"Douglas MacArthur was over-rated" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

Which U.S. commander simply doesn't live up to his reputation?

33% said "Douglas MacArthur"
20% said "George S Patton"
17% said "Mark Clark"

Which U.S. Commander did Live up to his reputation?

Are we allowed to mention the C in C?

He (or one day she) is a commander by definition, possibly having never even seen military service.

I thought everyone thought MacArthur was bat-crap crazy and lived up to his billing 100% :)

Clark was an arse – did he have a reputation beyond that??

Now Richard

Mark Clark was one of "Marshall's boys" Chosen above all others by the Chief of Staff Himself.

I always wondered how a US colonel got promoted over all the exiting US generals to chief of all allied armies .

One area "MACARTHUR" really seemed to be subpar on was intelligence gathering & using that intel. I forget the name of his intel chief, hand picked by Mac himself. Was terrible.

George Marshall had a "little Black Book" of good officers and bad officers. Many Officers tried be neutral So as not to make it into the book. He also had a great memory but sometimes keeped good officers from advancement due to having the same name as a "bad officer"

This thread prompted me to do some digging. I wonder if we can do this poll again in mid-July, and then see who Doug performs?

link

link

link

I am 82. I recall talking with veterans of the Army, returned from the Far East, noting the he may not have been beloved – now was Wellington – but he did not waste his troops.

GdeP

I'd say he wasted his troops be letting the Japanese use Clark Airfield for target practice.

He should have been sacked for this alone. There were plenty of better men who would have filled whatever void he left, and the Pacific War would have ended sooner, because of it.

Um, if US generals were so bad, why did the allies win the war?

Because a lot of the enemy Generals, and Admirals, were worse! Japanese Admirals were a disaster. From Nagumos failure to launch a third wave at Pearl Harbor to his dithering a Midway. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory at Savo Island and threw away victory in the Battle off Samar when they ran away from destroyers and escort carriers.

Besides, when you have the crushing superiority like we did in the Pacific backed up with nukes your generals can be pretty bad and you'll still win!

MacArthur was personally very brave, after all George Patton called him 'the bravest man I ever met'. What seems to me to be his problem was that he would get a set idea in his mind about what the enemy could do, and then if they did something very different MacArthur did not seem to be able to adjust to it well at all. And of course he was a massive prima donna. The one thing, for me, for which I think he was the perfect man was being in charge of the occupation of Japan. That could have gone very badly indeed, and I cannot think of another Allied WWII senior officer who could possibly have done as well, let alone better.

I agree with Macarthur. Clark was never rated very highly and part of Patton's fame was for being colorful. His generalship was better than either Mac or Clark.

My money is still on Fredendall. Only the fact that he was relieved relatively soon, did not have the overall impact of a MacArthur and is relatively unknown saves him from not only not living up to his reputation but also as one of the worst commanders regardless of side/nationality.