"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more"

And paraphrasing the next line:

Or close the wall up with our American dead

To say nothing of the Korean, Chinese, Commonwealth and other dead! 

Probably to your immense relief there has been a slight pause in my reading of the second book(*) I possess on the subject of the Korean war.  The reason is simple, I couldn't face any more of it and I just knew it was going to get even worse!

In my last post on the subject I left you in the winter of 1950.  McArthur, unforgivably, had ignored the mass attack by tens of thousands of Chinese troops that had taken him completely by surprise and which, after five day's fighting, had melted away back into the mountains.  Again, no-one in Washington stopped him when he went back on the offensive intent on pushing an American army up to the Yalu river and the Chinese frontier.  With the remorseless and blindingly obvious result that the Chinese attacked again and this time there was to be no pause, they smashed into the allied armies and within a matter of weeks they had pushed them back south of Seoul.  Such blind stupidity and total military ineptness should have cost MacArthur his job there and then - but still Washington, fearful of public opinion, failed to act.

At this point we touch upon the very heart of democracy and find within it a deliciously rich vein of irony.  Democratic governments are supposed to listen to the voice of 'The People' despite the very obvious fact that 'The People' are usually frequently wrong.  Here we reach one of those double-handed situations where, on the one hand, it is right for politicians to listen to the The People, but on the other hand, politicians are supposed to have the courage to lead The People even against their instincts, and even if it results in their political demise at the next election.  I would suggest that when your own (conscripted) troops are dying in huge numbers the duty of leadership is paramount.  Truman, Acheson, Marshall and the Combined Chiefs of Staff all failed in their duty and stand accused of cowardice.

In 1951, the second year of the war, the field commander of the allied armies was killed in an accident and his place was taken by Gen. Ridgeway, a good fighting general but not necessarily a great student of grand strategy.  However, he did force MacArthur to place all the troops in Korea under his command and he began a fight back which, by the summer, took the allies back to more or less where they were when the North Koreans first began the war.  It was at this point that MacArthur finally overstepped the mark and Washington plucked up its collective courage and sacked him.  Because both sides were now more or less where they started Washington began to make peace moves.  MacArthur, in an attempt to scupper them issued a bulletin, insisting that the war was yet to be won; and then he went one step further by writing a letter to a Republican Congressman, in effect, attacking Truman's policy.  Well, politicians might not understand war but they usually understand politics and MacArthur, having crossed the political Rubicon, was finally sacked.

The peace talks ensued and there then followed nearly two years of such infantile stupidity and folly, mostly on the part of the Americans, as almost to defy description.  These peace talks could have been settled in weeks but instead they dragged on and on and tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians perished needlessly.

Regular readers will know of my deep regard for America.  I am aware of their weaknesses and mistakes in WWII, but if they suffered their Pearl Harbour, we suffered our Dunkirk, too.  At any rate, together (more or less) we learned our lessons and in a partnership (of sorts) we proceeded to overthrow two great powers and win the first global war.  I think it was a remarkable partnership and one which we should look back on with pride.  That, I fear, has been my undoing in considering American policy post-WWII.  I listened to the more realistic voices of the likes of Enoch Powell who warned many times that America was a blundering child in the complex world of global strategy, but whilst I acknowledged that mistakes were made from time to time I remained steadfast in my general support.  This study of the Korean war has not so much changed my mind as shattered it.  Now, with considerable dread, I must turn to the war in Vietnam which, in my unforgiveable idleness, I have never really studied.  If anyone can recommend a really good, detached history which covers the Washington/political end as well as the actual campaign, I would be grateful.

Oh dear, 72-years old and still learning!

(*)Korea: The Lost War by Bevin Alexander

Comments

[dearieme]

Our disaster was not Dunkirk; our disaster was Singapore.

[David Duff]

Well, in the sense that for mysterious reasons Hitler let our army escape from Dunkirk, I suppose Singapore was a slightly worse calamity.

[JK]

You do recall David my comment stating "the first American killed in Viet Nam was in the year 1948"?

http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-History-Stanley-Karnow/dp/0140265473

[David Duff]

Thanks for the link, JK, have you read the book?

[JK]

Four times. Twice in the late 70s. Used it as a text in a political science class in 88 then the last time about '03.

[Jimmy]

David. It is just a ceasefire in Korea the war is not finished. We had a good brave rearguard before and during our men reached Dunkirk. Hitler would have wasted them given the opportunity.

[David Duff]

Thanks, JK, I'll give it a try. I'm just a little cautious because Vietnan is still, in a sense, current affairs which divided America politically and I sense that axes are still be sharpened. I notice from reading the 'reader reviews' at Amazon that he starts back in Vietnamese history which is a good sign. Trouble is, for me, that I just know it's going to be a ghastly read!

Jimmy, I would respectfully disagree with you. We fought a reasonably good retreat to the beaches but we were out-gunned, out-tanked and out-soldiered. The Germans had us in their grip and all they had to do was squeeze - but they didn't. The decision, or rather its reasons, not to send the armour in and utterly destroy the British army is still a matter of controversy. It is thought that Hitler, desirous of cutting a deal with the Brits to leave him free to deal with his 'real' enemy, Russia, held back from destroying its army, but no documentation exists.

[david morris]

I rather hesitate to enter into book recommendations to someone who introduced me to the delights of Furst, but in regard to modern American history I think it's difficult to find a more gifted narration of events than that produced by William Manchester in his epic "The Glory & the Dream". Rather stylised perhaps & rather too soft on the Kennedys but a cracking read nevertheless !

[David Duff]

Thanks for that, David, and of course, I know his name but I have never read any of his books.

[Jimmy]

David. I would respectfully disagree with you. My uncle was evacuated from Dunkirk. He was KOSB and part of the BEF. The Germans hammered them. It was a mistake to agree to help the French at that time. We lost many good men for nothing.

[David Duff]

Jimmy, I think we have both missed each other's point. All I am saying is that the German army operated on the Clausewitzean principle of always trying to fight a battle of annihilation. In other words, it is no good just pushing your enemy of the battlefield because that is not a real victory. The aim of the game is to cut them off, surround them and then annihilate them. The Germans did most of that with the BEF but for some strange reason they held back their armour for, I think, two days during which most of the BEF escaped. This is, arguably, the greatest proof of the wisdom of Clausewitz because, of course, that very same BEF, because it had been allowed to escape, came back again in 1944 - with a vengeance! A von Moltke (the elder), a von Schlieffen, would never have allowed it to happen.

[Hank]

David

A differnt war, but perhaps of interest

Real Clear History posts articles on events many years ago this date, in this case the fall of SIngapore.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/vol25_2/6.htm

[David Duff]

Thanks, Hank, a subject about which I only know enough to be embarrassed for our British folly - again! I will read the article later.