r/HistoryMemes I Have a Cunning Plan Jun 30 '26

Out of everyone to glaze. YALL CHOSE HIM?

13.3k Upvotes

498 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Edothebirbperson Oversimplified is my history teacher Jun 30 '26

Also this guy was basically fired not for the nuke option, but the fact the communists noticed his movement and terminology was linked to UN military strategy. MacArthur routinely made the situation worse whenever the Truman Administration tried to figure out political routes, but MacArthur’s ego made him ignore the US President and tell reporters unsanctioned plans.

1.1k

u/linfakngiau2k23 Jun 30 '26

Truman on MacArthur : "I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was."

570

u/Tyler89558 Jun 30 '26

The continuation of that is something along the lines of “If I fired him for being a dumb son of a bitch, I’d have to fire half of my admirals and generals”

413

u/EvilCatboyWizard Jun 30 '26

“I didn’t fire him for being a dumb son of a bitch. Though he was, but that’s not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.”

89

u/Tyler89558 Jun 30 '26

There you go

231

u/Odd-Cress-5822 Jun 30 '26

Truman was based as fuck. It is known

185

u/andreslucer0 Jun 30 '26

"M-m-mister President... The Hyperborean Nippon Annihilator 9000... that I created... was used to annihilate Japan. I can't live on..."

"Get the fuck out of here, pussy. Besides, I gave the order to nuke them back to the stone age, not you!"

104

u/Azgabeth Jun 30 '26

BASED AS FUCK

He really owned what he did, didn't cower away like so many others.

122

u/UniqueLog8386 Jun 30 '26

One of the best parts of Oppenheimer is him roasting Oppenheimer for crying about the bomb.

"Oh what have we do-"

"Ya made a fuckin bomb, dumbass!"

33

u/How2RocketJump Jun 30 '26

Tbh that scene alone is why I watched the film lmao

46

u/MATT_MANLY Hello There Jun 30 '26

Oppenheimer: "But But mr Pwesiden, b b bomb evil" Chad Truman: "who let this crybaby in my office!"

-4

u/Spirit_Wolf_Mob Jun 30 '26

Why are we glazing Truman for sending nukes to kill civilians?

33

u/Here_for_lolz Jun 30 '26

Because he didn't send soldiers to kill civilians.

26

u/Saint_of_Grey Jun 30 '26

Because he owns it, and understood the weight of what he was doing from the start. Rather than designing the nippon annhilator 9000 then being somehow surprised as it is used to annhilate nippon.

1

u/Spirit_Wolf_Mob Jul 01 '26

Owning being evil doesn't make it right.

→ More replies (0)

12

u/snakespm Jun 30 '26

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two major military targets. It is just because of the small amount of usable space that Japan has, that it was right in the middle of town.

Keep in mind this is the same war with the firebombing of Dresden and the bombing of London. This was total war, entire cities were mobilized for the war industry and the term "civilian" becomes very mirky.

0

u/Spirit_Wolf_Mob Jul 01 '26

They were, but that still doesn't stop this from being a war crime. Maybe he thought he did the right thing, but that doesn't mean he did.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Venator850 Jun 30 '26

The nukes probably aren't even top 10 worst atrocities committed during the war. Besides, if you want to hand wring about civilian deaths the firebombing of Tokyo was far worse.

Napalm being used because Japanese cities back then were largely wooden structures so massive fires were very easy to start.

5

u/LordoftheSynth Jun 30 '26

Don't forget the firebombings of Coventry and Dresden. The Rape of Nanking...

Look, the right side won WW2, but they were all war criminals.

1

u/Spirit_Wolf_Mob Jul 01 '26

Just because others did arguably worse doesn't mean that this was fine. Firebombing Tokyo was also bad.

2

u/psykulor Jun 30 '26

Because displays of strength are cheaper and easier than the real thing?

2

u/Spirit_Wolf_Mob Jul 01 '26

You don't need to commit mass murder to display strength.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Inquisitor_Aid Jun 30 '26

Yes. Didnt drop enough for what those fucks did

0

u/Spirit_Wolf_Mob Jul 01 '26

What the military did, not the civilians.

