Douglas MacArthur Discussion

[Big B]

Well, I promised not to flame anyone, so I'll stop here.

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views - it has all been most enlightening.

[Gem35]

Like him or not, the general was a very important commander during and after WWII.[:)]

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: Big B


WOW! I never heard this before - Mac dragged Red China into the Korean War???!!!

Dragged, no. Was largely responsible for, yes. MacArthur decided to call Mao's bluff when China declared that the UN forces would not be allowed to advance further. Only, Mao wasn't bluffing.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if MacArthur had given the order to stop advancing. IMHO, there wasn't enough territory left in communist hands for a viable nation: the UN forces had already taken Pyongyang. There would have been a stream of defections southward, and Korea would have been effectively re-united.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

In the Philippines Mac positioned most of his critically needed supplies near the different beaches that could be invaded but FAILED to provide the troops to hold those beaches. Losing most of his supplies before he even engaged the Japanese. He failed to properly train and equip the Philippine Army as well. Now that is not all his fault, but part of it is.

MacArthur provided the troops to hold the beaches, he just didn't have a realistic appreciation of his army's combat ability. It was still in training and at the long end of a supply chain from the US. I wouldn't blame him for failure to train or equip his army (he was in the process of both), but for attempting something for which his army was not capable and simultaneously destroying its fallback plan.

He refused to disperse his aircraft even AFTER the word of surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Thus losing nearly his entire air force just as happened at Pearl harbor.

He lost about half his airforce in the initial strike.

He ABUSED subordinates.

He got along well w/ Kinkaid, Barbey, Hill, Kenney and Halsey (if you consider him a subordinate). He didn't seem to like or trust Blamey, but I wouldn't say he abused him. As far as lower ranks, I have no idea.

The Marines hated him because he announced that even though the Marines fought valiantly in the PI they had enough awards from WW1 and needed no more. Putting Army units in for awards and refusing to do the same for the 4th Marines.

Whether the Marines hated him or not is irrelevant. The 4th Marines was little more than a garrison force at Corregidor when MacArthur was still in there. They fought valiantly, but that was after MacArthur had left. I've never seen a direct quote from MacArthur about 'enough awards' so I won't comment.

In the later fighting he would use Australian troops for the shitty jobs and give them no credit.

What job wasn't shitty in SwPac?

He would use the Marines and again not give them any credit.

When did he ever have any Marine lcus under his command after the PI disaster?

He would make outrageous demands on the Navy and throw temper tantrums when he got shot down.

Outrageous being a relative term, making demands usually means bidding for allocation of scarce resources. Something all theatre commanders did. MacArthur was in a difficult position vis-a-vis Nimitz. Nimitz and MacArthur were both theatre commanders, but Nimitz was in charge of all naval assets in the Pacific. MacArthur was not in charge all army and army air corps assets in the Pacific. If MacArthur needed naval assets he usually had make do w/ what was alloted to the 7th Fleet by Nimitz or King. With the exception of Leyte and after, a comparison of 3rd/5th Fleet oobs w/ 7th Fleet oobs shows he did pretty well w/ not much.

Unlike the Navy and Marines he could by pass enemy positions and pick and chose his battles. The Navy and Marines had no choice but to go head on for needed Islands and naval battles. And Mac used that to sow discord in the US.

He could only pick and choose his battles to the extent that he didn't require significant naval assets (i.e. carriers) or a secure sealane to get there or, once taken, supply it.

I think MacArthur is the most fascinating of all the American brass in WWII, equally admirable and repugnant. I don't like him but for some reason I feel compelled to defend him. Oh well, too bad we can't bookmark this for 2009, around the time the next .50 cal v. 20mm debate breaks out.

[AcePylut]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Thanks to all,

Any other opinions?

A gentleman that worked for my dad was a soldier in the PI when WW2 brokeout. This guy ended up doing the Bataan Death March, 3.5 years in a POW camp. All that bad crap.

He hated "Dougout Doug" with a passion. Not as much as he hated the Japs (any asians for that matter), but he never had a kind word about it.

To sum up his litany of abuses heaped on Gen Mac into a few words: prima-donna, glory hunter, terrible leader.

