At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Ash, with all due respect you seem to keep giving answers to stuff that are kind of incorrect. I've seen maybe four different questions you've responded to where you've said something that's wrong. While this question is pretty subjective, the reason he was largely viewed as so terribly unpopular was because he fired MacArthur. MacArthur was a huge war hero in the eyes of the American people for his role in WWII and the controversy over his relief was huge. The Coalition of UN/US forced fought back against the Chinese "volunteers" throughout the war and they didn't leave the war "unpunished" by any means; almost a quarter of a million Chinese soldiers died.
I dunno, Schro, I would go with A. MacArthur was certainly popular, but there were plenty of GIs who served under him who didn't particularly care for him, and they had families of course. Furthermore, MacArthur was by no means the only popular general to come out of the Second World War. In short, I think Truman could easily have fired MacArthur had he then gone on to win the Korean War. I think his failure to win a war against a puny Asian backwater country just after the United States had beaten Germany *and* Japan was broadly seen, by those who did and those who did not like MacArthur, as the biggest failure. This would also have grated given his apparent spinelessness with respect to Easrter Europe after VE Day. People expected, after GIs fought their way all the way through Germany, that Eastern Europe would be liberated from both Nazi and Red hegemony. That Truman allowed the Soviets to completely dominate Eastern Europe would've struck many as a partial throwing away of the costly fruits of victory in the war in Europe. Truman's subsequent cautious performance in Korea would've cemented the impression he gave in Europe of a weak and unimaginative leader, a haberdasher and machine politician in way over his head. Which, you know, he probably was.
That's totally understandable, but it's dicey from there. My response was mostly geared to "It's definitely not C", rather than "It's definitely B".
Additionally, I guess, but I never thought (correct me if i'm wrong) The US role in the conflict was to ever supersede Defense in the first place. As far as i'm aware the US wasn't seeking to unite the peninsula or anything of the sort.
sorry Schrodinger,with all respect...i believe that man learns from mistake and for the optional question that are asked in the group ,i have answered for that even though i don't know ,because i believe in studying through mistakes ...hope you understand that my friend...this shows opinion of different persons....i hope this may me enough for you to understand.i can understand what you feel about a wrong answer ,but this is not the way to express a correct answer,if you know the answer that's a good thing ,but write it in a way so that the person whom you have proved wrong get's it without any negativeness...please try to study that....
No problem man, no worries. Sorry if I came off mean. It's just that you may be causing unintentional misinformation to others through this, and that's why I brought it up. I understand where you are coming from, but saying things you don't know as a definitive answer (I do the same, but not intentionally; it's from my own ignorance that I think I know the answer.)