walter e wallis wrote:
Ike was an idiot. His interference with the British-French-Israeli action to stop the illegal takeover of the Suez Canal by Egypt, wherein he validated abrogation of a treaty for nationalistic reasons. That was the spark that led to today's Middle East conflict. I dislike Ike. And MacArthur, while I'm at it.Gene-----Original Message-----What hardened Communist resolve and the attack of 60,000 against the S.Korean positions, resulting in a significant breakthrough by the Chinese, and the subsequent bloody hill battles to the end of the conflict, was the release by S.Korean troops of 25,000 communist prisoners, who had refused repatriation, by order of Sigman Rhee. It had nothing to do with Eisenhower.
From: owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu [mailto:owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu]On Behalf Of robert guertin
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 4:55 PM
To: KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu
Subject: Re: "The Inchon Landing: An Example of Brilliant Generalship"
walter e wallis wrote:
I always believed that Ike's promise to go to Korea and end the war heartened communist resistance and prolonged the killing.Gene-----Original Message-----In a message dated 8/13/2003 6:40:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Home@DanSources.com writes:
From: owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu [mailto:owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu]On Behalf Of Bartning@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:16 AM
To: KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu
Subject: Re: "The Inchon Landing: An Example of Brilliant Generalship"
Eisenhower was a pragmatic leader.Eisenhower was only president from January to July of '53 as far as the conflict went. He had nothing to do with Inchon which occurred on September 15, 1950, according to Mike Yared's post which began this thread... Are you saying his "brilliant generaliship" helped lead to the July 27th ceasefire?
I think guidance by many of the agencies compromised
his Leadership on many positions not related to Korea.Vincent