truman and Kennedy make the moral choice. Fully commit or be passive.
They chose the 3rd option. Going to war "the moral" way, which wasted between 2.5-3.5 million lives in Korea, and 2.5-5 million lives in Vietnam, and people are still dying today from the Vietnamese war.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused about 150,000 deaths with people still dying today. All signs were pointing to a full scale invasion of japan causing 10 fold that amount.
What would have happened if Truman had gone to war and decided to order MacArthur to nuke the bridges? Who knows. Could have started World War III.
But strategically, a general's duty is to win war quickly with minimum casualties all around. Starting wars or deciding whether to use the bomb is not part of his duties.
Personally, I'm against war, but I think MacArthur gets a bad rap. He was certainly a character, but he wasn't a JACK D. RIPPER sort of guy.
|