[jnier]

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

...His Korean War performance alone places him among the greatest military commanders of history. The Inchon landing is still considered one of the greatest amphibious operations in history.

Sorry, while I agree with the second half of this statement, the first half is absurd. To be "among the greatest military commanders in history" you have to understand the broader political objectives of the mission. Granted, the mission in Korea was murkey, but when you measure Mac in terms of whether he acheived US/UN political objectives for Korea, his performance in Korea was a failure. While Inchon was a marvelous success, he wasted that success by taking actions that ensured Chinese intervention, and ultimately resulted in the disastrous US retreat. He won the battle, but lost the war. Great commanders win battles and wars.

To say that he has a bad repuation now because he rubbed powerful political figures the wrong way is not really accurate, IMHO. Those political figures had a good understading of the important political objectives in Korea, Mac did not.

And if there was a genius in Korea it was Ridgeway, not MacArthur.

[JamesM]

Great commanders win battles and wars.

I.e. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, William the Conquer, Nelson, Napoleon, Grant, Monash and Zhukov. MacArthur definitely does not belong in list of these great warriors!

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: jnier
Great commanders win battles and wars.

Then explain Gen Washington ?

He won the war by loosing and retreating from every engagement [:D]

[JamesM]

Then explain Gen Washington ?

He won the war by loosing and retreating from every engagement [:D]

Probably the same way that General Vo Nguyen Giap won, by understanding how to defeat the enemy.

[morvwilson]

In the Revolutionary war all Washington had to do was survive. As long as there was a continental army, he was winning.
It was the same way in the American Civil war, the south could not be defeated while their army still stood.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

MacArthur, this guy ordered to shoot the vets in washington, right?

His victories were won by superial material, superial numbers and superial trained soldiers. These soldiers got orders from their officers. MacArthurs input was quite limited.
He will be remembered for his infamous retreat at bataan but also for the gamble at Inchon and his madness about the use of nuclear weapons against china.
 
a difficult person, cause his ego was larger as his military or political influence.
But i love the movie about him, cause the actor was great.

[KG Erwin]

I don't believe you will find many Marine vets (or Marine enthusiasts) who hold a high opinion of this man. Strategically, his stubborn insistence on holding forward bases in the Phillippines as a bulwark cost many many lives. Tactically, he can be held almost criminally negligent in not alerting the air bases in the Phillippines after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Thus, our planes were destroyed on the ground, and ultimately an entire Marine regiment (the 4th) was needlessly sacrificed.

It COULD be said that a pawn was given up to buy us time to rearm and take the offensive, but this POV offends modern sensibilities.

His blatant insubordination during the Korean War has already been mentioned.

[bradfordkay]

"MacArthur provided the troops to hold the beaches, he just didn't have a realistic appreciation of his army's combat ability. It was still in training and at the long end of a supply chain from the US. I wouldn't blame him for failure to train or equip his army (he was in the process of both), but for attempting something for which his army was not capable and simultaneously destroying its fallback plan. "
 
MacArthur spent the latter part of the '30's as the commander in chief of rhe Philippine Army. In this, he was solely repsonsible for the state of preparation (or lack thereof) of said army. His glowing reports to Washington about the size of his army, the status of its preparations, and the effectiveness of that  army could easily be labelled as fraudulent. During this period, he preferred to spend his time socializing in Manila rather than actually overseeing the training of the Philippine Army.
 
Had his reports on the status of the PA been anywhere near accurate, Washington would never have agreed to his "defend at the beaches" stategy and would have ordered him into the Bataan Bastion - with the supplies correctly established in place. The hardships that the troops in the PI suffered can be directly attributed to his poor leadership. Never was a Medal of Honor given to such an unworthy recipient.
 
We cannot place the blame for the destruction on the PAF on his hands. The air units had been warned, and had been up in the air but happened to be caught on the ground refueling. Had the Japanese attacks not been delayed by bad weather, the USAFFE air units would not have been on the ground at the time the Japanese bombers arrived.

[jnier]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: jnier
Great commanders win battles and wars.

Then explain Gen Washington ?

