OT: Douglas MacArthur

I've just finished reading MacArthur At War by Walter R. Borneman, 2016, and Douglas MacArthur, American Warrior by Arthur Herman, 2016; having previously read American Ceasar, Douglas Macarthur by William Manchester, 1978, twice, once decades ago and again more recently.

Long a MacArthur admirer, I remain convinced that he was America's greatest military leader.

I encourage all MacArthur distractors to read Herman's book, or, at least, the short conclusion. Written from a historical vantage point over 50 years after MacArthur's death, and after once unavailable sources have become available subsequent to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Herman's perspective of the times and events allows MacArthur to be seen more clearly.

Dean

At one time I was a great admirer of good ole Doug. That is until I started looking into the build up to the Korean War. There is evidence that would lead you to believe that his loyalty to the Bataan Gang" made him ignore warnings that the KN's were up to something. That lowers him from "Great Military Leader" to worse than pond scum in my book. His biggest wart would be his inability to listen to anything he disagreed with.

Rick

My father in law, who survived the Bataan Death March did not have much good to say about MacArthur, but then again he had a distorted vantage point.

Not sure of this, but weren't some of his public pictures staged? I'm thinking of his "return" to the Philippines. Seems his ego was a little over inflated.

My first girlfriends father. Also survived the death march. He also had mental problems at the time I knew him. A loud noise or any sudden movement
would have him curled up on the floor crying. Mention MacArthurs name. He would get out of control. Screaming about how he run out on them. Left them
there to die. How MacArthur was a coward that should be shot.

Let's just say I couldn't disagree more.

He wouldn't even be in my top 100.

I recall a special some years back where the guy who claimed to have run the landing craft which brought MacArthur back was interviewed. He was so proud that he was able to run them up on dry ground. Then he was ordered to back off, so they could stage the walk in the water. I have looked for that since. It's nowhere to be found. Could be that he was told to shut up.

NO. Though believed by many, the photos of the Philippines landings were not staged.

There was a period of time in the 50s and 60s, when certain groups attempted to detract from MacArthur's reputation for political purposes.

Again, I would advise detractors to study recent history. The above mention short conclusion would be a good place to START.

Dean

An opinion commonly held by many to this day, but there was no "Dugout Doug."

Dean

In response to those below: MacArthur was an arrogant SOB who worked hard on maintaining the image he wanted of himself. His "return" was not staged, though the photo of the event that was released was not the only one taken that day. He was ordered off Bataan and his escape to safety was anything but safe. He was military high command - a different kind of animal. No one in that position is in the business of making people happy.

While he was ONE of our many outstanding military minds, he was far from "the Best". He probably wouldn't even have been a General, had it not been for his MOTHER bending Pershing's ear. Most of his "brilliant" military moves were to make Douggie look good.
His Best job was overseeing the occupation of Japan. That's where he should have stayed when Korea broke out.

Well MacArthur wanted to go ahead and take all of Korea,in the very long term the way things are going just today I'd have to say it would have been the right decision.Looks like we may
have to do it now and their backup China is a whole lot stronger than they were in the early 1950's,plus Vietnam probably would have never happened.

Chesty Puller was a greater leader than dug out Doug,he lead by example,and his men had faith in him.He was a true warrior leader that fought for his men, not his ego.

I tend to believe my girl friends father. He was there,I wasn't. I do know the ordeal messed him up bad.

dad survived under him 4 different island campaigns ,,. Mcarthur by most historians account was brilliant ,AND , yes ,i have
read (american ceaser ) in my dads opinion mc-arthur was a primadona and a poor leader at best ,,ike helpt him shape up the
filipino army ..then ike got a transfer... personel reasons///?? ,,. in my opinion ,.mc-a-rthur was a man of tremendous failed
hindsite..he could always tell something was going wrong after it went wrong , our presidents gave him far too much latitude in
japan, after he made himself" king of japan" he was primed to trip himself up in korea by thumbing his nose at harry truman

