|
Thanks for that awesome input. I will post my
paper when it's finished. I'm guessing sometime next week. I hope to
hear arguments for and against it.
As a side note, I'm amazed at the wealth of
resources on this list. I only wish I had known about the list
sooner. I'm still in awe having folks who were there (Korean War) and tell
their expert stories and opinions.
Sam
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 2:22
AM
Subject: Re: Korea - 50 years ago
In a message dated
12/12/02 8:06:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, lantirn@attbi.com writes:
The blundering Truman Era is over in Korea. But it set off
future conflicts in Vietnam, Cuba, etc...
Sam,
I agree with much of what you say, however a few thoughts.
Hindsight is always 20-20.
The issue in Korea, as in Europe,
was containing Communist expansion. Unlike Europe though we were responding to
an actual attack on a country outside of the Communist bloc.
As
you observe, The Truman's administration's early policy was oriented towards
the greatest threat the Soviet Union, and protecting Europe against Soviet
expansion. The Far East was not very big on the US defense agenda except for
protecting Taiwan and Japan. Then, as now, even we, the most powerful nation
on earth militarily could not afford to fight all potential enemies of the
United States at all times. We are restricted by various limiting factors,
such as wealth, people, materials, a general antipathy towards military
spending (except for the Reagan, and Bush administrations), and except for the
same administrations, a desire to get along with most of the nations of the
world, which has been a guiding philosophy of ours as world traders of goods
and materials since before the beginning of our national heritage.
Truman, in tune with American civilian desires wanted to cut back
defense spending after World War II and get back to producing the goods that
had been stopped during the war, such as cars, and the stuff that goes with
them such as rubber tires, nylon and other synthetic materials especially for
women's clothing. Then there was the GI bill that provided for housing,
education, and health care. He also wanted to continue the New Deal policies
of FDR (he called his policies the Fair Deal).
He was convinced that
we could defend the world on the cheap, with the technology and power of SAC.
The USAF sold the Truman administration the concept that it could protect
America by the use of SAC. It wasn't true then and it wasn't true now.
The bomber barons didn't have any interest in Tactical Air operations,
after the service was first created, as indicated by the untimely retirement
in disgust by CG TAC, General Elwood Quesada. He commented that the Marine
Corps had the best propaganda machine going, second only to Stalin's. But the
USAF had by far, the best propaganda merchants. Fighting a war without having
a large ground force commitment sounds good, but as Korea, Viet Nam and every
war since then has proven, it ain't so.
In the late 1940's the western
world, as a whole, was tired of war, from the tremendous effort that had been
put forth in World War II. They were more attuned to rebuilding Europe.
However, the other parts of the world were beginning to feel the growing
resistance to colonial regimes.
The flawed policy of the US was not
recognizing that the Communist world was not a monolithic bloc, and the
failure to take advantage of that reality and to acknowledge the strong
desires of the colonies to fight to come out from under the colonial powers'
domination. That correlated very well with our own history. Too bad that was
forgotten along the way.
As late as 1919 Woodrow Wilson claimed this
as in the best interests of the world.
Point 5 of his 14 Points
addressed
A free, open-minded, and
impartial adjustment of all colonial
claims…including
consideration of the
interests of the populations concerned. [national self-
determination]
It was too bad
that he didn't include emphasis on the colonies in the Middle and Far East
after WWI.
The policies of Truman had nothing to do with the Viet
Namese war, except to support our French ally in Viet Nam fighting against the
Communist Viet Minh. Very few people in the United States are taught that FDR
was against all forms of colonialism, but caved to Churchill regarding the
British colonies. However, he was bound and determined not to allow the French
to retake Indo China. Obviously that changed under the Truman administration.
One can only wonder about how that part of the world would have evolved if
FDR's position held sway.
Castro's takeover of Cuba is also something
that the Truman administration had nothing to do with. Castro was an unknown
at that time except for some Washington Senators baseball scouts. His bio is
cited below:
Practiced law, 1950-52; Led attack on Moncada Barracks,
Santiago de Cuba, 1953; Captured, imprisoned, 1953-55. Exile in Mexico and
United States, 1955-56; Returned to Cuba and led armed attacks against
government of Fulgencio Batista, 1956-59; Forced Batista into exile, 1959.
>>The argument I'm trying to make is, see what we did in Korea?
Yeah, that was a bunch of bad policies.<<
I'm interested in what
you see as the bad policies of Korea. Of course there were many made by many
participants, and it would be worth the discussion and keeping the board
active for a while.
Sandy
|