"What if MacArthur Was Sacked." Topic

He would not have been surprised by the Chinese in Korea?

The administration of Japan after the war might not have gone so smoothly? Robert

Fewer dead GI's and US Marines????

And what if he ordered Mcarthur to STAY with his men in captivity and try and help them??…

Better relations with the Australians.

No Peleliu.

More Japanese war criminals prosecuted after the war.

We are looking at the problem with the perfect "20/20" hindsight of the historian where we know all the facts and secret histories.

In 1942 MacArthur was a hero in the eyes of most Americans. Those around him may have seem the real man but his "image" was very carefully controlled by him and his supporters. He also had his supporters who saw him both as a legitimate hero and strategist and that his experience would be needed. that was why he had to be pulled out

MacArthur could not have been relieved after Bataan, knowing his character, we could be assured that he would not have gone quietly but would have entered into a very divisive campaign of how he and his brave men were abandoned by his enemies just at the time when America needed to pull itself together .

He was given a command and no matter what we think about him he did well enough , kept on winning and continued to churn out the self publicity so there was no reason to fire him. Contemporary critics, who we know were correct, were ignored. So firing him after 1942 would have been very difficult.

If for some reason he had been fired the SW Pacific area would have been a lot quieter than it was. The Philippines would have been bypassed. More assaults in the Central Pacific per Navy policy and an earlier closing in on Japan. Then the question would have been would the atomic bomb had been ready before the invasion of Japan.

Commonwealth troops would have been used to invade the Philippines.

I think others have summed it up:

1) Less dead Army soldiers and Marines
2) More Japanese war criminals brought to justice
3) Japanese made to face their part in the war.

Of course there would then have been no Inchon, so there would be no South Korea.

I dislike MacArthur very much for many reasons, but his Inchon plan was great.

Less dead in SWPac?

Actually the SWpac campaign was less costly than the central pacific one… also without an SWpac drive what you think the Japanese would have done? Con centrate on the central pacific drive making it even more costly but nevermind

MacArtur did a lot to smoother relation with australians. His Sacking of HArdin was done on pressure from Blamey… Curtin liked Mac and his strategy a leader with less offensive outlook and less political support to get an offensive moving would have created much more problem in US-australia relationship.

Philippines… ok no Leyte… so we go for Ernest King plan for formosa and China coast… the deifference? More defender, worse terrain, no friendly guerrilla and e political disaster.

Peleliu was a combination of MacArthur, King and Nimitz and, more imprtanly, planning inertia. All three decided Peleliu was not anymore necessary but the plan was so advanced that they decided to not call it off.

More Japanese war criminals? Uhm… you know that State dept has even more influence than macarthur staff in tokyo trial, especially after they all agree to leave Hirohito untouched. Certianly a different governor probably would have been less able to avoid Russian pressure…

Definitely no Inchon. That is a definitely bad thing if you have several ROK friends.

You can dislike it… but I do not think a lot of us would have been able to pull off his island hopping campaing without carriers, tying down large IJA forces in New Guinea, liberating the philippines and planned for Olympic\Coronet

sometime 20/20 hindsight tend to be 20/20 of nothing..

"sometime 20/20 hindsight tend to be 20/20 of nothing."

Great line Arrigo !!!!!!!! Mind if I use it ?

I agree with Oddball and Highlandcatfrog.

The japanese textbooks would have references to their atrocities.

Speaking as an Australian the only thing worse than defeat is having MacArthur in command. Most over rated nob the yanks could of sent us.

"MacArtur did a lot to smoother relation with australians. His Sacking of HArdin was done on pressure from Blamey… Curtin liked Mac and his strategy a leader with less offensive outlook and less political support to get an offensive moving would have created much more problem in US-australia relationship."
- Curtin liked MacArthur because it made him and the rest of Australia feel more secure. There's a book of Curtin's war time papers that aren't very flattering to the ego centric tool.
"tying down large IJA forces in New Guinea"
- MacArthur had next to nothing to do with that.

I'll give him his due, he was a decent enough field commander, but the most ungrateful US commander we've ever had to deal with. I don't think to his dying day that he even acknowledged that there was no such think as a "Kokoda Gap"

OP, what a strange question.

Here is another one just as strange or silly:

What if FDR had sacked Harry Truman?

He would run around in a circle screaming "oh me bleedin danglies"!

"The japanese textbooks would have references to their atrocities."

So agree, once a HK Vet group took out a sign board message for Japanese tourists to Canada on what they did during WW2. The tourists who read the sign were very offended and lodged complaints about the "lies" with the Canadian embassay in Tokyo when they returned.

I agree that the Philippines were regarded as a wite off by the Pentagon. So you cannot count the losses directly against MAc. he conducted a good tactical withdrawal in the face of very superior odds and veteran troops. His logistical position was also poor which he also could not control.
He was also directly ordered by the President to evacuate. It was not his choice.

His ability to administer Japan should not have been a surprise. he had had experience governing the Philippines in the 1930s.

His problem in Korea was a failure to evaluate the political situation rather than a poor militarytactics.

I am not a fan of his but prefer to look at things objectively.

Mr. Nelson, you neglect 2 key factors which establish MacArthur's incompetence. First, he was caught with his air force on the ground AFTER receiving messages about Pearl Harbor. Second, after deciding to retreat to Bataan, he failed to arrange to move the simply enormous stockpiles of food and ammunition in place for his use in Manila to Bataan. This oversight cost his men dearly and was an enormous factor in hastening the surrender. It was an amateurish mistake and he ought to have been sacked and pilloried for it.

Very good points. You may be right as I do not have access to the Command records for that Campaign to determine if any orders were given and to whom.

However having served in Higher commadn structures as a Logistics staff officer. One thing to consider is whose lapse was it? macarthur or the G4 and the Assistant Commadner who is generally responsible for Logistics and personnel. The CnC normally works a campaign focusign on Intel and Operations (G1 and G#)

There is a very informative article in the Strategy & Tactics World at War issue #11 on the subject of the attack on Clark Field on 8 Dec. Robert