I've never read any of the books you mention. Have had American Ceaser in my hand at the library twice in the last year but just couldn't bring myself to read about the man who could so denigrate the Navy that saved him on the Phillipines and materially supported him throughout the war. And for him to be MC at the surrender ceremony of what was primarily a naval war - aboard a battleship of all places - is particularly galling to me. But, I suppose I should read more about this man who many say was a gifted leader. If only because he was one of our own.
Which of the books listed above would you recommend I start with?
On an unrelated note Dean, we once talked about what I called the greatest novel ever written - Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. You mentioned you would pick it up someday. Have you? I got about halfway through my umpteenth reading of the book this weekend. It is such a lovely story.

(quoted from post at 22:18:03 07/04/17) Well MacArthur wanted to go ahead and take all of Korea,in the very long term the way things are going just today I'd have to say it would have been the right decision.Looks like we may
have to do it now and their backup China is a whole lot stronger than they were in the early 1950's,plus Vietnam probably would have never happened.

Click to expand...

He did take all of Korea. Then the Chinese entered and we went backwards for a while.

I would recommend starting with the most current, Arthur Herman's Douglas MacArthur, American Warrior, 2016.

Another interesting WWII book, though not one particularly relevant to this thread as it is limited to the New Guinea Campaign, is War At The End of the World, James P. Duffy, 2016.

I have not yet read Pride and Predjudice, indeed, I had forgotten. I will put it back on my list of books to read.

Dean

Many, perhaps most, of the soldiers on Bataan did indeed believe that MacArthur was dining on steak and eggs while hiding in the Malinta Tunnel, none of which was true.

Again, research is in order.

Dean

I spent 23 years in the military I know we always heard stories about officers. But I believe him and many others. Felt he had run out on them. Left them to die.From what he told me. Some didn't even know he had left. Just woke up one morning and he was gone. No good by speach,no visit to the troops. Just gone.

More anecdotal evidence:

My old hunting buddy Tom spent WW2 island hopping in the pacific. I made the mistake of mentioning MacArthur one day in his presence. This kind and gentle man instantly flew into a rage and proceeded to chew my ears off. After a long tirade he stomped off to be alone with his thoughts for a couple of hours. I never mentioned MacArthur around him again.

JD

My Uncle Bill Elbe went to new guinea , when he agreed to take ( immediate combat ),.,. when he and Dad and all his pals signed on in jan . 1942, he said "they figured out the achilles heal of a jap zero easily enuf ,, yeah , they were fast !, but once hit they lit up like a roman candle , and the poor devil piloting had very little chance of getting out of that sunduvich once she caughtfire " ,.they trained as you go ,learn as you endure the hardships of attack with few supplies , learn or do, or die.. learn to use the resources and people available as best as possible to stop any more japanese expansion across the islands in the pacific ,, the real prize for the japanese was australia and all its natural resources ,,. had they chose to infiltrate there quietly instead of warring on china in 1931,. the brits may have let them in if they had come politely ,.,.but china was a closer and easy target ...

(quoted from post at 19:18:03 07/04/17) Well MacArthur wanted to go ahead and take all of Korea,in the very long term the way things are going just today I'd have to say it would have been the right decision.Looks like we may
have to do it now and their backup China is a whole lot stronger than they were in the early 1950's,plus Vietnam probably would have never happened.

Click to expand...

The thing most people forget is the Soviet Union. Part of the NK northern border is with Russia. China wasn't the big worry. They didn't even have nukes at the time. Russia was what worried Truman. That not only could have lead to WWIII but could have been a nuclear war. That is why he was ordered to stop.

The staged part of him going ashore in the Philippians was the actual footage being reshot a few times of the ramp coming down and him stepping off the landing craft.

Going back even further he was ordered out of the Philippians. Now he was on the rock and the bulk of the troops were on Bataan. Japan had total control of the air and sea. Just how was he supposed to make a "speech" to the troops? They knew at eh time that Japan was listening in on all his radio traffic too. Had he tried broadcasting a speech the Japanese would have extra air and sea patrols searching for him as he departed.

