"Rethinking Douglas MacArthur" Topic

"Great lives, fully lived, cast long shadows. Fifty years after his death, it's not unusual to hear people rank Douglas MacArthur among America's worst generals—alongside Benedict Arnold and William Westmoreland. His critics say he was insubordinate and arrogant, callous in dealing with dissent, his Korean War command studded with mistakes. "MacArthur could never see another sun, or even a moon for that matter, in the heavens, as long as he was the sun," once said President Eisenhower, who had served under MacArthur in the Pacific. Some of what the critics say is undoubtedly true, but much of what they say is wrong. And all this noise seems to have drowned out the general's tremendous accomplishments. What about his near flawless command during World War II, his trailblazing understanding of modern warfare, his grooming of some of the best commanders this country has ever seen? What about the fact that he is—as much as any other general in the war—responsible for the allied victory? It's time to give "Dugout Doug" credit for these merits and not just cut him down for his mistakes—real and imagined. It's time to reconsider Douglas MacArthur.

In a sense, MacArthur is the victim of his own success. If he had been content to receive the Japanese surrender on Sept. 2, 1945, and retire instead of continuing his career, he would be considered the greatest commander of World War II—and perhaps the greatest military commander in American history…"

Main page

link

Armand

…his Korean War command stuffed with mistakes?
Pushed the Koreans and Chinese all the way to the Yalu River.

Once he was removed we ended up with a draw and a war that has never ended and leaving us under the threat of North Korean ICBMs and nuclear weapons.

Seems like the others did not do to well in Korea either.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

"…served under MacArthur in the Pacific." Always good to get the writer's level of understanding of the background history clarified for the reader in the first paragraph (and yes, I know Ike worked for him in the Philippines prior to the war- that's not a condition that's going to be consonant with most readers' understanding of what "served under him in the Pacific" means).

He was a complicated guy, full of vanity (no different in that respect from most other general general officers I have met), but brilliant and able. Anyone with a career that long (he was promoted to brigadier general in 1918 and stayed on active duty with either the US or the Philippine armed forces continually until 1950) is going to have some ups and downs, but there is a reason he stayed in the service so long, and it wasn't because they couldn't figure out how to get rid of him.

Bunkermeister +1

Also, his leadership during the Japanese occupation is underrated.

I'm not sure why we need to "rethink" things. I mean, the histories have been written, usually by people who were closer to the events than we are. I we "rethink" them, there had better be a LOT of new information uncovered to enlighten the new thought. Otherwise, its probably just some idiot who want's to put his own spin on a topic and is probably not worth listening to. That's a general comment and a dig on the author because I have not bothered to read what he wrote.

MacArthur certainly had his ups and downs. But his handling of the defenses in the Philippines is certainly MacArthur at rock bottom. The official US Army History of the campaign "The Fall of the Philippines" is a revealing (and rather damning) account of his mismanagement. He had grandiose plans but when the Japanese ruined them by attacking 6 months earlier than he expected and destroyed most of his air force on the ground, he went into a funk, leaving his subordinates undirected and leaderless. Huge opportunities were missed and due to his neglect the defenses collapsed months sooner than they might have had with competent leadership. He recovered once he left, but his performance while in the Philippines could hardly have been worse.

Traditionally American history has made deified or demonized presentations of important figures. With MacArthur traditional history has presented us with a picture of a more complicated leader. Maybe we have gotten some of the details wrong. If so they should be corrected. However the overall assessment is spot on.

And who out there has numbered MacArthur among America's worst generals?

This guy's assessment of Macarthur seems 180 out from mine. Flawless in WW2? Mistake studded Korea?

+1 for ScottWashburn's presentation.

Thanks.

Armand

Actually MacArthur was told to hold out for 6 months and the US would sent troops and ships to save the day. He held out in the Philippines for 6 months and no supplies, no reinforcements and no evacuation for the troops.
Funny how FDR had planes and tanks and ships for Russia and the UK but none for the Philippines.
Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Pushed the Koreans and Chinese all the way to the Yalu River.

IIRC, the Chinese didn't come into that war until we had already pushed the North Koreans to the Yalu, or almost to it.
Nevertheless, his Inchon Landing was brilliantly thought up and executed.

As for his performance in WW2, I'm not up on the Pacific War enough to comment.

It does occur to me that the bigger a general's ego the farther he falls, IF he gives his critics an opening.

"Funny how FDR had planes and tanks and ships for Russia and the UK but none for the Philippines."

And I'm sure he would have had tanks and planes and supplies for the Philippines, too it there had been any way to GET THEM THERE. That little incident at Pearl Harbor made it virtually impossible to send ships through thousands of miles of enemy controlled ocean. While the Atlantic was certainly hazardous because of German U-Boats, it was still possible to get ships through to England and Russia. And in the Pacific Russia could carry supplies in its own ships because they weren't at war with Japan. But every attempt to run supplies through to the Philippines (and there were a number of attempts) failed.

As noted, a complicated man – but in the Korean War, his generalship in landing at Inchon and the subsequent rolling up of the North Korean Army was brilliant

Have always felt he was one of the absolute worst Generals in US history – abandoned his army after a completely failed strategy, only to be turned into a "hero".

Always felt General Wainwright was the true hero – I guess that is why we have a Fort Wainwright Alaska and no Fort MacArthur anywhere!

Glup!

Armand

To be fair, he was ordered to leave the Philippines. Repeatedly.