The batttle for Chosin

[harmonica]

Many of the NVA actually fought because the government would kill their family if they didn't.

well--they were good then

 

[TheGreenHornet]

'The Party's attack is geared to the wide variety of American life. Communism has something to sell to everybody. And, following this principle, it is the function of mass agitation to exploit all the grievances, hopes, aspirations, prejudices, fears, and ideals of all the special groups that make up our society, social, religious, economic, racial, political. Stir them up. Set one against the other. Divide and conquer. That's the way to soften up a democracy.'


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/512suSROrLL._AC_US218_.jpg

 

[9thIDdoc]

In every war you enter, you need to consider......is the end result worth it?

Jeopardizing the lives of our military personnel for some political posturing is not worth it. Yes....they lie to us
They lie about the reason for being there, they lie about how many casualties, they lie about cost, they lie about duration
In fact, they will tell us any lie that will get them the war they are asking for

we did NOT '''stand aside'''
500,000 troops/etc
naval/air superiority
airfield construction
BILLION $$$$$
training
etc etc ---no--we did not stand aside
for the last time---SVs government was corrupt and worthless
no way we were going to win the war
I see you back up your points with ZERO links/evidence
while I provide evidence

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

The South Vietnamese sold out us
We provided training, the best equipment in the world, a massive military force, air superiority, a navy and 60,000 American lives

They still lost to an inferior North Vietnamese Force who actually gave a shit

if you read about Vietnam, the NVA were very good
I'm re-reading Operation Buffalo about one of the worst ambushes USMC Vietnam
my wife's uncle died there with B 1-9 2nd platoon-the worst hit unit..nearly wiped out
1-9 was called the Walking Dead

The NVA gave a shit, they were fighting for their country, fighting for Ho Chi Minh. They fought with very little but still held their own against superior forces

Our strategy was always to turn over the fighting to S Vietnam
They were corrupt and never had the heart

Inchon was a stroke of luck.

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Mac only started the island hopping AFTER he screwed it up at Buna-Gona
so--he isn't the great intelligent general you think

there were a number of valuable but costly lessons in the conduct of jungle warfare.

Allied losses in the battle were at a rate higher than that experienced at Guadalcanal.

Historian Stanley Falk agreed, writing that "the Papuan campaign was one of the costliest Allied victories of the Pacific war in terms of casualties per troops committed.

Battle of Buna–Gona - Wikipedia
anybody can learn by trying something to see if it works
a lowly Lt could think of island hopping--especially after taking mucho casualties

Inchon was a stroke of luck.

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Mac only started the island hopping AFTER he screwed it up at Buna-Gona
so--he isn't the great intelligent general you think

there were a number of valuable but costly lessons in the conduct of jungle warfare.

Allied losses in the battle were at a rate higher than that experienced at Guadalcanal.

Historian Stanley Falk agreed, writing that "the Papuan campaign was one of the costliest Allied victories of the Pacific war in terms of casualties per troops committed.

Battle of Buna–Gona - Wikipedia
anybody can learn by trying something to see if it works
a lowly Lt could think of island hopping--especially after taking mucho casualties

Buna-Gona was a learning experience for MacArthur. I would however not characterize it as you have.

Casualties on both sides were high – the Allies buried 1,400 Japanese dead, while the Allies lost 620 dead, 2,065 wounded and 132 missing.

Buna, Gona and Sanananda were the first battles in which Allied solders attacked Japanese troops who had had time to dig in. At the start of the campaign the Australians and Americans lacked the heavy weapons that would prove to be essential in the jungle. Air support was not yet effective – only 121 sorties were flown, and after 22 December no more requests were made for close air support. During the campaign the Allies began to learn how to deal with the impressive bunkers that they would find across the Pacific. At the start of the campaign the Allies had not believed that tanks or heavy artillery would be useful in the jungle – by the end of it the campaign it had become clear that both weapons were essential when faced by strong Japanese defensive positions. The lessons learnt at high coast at Buna, Gona and Sanananda would be applied with increasing skill as the Allied advanced across the Pacific.