While I have no problem stating that he had issues I don't like it when he's knocked for stuff he had no control over. The stuff about not being able to predict the future is ridiculous. No one can. For example, no one knew about Japan's capacity to make war other than what was going on in China. Few officers really understood air power or even recognized that the aircraft carrier was the new offensive weapon of the seas. The fact that Japan had the forces needed to attack Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec then actually invade the Philippians on the 8th was just a big a shock as the attack on the 7th. Yet people blame him for his aircraft getting hit on the airfields the next day. There is ample evidence that he had in fact dispersed the aircraft to the best of his ability. You have to have satellite fields plus shelters. You can't build those in 24 hours. Remember, you fight as you train. And you train based on what someone in DC says you train for.

Most military historians see Doug as a military genius with major flaws. But those flaws overrode his genius IMO.

Rick

A friend's dad told us that he and many other soldiers had to stand in that water for hours while the arrogant $#!# went back and changed into dry clothes 7 or 8 times because he wanted to be sure the photo op had great shots of HIM. Screw that guy.

My Mother was a WWII Veteran. She spent three years in New Guinea and the Philippines as an Army nurse.

She thought the world of MacArthur. I remember tears streaming down her face as she sat in front of our 19" RCA B & W TV watching Walter Cronkite report of the passing of The General, April 1964.

Dean

Knowing you are a Navy man, UD, I would also recommend Robert K. Massie's two monumental works, Dreadnought and Castles of steel. Both deal with the Naval arms race in the time leading up to WWI. Dreadnaught is an in depth study of the decision makers of the era, while Castles of Steel is more about the ships and rapidly changing technology. I expect you will enjoy both.

Dean

Absolutely not true.

Research is in order.

Dean

One can be both brilliant and an uninspiring or even poor leader.

Well said, Rick, and I agree with most of what you say.

This is one of the reasons that I recommend the recent works about MacArthur. Records about Soviet planning vis a vis Korea were not available until after the fall of the Soviet Union.

FWIW, the US nuclear arsenal dwarfed that of the Soviet Union in the Korea era. So did our delivery means. Both Stalin and Mao were well aware of this. They were also confident that Truman would never even threaten to use this temporary advantage, whereas MacArthur believed that there was never a substitute for total victory.

Records released after the collapse of the Soviet Union clearly reveal that Stalin never had any intention of getting involved in a full scale war with the US in the Korea era for what are now obvious reasons. Indeed, such records demonstrate that he would have readily abandoned both Korea and communist China if the US (Truman) appeared willing to demand total victory. MacArthur's experience and perception correctly predicted this. Macarthur was a big picture guy. No one could see the big picture, especially but not exclusively, in the Pacific and Asia, as did MacArthur. Yes, he was a good battlefield tactician, but so too were others, e.g., Patton, Ridgeway, etc., but NO ONE could see the big picture as did MacArthur.

We are once again on the precipice in Korea. Sadly, both economic and military tables are reversed, and we have no MacArthur. If we did, I'm sure that The General would counsel his superiors to withdraw.

For those of you who do not know, John Kennedy regarded MacArthur highly (even though, he scotched JFKs Medal of Honor pushed by Joseph Kennedy, a significant FDR supporter, who had made his fortune running guns into Cuba and liquor in the US during prohibition, because the young and inexperienced JFK has allowed his small, fast and maneuverable PT boat to be rammed and cut in half by a Japanese destroyer in the slot (Please, Navy folks: How does this happen?)) and visited him in the early 60s (1962?). The 82 year old Macarthur (folks, this is all from memory, so don't nit pick) was nearing his death bed but he counseled his young and inexperienced CIC: Don't get involved in Viet Nam. Of course, the young and inexperienced Kennedy, as well as the not so young but similarly inexperienced Johnson both chose to ignore his sage advise.

One wonders to whom we can now turn.

Dean

No problem.

I have neither need nor desire to convince anyone to believe something that they do not wish to believe, regardless of background.

If you are ever interested in studying the relevant history, I suggest the sources listed above.

Dean