Re: 1st MarDiv to Korea by back channel

["Les Hanson" <hanson@totalnetnh.net>]

2 july 1950
              Gen MacArthur requested a major unit from the United States,he
sought a Marine RCT with attached Air support.
The request approved 3 July 1950 by the JCS.
Mac Arthur was told Marines would be sent to him as soon as possible.
      http://www.army.mil.cmh-pg/bools/pd-c05.htm

  Les
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc James Small" <msmall@infi.net>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: 1st MarDiv to Korea by back channel


> At 11:13 PM 10/31/02 EST, SDonell73@aol.com wrote:
> >I find little in these discussions that address the issue of the planned
> >extinction of the Marine Corps by the Truman administration, as egged on
by
> >virtually every senior Army officer, and most if not all Air Force
> >officers, who not only wanted the Marine Corps disbanded, but wanted
Marine
> >aviation assets to come under their control.
> >That fight has continued to this date more than 50 years after its
> inception.
> >
> >It's curious that MacArthur, no friend to the Marines, was the one Army
> >general who was enthusiastic about using them in his plan for an
amphibian
> >invasion to break the back of the North Korean Army which was about to
push
> >the Americans and a few allied forces off the Korean peninsula. He was
the
> >only one who appreciated the value of amphibious operations, obviously.
> >
> >Ike had been quoted as saying that it was no big deal. And Bradley, the
> >Soldier's Soldier, commented that in the post WWII period there would
never
> >be another need for an amphibious invasion. It doesn't say much for
> >America's military leadership at that time.
>
> Excellent points, Sandy.
>
> But most Army folks didn't advocate eliminating the Marine Corps;  the
> argument was over the role of the Marine Corps.  The Army -- and Navy, for
> that matter -- wished to see the Marine Corps returned to their Prewar
size
> and mission, while the Marine Corps, with support from the Air Force,
> fought to have an expanded mission and size.  The issue was not resolved
> until it was decided, around 1959, to give the Marines the sole mission
for
> amphibious warfare and embassy guard duty, and that uneasy structure has
> continued to this day.
>
> Neither Eisenhower nor Bradley spoke for the Army as a whole, though both
> were respected senior officers.  More interesting is that the only senior
> Army officer to have commanded Marines directly, Sandy Patch, did call for
> the elimination of the Marine Corps, though this might have been in jest.
> (He died almost immediately thereafter, so we shall never know.)
>
> In the end, the argument was whether the Marines should be permitted to
> maintain organizations larger than Regiments in a peacetime environment,
> and, again, in the end, it was decided to permit this, so that the Marines
> would be capaable of conducting amphibious landings.  (Though, to be fair,
> the Army continues to study the issue doctrinally, in case another
DOWNFALL
> or OVERLORD should confront the US.)  And it should be noted that this
> decision was made under the Eisenhower Administration;  when Kennedy came
> in, his SecDef, MacNamara, wanted to pare the Corps all over again, though
> the growth of the Viet-Nam conflict mitigated against this.
>
> In the end, the current Marine Corps is approximately half the size of the
> Army, and I don't expect this to change in my lifetime.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall@infi.net  FAX:  +276/343-7315
> Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!
>