Potter was the better commander although I seem to recall there were too many episodes where they had him lose his temper, get too emotional etc.

Potter.

I like them both however i prefer Potter being the strong commander who could handle the brass, be a disciplinarian, understand the need to prank/joke around and be silly once in awhile for the sake of keeping sane. He knew when to get involved and when to stay out of it. Henry was a good man who should've been at Tokyo General teaching new techniques and treating patients.

Potter. He was not as laid back as Blake but he was well respected by the Generals and did not put up with Burns.

Potter was the leader they needed, but Blake was the leader they deserved. I like them both about equally.
Seid ihr das Essen? Nein, wir sind der Jaeger!

Hooker wrote those books (which are really dumb, by the way. I read them in the 80's) as a bit of retaliation against the tv series, which he hated.

But there was no need for it. Henry could just have gone home. Richard hooker, the author of the original novel, wrote a series of other books about the characters from MASH set after the war, in which Henry appears as a character, so i don't see the writers of the TV series need have killed him off either.

I know it was horrid to do but it was war horrid things happen

blake is funnier. i wouldn't have minded the changeover to Potter so much though if they hadn't killed off Blake, which I always thought a horrd thing to do.

That's a good point. If Maclean had of stayed Alda might have had some competition and the storylines wouldn't have become so SJW, at least not as often.
Hawkeye/Alda pretty much had the show to himself after Maclean and to a lesser extent Linville left.
Sometimes a movie or tv show plot is so stupid that only the stupid can understand it.

Col. Blake all the way. I think that if McLean Stevenson hadn't of left, then the story lines wouldn't of been so serious in the later seasons nor would Alda have been so preachy. I always thought that Alan Alda (in the later seasons) felt that since he's been there since the beginning and everyone else has been replaced then he could do pretty much what he wanted. The only one who was from the original cast was Loretta Swit and she wanted out of MASH, so she's not gonna put up a fuss. So Alda did his thing and used MASH as his platform. If Henry had stayed, I think all of that wouldn't have happened. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Potter was the better CO although his character often felt like a caricature.
Blake was more interesting but incompetent, I guess if Stevenson had of stayed on we might have seen Blake become better at his job over time.
Sometimes a movie or tv show plot is so stupid that only the stupid can understand it.

No comparison: Potter was the best. Potter liked his whiskey, but Blake was a wishy-washy drunk, and a coward. He snivelled in front of any member of the Brass, and he let Hawkeye and Trapper walk all over him. Useless.
Potter was a lifetime officer; he know how to stand up to the Brass, and also how to let them think they'd gotten their way. A cunning old fox who could more than keep up with Hawkeye and BJ, and run an efficient camp, at the same time. Sense of law and order, but also a sense of humor, and an understanding of when the regulations are really important, and when they aren't.

• Crazy. All crazy but I'm.

Can't really be negative to Potter/Morgan, but those first three seasons were just golden, imo.

Yup Indy, another good reason.
Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory and ending a battle to save an empire is no defeat

And then there's the fourth reason, good 'ol Missouri mulish stubbornness, as in "you're not going to force me out, I'll leave if and when I'm ready."

Being one of my favorite episodes I know that you remember right.
I think he stayed for several reasons.
If he left due to false reports based on reports that were obviously driven by a biased General, he might have felt guilty if something went wrong with a new commander.
Secondly, what if the new commander wasn't a surgeon, but a opportunist looking to score points and become General. This new commander might not give a rats ass about anyone but himself.
third. He might feel guilty about leaving given the first opportunity when Pierce, B.J, Margaret, Charles and the rest were stuck there.
Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory and ending a battle to save an empire is no defeat

In "Retirement" is that the one where Pots gets the chance to leave and go home and he is peer pressured by the others to end up staying and then he mutters when they leave the office, "I hate this place."
Maybe I'm not remembering the episode well, but why stay?
Seems like a stretch for a story idea to toy with the idea of Potter leaving when anyone who gets the chance should take it and leave a war zone.

I've always been more of a Potter fan. I suspect it's due to the fact that he was the fist commander that I watched on TV. I was 9 and living in Korea. We'd barely watched the show prior. Partly due to the fact that I was 6, and we'd just returned from France that year in late July.
It's also due to the fact that I'd always pictured Henry as just one of the boys. Hawkeye, Trapper and others called him Henry, and he womanized, drank, and partied.
Potter, though, was the polar opposite. The only time I can recall Hawkeye calling Potter by anything other than Potter, or Colonel, was in "Potter's Retirement".
Potter also got the respect of Margaret, and even Charles, no small task.
In "Potter's Retirement" Margaret said to Potter "I just don't know how we'll replace you in here sir!"
In "G.F.A" Charles told Potter: "Shortly, I will be in a position of authority over other surgeons and I hope I will be guided by the memory of your wisdom and your gentle good humor."
Henry was alright, but Potter was better imo.
Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory and ending a battle to save an empire is no defeat

I really can't pick one over the other because I liked them both, but
maybe
leaning a little more towards Potter since I'm more familiar with the Potter years of the show than I am with the Blake years.

Also, Morgan had the good fortune of appearing in more than twice as many eps as Stevenson, and thus the advantage of the opportunity to further develop his character, with more story lines available at the writers' hands. (If that's any matter)?

MMmmmmnot easy! I think both Stevenson & Morgan played their roles well, and in harmony with their characters' backgrounds; Blake, being a draftee, was natural in being "laid back" & "easy", while Potter, as a career officer, would expectedly be "no nonsense" & with a "stick".! lol I would give Potter the nod over Blake as far as knowing from the start what it entails being in a command position. Though Blake, was a commander "when he had to be", and carried that duty well, in relation to the mainly non-military environment that was the 4077th.