Warfare History Network » The Battle Of Buna: Costly For Both Allies and Japanese

ok--fine...but add the really stupid crap Mac did in the Philippines and Korea--it all adds up

Truman wanted MacArthur to stay below the 38 th parallel. He warned about the risk of the Chinese entering the conflict. MacArthur laughed him off. MacArthur knew best

His invasion of the north was a disaster. He ignored reports of Chinese infiltration and laughed off their fighting ability

His arrogance cost us 50,000 lives

MacArthur was correct; Truman was wrong. He is also responsible for our our continued problems with North Korea.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Whatever, doc. All the best military minds were wrong about a land war in Asia. If you had only been there to educate them...

 

[rightwinger]

we did NOT '''stand aside'''
500,000 troops/etc
naval/air superiority
airfield construction
BILLION $$$$$
training
etc etc ---no--we did not stand aside
for the last time---SVs government was corrupt and worthless
no way we were going to win the war
I see you back up your points with ZERO links/evidence
while I provide evidence

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

The South Vietnamese sold out us
We provided training, the best equipment in the world, a massive military force, air superiority, a navy and 60,000 American lives

They still lost to an inferior North Vietnamese Force who actually gave a shit

if you read about Vietnam, the NVA were very good
I'm re-reading Operation Buffalo about one of the worst ambushes USMC Vietnam
my wife's uncle died there with B 1-9 2nd platoon-the worst hit unit..nearly wiped out
1-9 was called the Walking Dead

The NVA gave a shit, they were fighting for their country, fighting for Ho Chi Minh. They fought with very little but still held their own against superior forces

Our strategy was always to turn over the fighting to S Vietnam
They were corrupt and never had the heart

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Mac only started the island hopping AFTER he screwed it up at Buna-Gona
so--he isn't the great intelligent general you think

there were a number of valuable but costly lessons in the conduct of jungle warfare.

Allied losses in the battle were at a rate higher than that experienced at Guadalcanal.

Historian Stanley Falk agreed, writing that "the Papuan campaign was one of the costliest Allied victories of the Pacific war in terms of casualties per troops committed.

Battle of Buna–Gona - Wikipedia
anybody can learn by trying something to see if it works
a lowly Lt could think of island hopping--especially after taking mucho casualties

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Mac only started the island hopping AFTER he screwed it up at Buna-Gona
so--he isn't the great intelligent general you think

there were a number of valuable but costly lessons in the conduct of jungle warfare.

Allied losses in the battle were at a rate higher than that experienced at Guadalcanal.

Historian Stanley Falk agreed, writing that "the Papuan campaign was one of the costliest Allied victories of the Pacific war in terms of casualties per troops committed.

Battle of Buna–Gona - Wikipedia
anybody can learn by trying something to see if it works
a lowly Lt could think of island hopping--especially after taking mucho casualties

Buna-Gona was a learning experience for MacArthur. I would however not characterize it as you have.

Casualties on both sides were high – the Allies buried 1,400 Japanese dead, while the Allies lost 620 dead, 2,065 wounded and 132 missing.

Buna, Gona and Sanananda were the first battles in which Allied solders attacked Japanese troops who had had time to dig in. At the start of the campaign the Australians and Americans lacked the heavy weapons that would prove to be essential in the jungle. Air support was not yet effective – only 121 sorties were flown, and after 22 December no more requests were made for close air support. During the campaign the Allies began to learn how to deal with the impressive bunkers that they would find across the Pacific. At the start of the campaign the Allies had not believed that tanks or heavy artillery would be useful in the jungle – by the end of it the campaign it had become clear that both weapons were essential when faced by strong Japanese defensive positions. The lessons learnt at high coast at Buna, Gona and Sanananda would be applied with increasing skill as the Allied advanced across the Pacific.

Warfare History Network » The Battle Of Buna: Costly For Both Allies and Japanese

ok--fine...but add the really stupid crap Mac did in the Philippines and Korea--it all adds up

Truman wanted MacArthur to stay below the 38 th parallel. He warned about the risk of the Chinese entering the conflict. MacArthur laughed him off. MacArthur knew best

His invasion of the north was a disaster. He ignored reports of Chinese infiltration and laughed off their fighting ability

His arrogance cost us 50,000 lives

MacArthur was correct; Truman was wrong. He is also responsible for our our continued problems with North Korea.