He won the war by loosing and retreating from every engagement [:D]

As much as I personally like Washington (was just at Washington's Crossing a few months ago), his performance at Brooklyn Heights and the Brandywine pretty much disqualifies him from being one of "the greatest military commanders of all time." Washington was really good, but he did not have exceptional tactical abilities (although he had his moments, like Trenton & Princeton). He had great leaderships skillls and a wonderful gift for understanding the bigger strategic picture, which makes him very, very good, but not one of the greatest ever, IMHO.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
In the Revolutionary war all Washington had to do was survive.

Little simplistic don’t you think ?

Hardly a small task considering the political environment of the day, not to mention the small insignificant fact he was facing one of the most deadly forces of the day with a bunch untrained farmers armed with their personal hunting arms.

Anyway don’t take my post out of context, it was in reply to

ORIGINAL: jnier
Great commanders win battles and wars.

Which we know is BS, Gen Washington proves that wrong and indeed was one the greatest commanders [:)]

[jnier]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
In the Revolutionary war all Washington had to do was survive.

Little simplistic don’t you think ?

Hardly a small task considering the political environment of the day, not to mention the small insignificant fact he was facing one of the most deadly forces of the day with a bunch untrained farmers armed with their personal hunting arms.

Anyway don’t take my post out of context, it was in reply to

ORIGINAL: jnier
Great commanders win battles and wars.

Which we know is BS, Gen Washington proves that wrong and indeed was one the greatest commanders [:)]

Don't want to get too far OT...but how do you explain Brooklyn Heights & Brandywine? Or Fort Necessity? A great tactician simply would not have made such obvious errors. Washington was very, very good, but "the greatest" would not have made these kinds of tactical mistakes repeatedly.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: jnier

Don't want to get too far OT...but how do you explain Brooklyn Heights & Brandywine? Or Fort Necessity? A great tactician simply would not have made such obvious errors. Washington was very, very good, but "the greatest" would not have made these kinds of tactical mistakes repeatedly.

We differ in opinion [;)]




PS: No one is stating ‘greatest

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
In the Revolutionary war all Washington had to do was survive.

Little simplistic don’t you think ?

I agree with you, in that the goal was simple, survive. But achieving that goal ....

Nevermind the battles, just look at the logistical problems of the day.

[andym]

Maybe because Gen McArthur was always seen with a corncob pipe clamped in his gob,in this day and age of political Correctness and other such "Schumachers"he has fallen out of favour?

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"MacArthur provided the troops to hold the beaches, he just didn't have a realistic appreciation of his army's combat ability. It was still in training and at the long end of a supply chain from the US. I wouldn't blame him for failure to train or equip his army (he was in the process of both), but for attempting something for which his army was not capable and simultaneously destroying its fallback plan. "

MacArthur spent the latter part of the '30's as the commander in chief of rhe Philippine Army. In this, he was solely repsonsible for the state of preparation (or lack thereof) of said army. His glowing reports to Washington about the size of his army, the status of its preparations, and the effectiveness of that  army could easily be labelled as fraudulent. During this period, he preferred to spend his time socializing in Manila rather than actually overseeing the training of the Philippine Army.

Had his reports on the status of the PA been anywhere near accurate, Washington would never have agreed to his "defend at the beaches" stategy and would have ordered him into the Bataan Bastion - with the supplies correctly established in place. The hardships that the troops in the PI suffered can be directly attributed to his poor leadership. Never was a Medal of Honor given to such an unworthy recipient.

We cannot place the blame for the destruction on the PAF on his hands. The air units had been warned, and had been up in the air but happened to be caught on the ground refueling. Had the Japanese attacks not been delayed by bad weather, the USAFFE air units would not have been on the ground at the time the Japanese bombers arrived.

The Phillipine Scouts constituted the Phillipine Army until 1941. They were well trained and moderately equipped. The legislative expansion of the Phillipine Army may have started in 1936 but it was mostly construction of facilities and training upto a reserve level at best until 1941. Not until MacArthur gave tWashington an alternative to writing off the PI did Washington start to prioritize their reinforcement. Few thought they would be invaded prior to Spring or Summer of 42. Given that time, his plan might have been effective. Washington had its own share of the blame for taking part of the delusion. Nobody was comfortable just writting off the PI. As you said, MacArthur put the cart in front of the horse, he should have waited until his army could complete the task given it.