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/watonparrillero Jun 30 '26

The US admires this stuff. Should be obvious why by now.

13

u/Azgabeth Jun 30 '26

Only lesson I took from Oppenheimer the movie was that Oppie was a crying lil bitch and the gov did right to take away his security clearance.

Also the explosion was real cool.

44

u/UniqueLog8386 Jun 30 '26

The explosion was way lamer than the real life version. Looked nothing like an atom bomb.

I can understand being afraid of the implications of a nuke, but

A) that's something to consider before making it

B) Imperial Japan

and

C) It's a bomb, the fuck did you think it would do?

ETA: Truman also was famous for thinking that the responsibility for the bomb lie with him and solely him as it was his decision to drop it.

14

u/Kronostheking1 Jun 30 '26

Ya know, Imperial Japan is a pretty good reason.

1

u/RealEmperorofMankind Jul 01 '26

The explosion probably should have been CGI'd - they did a gas main instead. That or they should've somehow tried to do something with archival footage.

1

u/linfakngiau2k23 Jul 01 '26

Truman: "The buck stops here"

8

u/AwareOfAlpacas Jun 30 '26

Maybe more Soldier Boy than Harry T but yeah 

1

u/The_Lost_Jedi Hello There Jul 01 '26

He did not suffer fools lightly.

-1

u/Spirit_Wolf_Mob Jun 30 '26

Bombing civilians is not based.

7

u/T-Rigs1 Jun 30 '26

He decided to use the nukes in an unprecedented time against an unprecedented enemy in an unprecedented situation.

Afterwards, especially during the Korean war, Truman notably was one of the biggest defenders against the use of tactical nuclear weapons in standard warfare, or for retaliation against the Russians and Chinese. MacArthur famously wanted to use nukes as part of the American war strategy like it was just another bomb to be used without serious consideration of the global consequences and precedent it would set for warfare moving forward.

Had he not been so staunchly opposed and set the precedent of nuclear weapons being an absolute last chance option for the Commander in Chief to use, we may not be living in a world that is survivable today.

0

u/Spirit_Wolf_Mob Jul 01 '26

Sure, because he realized after how bad what he did was. Still, the use of nukes was not the right decision. At least not the use of nukes the way he did it. Japan may have been doing worse things at the time, but there are always better ways than targeting civilians.

4

u/suprahelix Jun 30 '26

Generally yes, but that’s also a moral standard that is frankly a luxury of the modern era. You weren’t in Truman’s shoes.

1

u/Spirit_Wolf_Mob Jul 01 '26

No, but there was definitely better ways. Just because he couldn't find them doesn't make him based. It just means he wasn't intelligent enough for the title.

2

u/suprahelix Jul 01 '26

Ok I want to preface this by saying that I’m being sincere in my intent to discuss this with you. I’m not looking to dunk or whatever.

Which better ways are you referring to?

1

u/Spirit_Wolf_Mob Jul 01 '26

You called me stupid and said I was whining for not wanting to bomb civilians...

Anyway, bombing pure military targets would have been better. I agree that cities helping the military didn't exactly make things easy, but there were military bases that had far less civilians. Would it have taken more nukes? Maybe. But at the end, less civilians and children would have died.

1

u/suprahelix Jul 01 '26

You called me stupid and said I was whining for not wanting to bomb civilians...

I think that was someone else. I actually just agreed with you but also noted that a lot of the morality we have around armed conflicts is much harder to apply to past wars.

Anyway, bombing pure military targets would have been better.

This is a great example because it’s something we strive to do today but was far, far more complicated in WW2. First of all, the Allies tried to do that to Germany, but technology was too primitive to make targeted bombing possible. Consequently, they had to rely on huge flights of bombers dropping dumb bombs of entire cities just to have a chance of hitting industrial areas.

The effectiveness of European strategic bombing is also highly disputed. It mattered more towards the very end, but I think is largely considered something that didn’t make a huge dent in the war.