If he had listened to Truman, he would have secured the 38th parallel and saved 50,000 lives

 

[9thIDdoc]

If Truman had listened to MacArthur there would currently be no NK and China would have become much less aggressive.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Whatever, doc. All the best military minds were wrong about a land war in Asia. If you had only been there to educate them...
Just goes to show that politicians are NOT military minds.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Morely Safer knew something was ''wrong'' in 1965!!
at the 4:30 mark

if you read about Vietnam, some soldiers and Marines said the same thing

The Yellow Yell, and Hollow Fools Follow

That incident was no different from the mass killing of civilians by our bombers in World War II. There are no non-combatants in a combat zone. By harboring Viet Cong, the "civilians" were getting American men killed. Unpatriotic American sissies who ran away to college dominate the narratives you foolishly parrot.

we could never win in Vietnam--forget it ----I've linked and stated the many reasons why

An "Expert" Is a Liar for Hire

Links are part of a chain. Unshackle yourself.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Read. I didn't say we won the the Korean War (although there has never been an official end to that war, just a cease fire) I said we defeated the Chinese forces badly and that is true. They attacked our troops and gained not a damn thing except hundreds of thousands of dead Chinese.

50,000 Americans died

What did we gain?

What did we gain?

Honor credibility and retribution against enemies' sneak attacks against our troops. American blood was shed; you think we could retain any credibility by playing the sniveling coward and forswearing our commitment to an ally and running crying to our mommies? We stopped the spread of Communism as we were committed to do.

we gained nothing
because in Vietnam it didn't stop the communist from trying to [ and did ] take over
it didn't stop Castro
etc
I ask AGAIN!!--what effect did losing Nam, Cambodia, and Laos [ dominoes ] have on the US?
--many people and countries hated the US for bombing/burning/killing

we gained nothing
because in Vietnam it didn't stop the communist from trying to [ and did ] take over

We did in fact gain continued independence for our South Vietnamese ally. We stopped any take over for as long as we chose to.

so we lost anyway--with 50,000 Americans dead and many more Vietnamese dead for ----nothing....all those dead---for nothing
all the dead and mutilated.....families broken up....homes lost....etc etc

Going to Modern College Is So Unnatural That They Had to Be Threatened With Death In Vietnam to Get Enough Students

All self-serving propaganda written by Mamas' Boys who ran away to college because they were afraid to grow up. Their treason and unmanliness should never be excused.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Korean War:

US: 33,652 KIA (54,246 total dead) ...103204 WIA... 8196 MIA
South Korea: 227,800 KIA... 717,100 WIA ... 43,500 MIA

North Korea: EST. 215,000-350,000 KIA...303,000 WIA ...300,000 MIA/POW
China: 400,000+ KIA...486,000 WIA ... 25,000 MIA ...7110 POW + 14,00 who defected
Soviet Union* 299

https://www.historyguy.com/korean_war_casualties_and_statistics.htm

Since the border ended up roughly where it started territory is no real issue.
I'd say we kicked some ass.

 

[rightwinger]

If Truman had listened to MacArthur there would currently be no NK and China would have become much less aggressive.

If Truman had listened to MacArthur, we would have had over 100,000 dead and would have resorted to using nuclear weapons

 

[rightwinger]

Korean War:

US: 33,652 KIA (54,246 total dead) ...103204 WIA... 8196 MIA
South Korea: 227,800 KIA... 717,100 WIA ... 43,500 MIA

North Korea: EST. 215,000-350,000 KIA...303,000 WIA ...300,000 MIA/POW
China: 400,000+ KIA...486,000 WIA ... 25,000 MIA ...7110 POW + 14,00 who defected
Soviet Union* 299

https://www.historyguy.com/korean_war_casualties_and_statistics.htm

Since the border ended up roughly where it started territory is no real issue.
I'd say we kicked some ass.

