through either side of forces, which could have been likely since each side?s resources would be less than if all resources were concentrated. ConclusionTruman?s plan didn?t address communism as well as MacArthur?s did for this not so surprising reason: Truman thought more diplomatically and MacArthur thought more militarily. The relative strength of the USA after World War II was unparalleled, so a military actions probably would have proved preferable. While such policies as the Marshall plan to aid European nations in order that they not fall to communism were somewhat successful in keeping communism from growing, they only prolonged the Cold War so that such atrocities as the Cuban Missile Crisis were allowed to happen. In fact, I think that Truman?s opinion and MacArthur?s weren?t very different deep down. After all, the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine state that the U.S. should help free people everywhere threatened by totalitarian regimes to resist communist expansion everywhere, and the NSC-68, which Truman passed, was more pro-active as opposed to reactionary. Also, wasn?t it Truman who allowed the general to invade North Korea in the first place?But he wasn?t decisive and convicted enough to go all out. Maybe it was because Truman made many decisions regarding Korea based on the assumption that he thought that the Soviets were more involved than they actually were; in retrospect, if he hadn?t had those suspicions, he may not have been so cautious about driving Asian communism into the ground was the best course of action. The lesson to be learned from all this: the deciding factor in diplomacy should be more based on what one thinks will happen as opposed to could happen. While a little idealistic, MacArthur certainly knew what he was talking about when it came to warfare, and America would have won the Cold War sooner if MacArthur?s mindset were accepted....
