"Douglas MacArthur Is One of America's Most Famous..." Topic

… Generals. He's Also the Most Overrated

"his Veteran's Day, as we remember those men and women we've sent into battle, we should also take a moment to remember the fateful decisions, sometimes tragically bad ones, our commanders made that put our fighting forces directly and often needlessly in harm's way.

In that dubious department, few generals in modern history come close to Douglas MacArthur…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

People who do a lot of important and impressive things are often criticized by people of lessor magnitude.
I have studied him carefully and I think he did a magnificent job in both WWII and Korea. We won WWII in the Pacific, I believe because we followed his leadership. We failed to win a decisive victory in Korea because we ignored his leadership and nearly 70 years later still face a dangerous and evil regime in North Korea.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I think overrated is too strong a word. He may have made mistakes. But hindsight is 20/20.

I think Inchon was his only real display of genius. The defense of the Philippines should have retired him it was so poor. The New Guinea campaign was competent if uninspired and his focus on the reconquest of the Philippines was a distraction from the actual goal of defeating the Japanese (it might have happened anyway).

Sorry, I have a very difficult time excusing him for what he did to the bonus marchers

His career highlights:
1. Surprised by the attack on the Philippines. Panicked and altered a sound plan of defense.

2. As "proconsul" of Japan, was surprised by the North Korean invasion of the South. He allowed the American occupation forces to get fat, happy and soft, neglecting their training.

3. Surprised by the Chinese intervention at the Yalu River.

Didn't he get the Medal of Honor for abandoning the Philippines, or was that for something else?

Murvihill Question #1 who came up with the defence plan to fight the Japanese on the beaches instead of the old plan red of retiring to Bataan. Answer Eisenhower
Question #2 who shippied tons of WW1 era War Material and sold them to the Filipinos? Answer General Marshall
Question #3 Who came up with bypassing Japanese strong points in New Guinea? Answer MacArthur.
Question #4 Who decide to do the reconquest of the Philippines? Answer FDR

WillBGoode Question Who Ordered the action against the Marchers? Answer President Hoover.

He was a good General but is either Loved or Hated.

The "Bonus Marchers" was a political act--justifiable or not--and nothing to do with military skill, or lack thereof.

That said, it must be admitted that the Philippines Act One was a botch largely due to seemingly lackadaisical planning pre-war. However, the prolonged--if doomed--defense did win time, and I don't see anyone suggesting Mac would have done a better job by surrendering in January.

And there is a tendency to rate generals by the number of battlefield wins/losses only. Clearly, the most important gauge of effectiveness, it does overlook the issue of Leadership and the ability to instill confidence in those he commands. Mac had that "aura" in spades. He could SPEAK! He seemed like the man who could lead one to victory and still give you a good chance of seeing it alive.

The enemy of "good" is "better," and it's always possible to show--after the fact--how a decision could have been made better. The most important fact about his New Guinea operations was that they were SUCCESSFUL. Of course they could have been done "better"--once the full details of the enemy's capabilities are conveniently known AFTER the fighting.

The decision to invade the Philippines is honestly open to debate. Perhaps landing on Taiwan would have been "better" in terms of time, men, and materiel. But there was also something about Mac--and by extension, America--keeping his/its word about returning for Philippines Act 2. It reinforced the notion that when the US said it would do something, it would, and you could take that to the bank.

Was Mac a braggart? Yes, I must admit. Even years later in his "Reminiscences" he claimed he was attacked in '42 by seven Japanese Divisions when it was actually more like 5 battalions. His daily "Communiques" tended to be boastful and over-optimistic, but if knowingly or not exaggerated, they did encourage both those under him and at home, and that does count for something.

It's easy for some to try to dethrone Mac, especially those on the Left who hate him for his lifetime opposition to Socialism.

On the whole, if I'd been around for him command, I think I'd take him every time over some other US Generals (think Mark Clark!).

TVAG

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

I regarded his military career in WW2 and Korea separate.
Strong men always produce strong reactions.
Ask men who served under him what were their opinions. Your answers will be varied. A few colleges have had in the past an entire cover covering the career of a leader. He is one.
He was given a State funeral and laid in state at the capital. I still remember it.
Pre-war preparations by him were good and involved a lot of training of local units. Reserve stock being used was normal practice. Look at the poor level of US regular army equipment in the late 1930s.
I am not sure Eisenhower would have designed defense plans for the area in 1941. He was only a Colonel at the start of the war iirc and focused on Europe after the war started. Much more maybe later.

+1 John the OFM

Add the fact that he was a glory hound, demanded personal loyalty and accepted a huge secret payout in gold before he abandoned his troops in the Philippines, ordered the entirely meaningless airborne assault on Corrigidor, made a hash of the fight for Manila and insisted on hanging war crimes claims on the Japanese general who'd defeated him, let alone for any responsibility for the "surprise" air attack on Clark Field and Iba Field many hours after being informed of Pearl Harbor.

Highly political and self-serving. If a "name" had not been needed for moral purposes in 1942, he'd have been left in the Philippines.

Bunkermeister, I have also studied MacArthur quite a bit and I agree with your comments. He seems to get an awful lot of bad press. The job he did on the reconstruction of Japanese political system was fantastic and he is still considered a hero by many in Japan to this day. He stood up against the Soviets when they wanted an occupation zone in Japan and he adopted a very conciliatory attitude to the defeated Japanese. His adventure during the Mexican Revolution is also stuff of legend. He was a very brave man, and yes he had an ego and was a press glory hound, so what. Frankly, I really like Douglas MacArthur. As a divorce lawyer I can certainly say that he came out of his first marriage better then most – she was mean.

+1 Bunkermiester, Wackamole and 0ldyeller …

Again, hindsight is 20/20 …

He is worth studying regardless.

Definitely not a fan of MacArthur. He thoroughly bungled the defense of the Philippines. He certainly faced daunting obstacles, but he could have still done much, much better. Reading the official US Army history (Green Book) of the Fall of the Philippines I was struck by the fact that midway through the book MacArthur practically vanishes from the narrative. It was written in 1953 when MacArthur was still around and it seems that the author was told: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all'. So he didn't say anything. In fact, when his grand plan collapsed, MacArthur became virtually catatonic, issuing almost no orders and leaving a power vacuum his subordinates had to struggle to fill. During air raids on Corregidor he would go out of the shelter and stand in the open, probably hoping to be killed to avoid the disgrace of his failure. His following campaign was competent, but hardly brilliant. I agree with Murvihill that Inchon was his one truly brilliant action.

Growing up when and where I did it seemed that rather than getting unwarranted bad press, MacArthur got an awful lot of unwarranted good press. Since then my views have become more nuanced, but remains fundamentally the same.

His Inchon Landing in the Korean War was strategically brilliant and tactically successful. He earned his pay that month, for sure.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Yes, and no one can argue with that …