Re: "The Inchon Landing: An Example of Brilliant Generalship"

["Love Shack" <Home@DanSources.com>]

I agree....
I wonder if he wrote any papers or notes.
Eisenhower was a pragmatic leader.
I think guidance by many of the agencies compromised
his Leadership on many positions not related to Korea.

Just POI MacArthur did not trust some of these same agencies either?

Dan


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Evanhoe" <evanhoe1@korean-war.com>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: "The Inchon Landing: An Example of Brilliant Generalship"


> Dan,
>
>  >>At 09:50 PM 8/12/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >Why did not the UN perform another end round operation after the Chinese
> >entered the war?
> >Or was there suxh a plan if the war had continued.?
> >This is woulda shoulda coulda question. <<
>
> There was a lot of pressure from the UN to negotiate a ceasefire and the
US
> went that route thinking the negotiations would take only a few months.
As
> it turned out, it was two years.  The Chinese, the North Koreans and their
> Soviet Union backers didn't get real serious until Eisenhower sent word
> shortly after taking office in 1953 either this stalling would end or he
> would settle the matter militarily.  At this point he ordered the military
> to begin preparing logistics for a two-airborne, one Marine and two
> (additional) Army infantry division landing in North Korea with
> Wonsan-Hungnam as the initial landing area.  The preparations began very
> openly in Japan, South Korea and the US so everyone would know, or
believe,
> Eisenhower was serious. I don't know if he was or this was a bluff but,
> given his military background, think he was dead serious.  Apparently this
> was enough to get the ceasefire talks off center since a couple of months
> after logistics began being established, the Chinese and North Koreans got
> serious and the war ended.
>
> Ed
>