I’d say we had 54,000 Americans killed for no reason

 

[there4eyeM]

Korean War:

US: 33,652 KIA (54,246 total dead) ...103204 WIA... 8196 MIA
South Korea: 227,800 KIA... 717,100 WIA ... 43,500 MIA

North Korea: EST. 215,000-350,000 KIA...303,000 WIA ...300,000 MIA/POW
China: 400,000+ KIA...486,000 WIA ... 25,000 MIA ...7110 POW + 14,00 who defected
Soviet Union* 299

https://www.historyguy.com/korean_war_casualties_and_statistics.htm

Since the border ended up roughly where it started territory is no real issue.
I'd say we kicked some ass.

I’d say we had 54,000 Americans killed for no reason

Not for no reason; for the wrong reasons.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Whatever, doc. All the best military minds were wrong about a land war in Asia. If you had only been there to educate them...

If Truman had listened to MacArthur there would currently be no NK and China would have become much less aggressive.

If Truman had listened to MacArthur, we would have had over 100,000 dead and would have resorted to using nuclear weapons

Actually we probably would have had far fewer causalities had we used a tactical nuclear weapon at the Yalu river staging/crossing area.

I’d say we had 54,000 Americans killed for no reason.

And how exactly could we avoid losing troops in the face of unprovoked surprise aggression? How do you choose to not be attacked?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Whatever, doc. All the best military minds were wrong about a land war in Asia. If you had only been there to educate them...

If Truman had listened to MacArthur there would currently be no NK and China would have become much less aggressive.

If Truman had listened to MacArthur, we would have had over 100,000 dead and would have resorted to using nuclear weapons

Actually we probably would have had far fewer causalities had we used a tactical nuclear weapon at the Yalu river staging/crossing area.

I’d say we had 54,000 Americans killed for no reason.

And how exactly could we avoid losing troops in the face of unprovoked surprise aggression? How do you choose to not be attacked?

 

[rightwinger]

Whatever, doc. All the best military minds were wrong about a land war in Asia. If you had only been there to educate them...

If Truman had listened to MacArthur there would currently be no NK and China would have become much less aggressive.

If Truman had listened to MacArthur, we would have had over 100,000 dead and would have resorted to using nuclear weapons

Actually we probably would have had far fewer causalities had we used a tactical nuclear weapon at the Yalu river staging/crossing area.

I’d say we had 54,000 Americans killed for no reason.

And how exactly could we avoid losing troops in the face of unprovoked surprise aggression? How do you choose to not be attacked?

We could have listened to Truman and stopped at the 38 parallel. We could have secured the border, prevented 50,000 deaths and been in the same situation today

 

[Vandalshandle]

Whatever, doc. All the best military minds were wrong about a land war in Asia. If you had only been there to educate them...

If Truman had listened to MacArthur there would currently be no NK and China would have become much less aggressive.

If Truman had listened to MacArthur, we would have had over 100,000 dead and would have resorted to using nuclear weapons

Actually we probably would have had far fewer causalities had we used a tactical nuclear weapon at the Yalu river staging/crossing area.

I’d say we had 54,000 Americans killed for no reason.

And how exactly could we avoid losing troops in the face of unprovoked surprise aggression? How do you choose to not be attacked?

Doc, if I had known that you were insane, I never would have engaged you in conversation.

 

[harmonica]

we did NOT '''stand aside'''
500,000 troops/etc
naval/air superiority
airfield construction
BILLION $$$$$
training
etc etc ---no--we did not stand aside
for the last time---SVs government was corrupt and worthless
no way we were going to win the war
I see you back up your points with ZERO links/evidence
while I provide evidence

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

The South Vietnamese sold out us
We provided training, the best equipment in the world, a massive military force, air superiority, a navy and 60,000 American lives

They still lost to an inferior North Vietnamese Force who actually gave a shit

if you read about Vietnam, the NVA were very good
I'm re-reading Operation Buffalo about one of the worst ambushes USMC Vietnam
my wife's uncle died there with B 1-9 2nd platoon-the worst hit unit..nearly wiped out
1-9 was called the Walking Dead

The NVA gave a shit, they were fighting for their country, fighting for Ho Chi Minh. They fought with very little but still held their own against superior forces

Our strategy was always to turn over the fighting to S Vietnam
They were corrupt and never had the heart

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Mac only started the island hopping AFTER he screwed it up at Buna-Gona
so--he isn't the great intelligent general you think

there were a number of valuable but costly lessons in the conduct of jungle warfare.