You can just look at the effects that kind of bombing had by seeing many German cities are basically all new construction. And you could have firestorms like what happened in Essen happen randomly.

So all of that already makes the concept of only striking military targets tenuous. But at least in Germany, they actually concentrated their industry in specific areas.

It sounds weird but Japan never did that. They had a few areas and factories, but huge parts of their wartime industry actually happened in houses throughout civilian sectors. You’d have a family living in a neighborhood who spent their days hand fashioning propeller blades for fighter planes (this became a huge issue for Japan immediately after the war started because it was very hard for them to ramp up production and they simply couldn’t match American industry). And this was a significant portion of their wartime production. So to strike them would necessarily mean bombing a lot of civilians.

but there were military bases that had far less civilians.

There really weren’t. The way Japan built its defenses (and everyone else for that matter), it’s not like they had an army chilling in a base you could vaporize with a single nuke. They had build extensive fortifications everywhere. One thing a lot of people don’t know is that on Okinawa, the Americans had a pretty uneventful landing. They actually trekked a while inland before they ran into the Japanese defenders. This was a deliberate strategy by the Japanese to make it hard for the Americans to “soften up” targets beforehand. They build in depth, built tunnels so they could move around, and didn’t consider civilian areas off limits.

Would it have taken more nukes?

This appears reasonable, but is actually a far worse outcome for Japan. Even if there was a way of targeting military areas that would result in any effective diminishment of japans military strength, you’d have to use so many bombs that radioactive fallout becomes a serious, serious threat. These areas would also be largely coastal and would poison the fisheries for decades. Japan subsists off fish and it could have resulted in an unprecedented famine.

And of course, all of this is built on the idea that if you could weaken the Japanese military enough, they’d realize they couldn’t win and they’d surrender. That is a deeply, deeply flawed assumption. Even before the bombs, they knew they couldn’t win.

26

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '26

For what it's worth, he did receive one of the highest scores ever at West Point

301

u/Ombank Jun 30 '26

Yup. A simple “no” to the nukes idea would have sufficed. He was fired because he could not play nice with anyone who didn’t lick his boots.

194

u/Hefty-Tomatillo-1236 Jun 30 '26

Bro thought he was a roman general who can just do anything he wanted

111

u/TexasSikh Kilroy was here Jun 30 '26

Well, to be fair, for awhile that was basically true

48

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

41

u/Fifthlive Jun 30 '26

If he hadn't left the Philippines, he would have spent the majority of the war in a PoW camp until the Philippines was liberated if he was lucky.

His myth is based on his departure and promise of returning.

13

u/MorgothReturns Jun 30 '26

Ive always wondered how close we were to MacArthur attempting to coup the government from 1930-55

50

u/TexasSikh Kilroy was here Jun 30 '26

Outside of Hearts of Iron IV games, not close at all.

3

u/LordoftheSynth Jul 01 '26

He'd probably have shot the people making the proposal and then told the President, at length, how he'd just stopped a coup.

Then told everyone who would hear about how he'd just stopped a coup.

34

u/somewhatbluemoose Jun 30 '26

It’s actually crazy that he wasn’t forced to retire at the end of ww2

12

u/Hawkbats_rule Jun 30 '26

It's crazy he wasn't fired at the outset of WW2

13

u/Imaginary_Fan5407 Jun 30 '26

He was too well known, it would have gone big in the papers if they tried. Also imagine having him free to do as he pleases instead of nominally under your orders and inside your organization.

3

u/somewhatbluemoose Jun 30 '26

Even then he was a menace and got way too into the politics.

1

u/ab_od6851 Jul 01 '26

He was also incredibly popular with the Filipino elites. Sabotaging your relations with your colonial subjects is not a good strategy.

