Comments by "Helium Road" (@RCAvhstape) on "The History Guy: History Deserves to Be Remembered" channel.

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34.  @HootOwl513  Truman stated that Marines were nothing more than the Navy's police force, and that's all they'd ever be if he had his way. And that was after the Pacific campaign. Truman was old school Army from WWI and the Corps was in a transitional period then, acting as a second land force in Europe and moving away from its maritime roots, while encroaching on the Army's "turf". Thanks to Lejeune, the Corps found its current role the nation's amphibious power projection force, getting back in touch with the sea, and this paid off in the war with Japan, which Lejeune correctly saw coming. After the war, though, guys like Truman and others tried very hard to break up the Corps and divide its assets and troops amongst the other services. Various excuses were made, such as "no amphibious warfare in the atomic age" and so on, but the Corps' proponents lobbied hard and Congress codified the mission and strength of the Corps in law as a result. Even in modern times, there are still people who don't understand why we have a Marine Corps, or why Marines aren't part of the Army instead of the Navy Department. David Hackworth was one of the latter; despite respect for the Corps he thought it should be merged with the Army. I lost a bit of respect for him when I read that. The Corps derives its strength from its partnership with the Navy and its ability to develop and manage itself apart from Army leadership (and importantly, Army budget controls), while being able to operate alongside the Army when called on.
    2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2