Allied losses in the battle were at a rate higher than that experienced at Guadalcanal.

Historian Stanley Falk agreed, writing that "the Papuan campaign was one of the costliest Allied victories of the Pacific war in terms of casualties per troops committed.

Battle of Buna–Gona - Wikipedia
anybody can learn by trying something to see if it works
a lowly Lt could think of island hopping--especially after taking mucho casualties

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Mac only started the island hopping AFTER he screwed it up at Buna-Gona
so--he isn't the great intelligent general you think

there were a number of valuable but costly lessons in the conduct of jungle warfare.

Allied losses in the battle were at a rate higher than that experienced at Guadalcanal.

Historian Stanley Falk agreed, writing that "the Papuan campaign was one of the costliest Allied victories of the Pacific war in terms of casualties per troops committed.

Battle of Buna–Gona - Wikipedia
anybody can learn by trying something to see if it works
a lowly Lt could think of island hopping--especially after taking mucho casualties

Buna-Gona was a learning experience for MacArthur. I would however not characterize it as you have.

Casualties on both sides were high – the Allies buried 1,400 Japanese dead, while the Allies lost 620 dead, 2,065 wounded and 132 missing.

Buna, Gona and Sanananda were the first battles in which Allied solders attacked Japanese troops who had had time to dig in. At the start of the campaign the Australians and Americans lacked the heavy weapons that would prove to be essential in the jungle. Air support was not yet effective – only 121 sorties were flown, and after 22 December no more requests were made for close air support. During the campaign the Allies began to learn how to deal with the impressive bunkers that they would find across the Pacific. At the start of the campaign the Allies had not believed that tanks or heavy artillery would be useful in the jungle – by the end of it the campaign it had become clear that both weapons were essential when faced by strong Japanese defensive positions. The lessons learnt at high coast at Buna, Gona and Sanananda would be applied with increasing skill as the Allied advanced across the Pacific.

Warfare History Network » The Battle Of Buna: Costly For Both Allies and Japanese

ok--fine...but add the really stupid crap Mac did in the Philippines and Korea--it all adds up

Truman wanted MacArthur to stay below the 38 th parallel. He warned about the risk of the Chinese entering the conflict. MacArthur laughed him off. MacArthur knew best

His invasion of the north was a disaster. He ignored reports of Chinese infiltration and laughed off their fighting ability

His arrogance cost us 50,000 lives

MacArthur was correct; Truman was wrong. He is also responsible for our our continued problems with North Korea.

a whole corps thrown off the battle continent
the other forces retreating below the parallel
sure--Mac was really correct
...there were over 300,000 Chinese in Korea and Mac didn't want to believe they were there! plain and simple--he screwed up big time

 

[rightwinger]

Mao thought MacArthur was crazy and would invade China

MacArthur racing to the Yalu River seemed to affirm it

 

[TheGreenHornet]

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

The South Vietnamese sold out us
We provided training, the best equipment in the world, a massive military force, air superiority, a navy and 60,000 American lives

They still lost to an inferior North Vietnamese Force who actually gave a shit

if you read about Vietnam, the NVA were very good
I'm re-reading Operation Buffalo about one of the worst ambushes USMC Vietnam
my wife's uncle died there with B 1-9 2nd platoon-the worst hit unit..nearly wiped out
1-9 was called the Walking Dead

The NVA gave a shit, they were fighting for their country, fighting for Ho Chi Minh. They fought with very little but still held their own against superior forces

Our strategy was always to turn over the fighting to S Vietnam
They were corrupt and never had the heart

Mac only started the island hopping AFTER he screwed it up at Buna-Gona
so--he isn't the great intelligent general you think
Battle of Buna–Gona - Wikipedia
anybody can learn by trying something to see if it works
a lowly Lt could think of island hopping--especially after taking mucho casualties

Mac only started the island hopping AFTER he screwed it up at Buna-Gona
so--he isn't the great intelligent general you think
Battle of Buna–Gona - Wikipedia
anybody can learn by trying something to see if it works
a lowly Lt could think of island hopping--especially after taking mucho casualties

Buna-Gona was a learning experience for MacArthur. I would however not characterize it as you have.