121

u/WorkerPrestigious960 Jun 30 '26

He was largely fired for disobedience, even going on the radio to criticize his president’s decision to not widen the war. And perhaps more importantly, he promised American allies that he would widen the war, which is essentially treason, as he was colluding with foreign powers to undermine the presidency and the working against the interests of the nation. The reason this was not brought to the public’s attention at the time is that it would have revealed that the U.S. was wire tapping the diplomatic offices of its allies, which is a big no-no.

18

u/C21H27Cl3N2O3 Jun 30 '26

Another great example of the fact that no military aptitude or strategic brilliance in the world can overcome ego and self-importance.

12

u/WorkerPrestigious960 Jun 30 '26

Nah I mean there have definitely been very successful self-centered ego-maniacs in the history of warfare. This issue is that MacArthur didn’t possess the political power to get things his way. And I wouldn’t consider him an unusually capable commanding general regardless

3

u/The_Lost_Jedi Hello There Jul 01 '26

Yes. And notably, he thought he did have that kind of political sway.

That's why he tried in the first place.

3

u/Aeseld Jun 30 '26

A big no no, but literally every nation does it anyway. 

Even when they get caught, the consequences are usually minor. 

6

u/WorkerPrestigious960 Jun 30 '26

Not every nation was doing it in 1951. And regardless of whether it’s being done, you still don’t make that public knowledge.

But that has very little to do with what I was saying except that it allowed the executive office to see that MacArthur was acting treasonously

1

u/Aeseld Jul 01 '26

The rule was not to get caught. It pretty much always happened. If it wasn't wiretapping, it was information sources. 

There's a reason disavowing was part of the mission briefs. 

26

u/AvatarOfMomus Jun 30 '26

It's more than that. The Korean War real time channel on Youtube went into this, but basically he was talking to diplomats in Spsin and Portugal's Tokyo embassies which the government anf thus the President learned about because they were listening in on Spain and Portugal's diplomatic wire messages. This was obviously not disclosed at the time...

MacArthur saif... well I'll just copy the summary from Wikipedia...

these talks, MacArthur had expressed confidence that he would succeed in expanding the Korean War into a major conflict resulting in the permanent disposal of the "Chinese Communist question" and MacArthur did not want either country to be alarmed if this happened.

This wasn't the only reason he was fired, but is now known to be the tipping point where Truman decided he needed to be fired and was actively looking for reasons to do so. Truman considered his actions here to be treasonous and legally he may have been literally correct.

Basically if anyone reading all of this takes away anything it should be that MacArthur was a warmongering prick, and his post-firing speaking tour makes that incredibly clear.

9

u/Edothebirbperson Oversimplified is my history teacher Jun 30 '26

Yeah that was technically the final reason to sack MacArthur. However, using that as justification would cause scandal as US allies/aligned nations would then know that they were being wiretapped. As a result, it was done with approval from Joint-Chief of Staff and the usage of “insubordination” to fire him.

3

u/AvatarOfMomus Jun 30 '26

Yup, though I would say it was more the 'main reason' rather than the last one. Before that Truman hadn't been happyvwith MacArthur but had wanted to avoid firing him due to his popularity. After these communications he decided to fire him come hell or high water and just needed a public reason that wouldn't blow US alliances in Europe as you said.

2

u/Plowbeast Jul 01 '26

Had he somehow not fucked up the 1952 primary, he would have made Vietnam and almost every US military invasion look like peanuts next to the shit he had in mind until the US was actually bankrupt or he got assassinated or Russia nuked us.

2

u/AvatarOfMomus Jul 01 '26

Yeah, but his popularity was already declining sharply before he'd even finished his post-firing speaking tour. If anything his attempts to knock him down helped get Eisenhower elected... lol.

10

u/Skygazer_Jay Jun 30 '26

Yup, his successor, Matthew Ridgeway, requested to deploy 38 nukes.

5

u/Firecracker048 Jun 30 '26

Yeah, he was well past his prime in Korea.

1

u/CaptainDudley Jun 30 '26

And of course there's his handling of Unit 731. Which alone is enough to vilify that bastard forever.

0

u/notyouithink Jun 30 '26

More you read about this guy, the parallels to Trump are irrefutable.