Casualties on both sides were high – the Allies buried 1,400 Japanese dead, while the Allies lost 620 dead, 2,065 wounded and 132 missing.

Buna, Gona and Sanananda were the first battles in which Allied solders attacked Japanese troops who had had time to dig in. At the start of the campaign the Australians and Americans lacked the heavy weapons that would prove to be essential in the jungle. Air support was not yet effective – only 121 sorties were flown, and after 22 December no more requests were made for close air support. During the campaign the Allies began to learn how to deal with the impressive bunkers that they would find across the Pacific. At the start of the campaign the Allies had not believed that tanks or heavy artillery would be useful in the jungle – by the end of it the campaign it had become clear that both weapons were essential when faced by strong Japanese defensive positions. The lessons learnt at high coast at Buna, Gona and Sanananda would be applied with increasing skill as the Allied advanced across the Pacific.

Warfare History Network » The Battle Of Buna: Costly For Both Allies and Japanese

ok--fine...but add the really stupid crap Mac did in the Philippines and Korea--it all adds up

Truman wanted MacArthur to stay below the 38 th parallel. He warned about the risk of the Chinese entering the conflict. MacArthur laughed him off. MacArthur knew best

His invasion of the north was a disaster. He ignored reports of Chinese infiltration and laughed off their fighting ability

His arrogance cost us 50,000 lives

MacArthur was correct; Truman was wrong. He is also responsible for our our continued problems with North Korea.

a whole corps thrown off the battle continent
the other forces retreating below the parallel
sure--Mac was really correct
...there were over 300,000 Chinese in Korea and Mac didn't want to believe they were there! plain and simple--he screwed up big time

McArthur like everyone else thought China would not enter the war....a mistake but it was not the end of world...at most it was a temporary set back...the real problem was in Washington where there were too many who think like you....aka...no strong resolve to win. Sen McCarty was right Washington and especially the State Dept. was riddled with communists. Truman whilst admirable in ways lacked good judgement, feared Russia too much, drank a lot of whiskey and made a terrible decision to fire McArthur. Now today we are reaping the results of Truman's mistake....a powerful totolitarian China outspending us on building their military power and now our number one threat...even though the donkeys howl about Russia.


Q. '
What was the security situation in the State Department at the time of McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950?

A. Communist infiltration of the State Department began in the 1930s. On September 2, 1939, former Communist Whittaker Chambers provided Assistant Secretary of State Adolph Berle with the names and Communist connections of two dozen spies in the government, including Alger Hiss. Berle took the information to President Roosevelt, but FDR laughed it off. Hiss moved rapidly up the State Department ladder and served as an advisor to Roosevelt at the disastrous Yalta Conference in 1945 that paved the way for the Soviet conquest of Central and Eastern Europe. Hiss also functioned as the secretary general of the founding meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco, helped to draft the UN Charter, and later filled dozens of positions at the UN with American Communists before he was publicly exposed as a Soviet spy by Whittaker Chambers in 1948.

The security problem at the State Department had worsened considerably in 1945 when a merger brought into the State Department thousands of employees from such war agencies as the Office of Strategic Services, the Office of War Information, and the Foreign Economic Administration — all of which were riddled with members of the communist underground. J. Anthony Panuch, the State Department official charged with supervising the 1945 merger, told a Senate committee in 1953 that "the biggest single thing that contributed to the infiltration of the State Department was the merger of 1945. The effects of that are still being felt." In 1947, Secretary of State George Marshall and Under Secretary of State Dean Acheson engineered the firing of Panuch and the removal of every key member of his security staff.'

The Real McCarthy Record

How Harry Truman Ran a Bourbon-Soaked White House