|
The question of MacArthur recently came up in another subforum, arguing whether he was one of the worst generals in US history or one of the better ones, and as a fairly amateur fan of military history I took the viewpoint that he was one of the most problematic in US history. I'm curious what the consensus of more serious military historians is on the man.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
edit: ^^^^^ not a military historian, but a lot of the debate around MacArthur depends on if you're just talking about his military prowess or if you're also including his political actions. Because motherfuck, he screwed the pooch with an amazing degree of finesse when it came to his public dealings with the Truman administration.Mazz posted:Didn't Hitler have a pretty reasonable hatred of chemical weapons after WWI too? There is some conjecture about that based on a few things he wrote about his personal political awakening taking place when he heard of Germany's surrender while recuperating from a gas attack. On the other hand 
Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Mar 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
MacArthur was loving around in the Philippines for the good of his own ego with no strategic reason at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
I've read Manchester's biography of MacArthur, which is mostly positive towards the man, and Halberstam's The Coldest Winter, which is incredibly negative. So not really a consensus, or military history, but my own impressions. On the positive side, every part of his career from cadet through Colonel MacArthur was top-notch. He was an aggressive, daring, and competent commander who was absolutely fearless in combat and got the highest performance out of his troops. According to Manchester, his island hopping campaign was a brilliant unconventional maneuver campaign that preserved his own forces while destroying the Japanese in detail, and used air and sea power to its fullest extent. The occupation of Japan also went off far better than anyone could have expected. On the negative end, MacArthur made at least three major misjudgments of the enemy's strategic intentions; once in the defense of the Philippines and twice in Korea. His preparations for the defense of the Philippines was abysmal, despite having years to train local troops and build positions, and nine hours of advance warning from Pearl Harbor that war had started, he allowed his airforce to be destroyed on the ground while refueling and then fumbled the retreat into Bataan so that units didn't have sufficient supplies for a siege. Given the lackluster US defense budget prior to the war, and the relative positions of the US and Japanese navies, it's doubtful that the Philippines could have been held absolutely. But a more alert commander could have forced the Japanese to pay a much higher price for the islands. In Korea, he ignored all evidence of the North Korean attack, and then the Chinese intervention, and both times outnumbered and isolated American units were overrun with heavy casualties. And as Cyrano said, his political actions were tin-eared and quite frankly insane. Undermining Truman, lobbying to use atomic bombs and Chinese Nationalist troops in Korea; it was like he wanted to start World War 3 on the Asian mainland. His actions against the Bonus Marchers when he was Chief of Staff show the same pattern: excessive force including tanks and gas against civilians, exceeding his orders, and then avoiding blame by presenting Woodrow Wilson with a fait accompli that would be too embarrassing to role back. It's hard to call him "one of the worst," given how few American generals have held equivalent commands (Washington, McClellan, Grant, Pershing, Eisenhower, Harkins-Westmoreland-Abrams in Vietnam, and maybe Schwarzkopf, Franks, Abizaid, Petraeus et al in CENTCOM), but he made some major errors in command. In particular in Korea, getting caught by the exact same strategic surprise twice in six months showed a lack of flexibility and insight into the situation. EDIT: BBcode Biffmotron fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Mar 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 20:34
|
|
Cythereal posted:The question of MacArthur recently came up in another subforum, arguing whether he was one of the worst generals in US history or one of the better ones, and as a fairly amateur fan of military history I took the viewpoint that he was one of the most problematic in US history. I'm curious what the consensus of more serious military historians is on the man. He was either very good or very bad. He would usually gently caress up but then not lose his head and find a way to rescue the situation.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Biffmotron covered the first Philippines campaign pretty well but the retaking of the Philippines was another MacArthur poo poo show. First he picks Leyte to land on first with the goal of building airbases to take Luzon with. Army engineers repeatedly tell him Leyte is useless to build airfields on in addition to the mountainous terrain being a huge bonus to Japanese defenders. Rather than leaving the garrison of 70,000 to rot. MacArthur invades anyway, finds the engineers were right after all and only grabs three crappy tiny airfields that the Japanese already built, the Japanese on the other hand can and do continue to launch kamikaze attacks from their Luzon bases and resistance on the island holds out for over six months. Luzon went better but he made an rear end of himself there when he decided to announce himself as the liberator of Manila a month before the battle ended.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
You mean Hoover, not Wilson. Bonus march was during the depression. Still, a brilliant victory. Raw recruits triumphing over a hardened veteran army with nothing but grit, tear gas, and armored cars? Made for TV movie right there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Never heard of this until now but am not surprised to find that Patton was in charge of the armour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 22:07
|
|
Slavvy posted:Never heard of this until now but am not surprised to find that Patton was in charge of the armour. It is a pretty depressing foot note in US Depression era history. How dare those veterans want that pension money early to eat!
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The question of MacArthur... whether he was one of the worst generals in US history or one of the better ones Yes, he was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
I'm glad to see MacArthur come up in this thread. I read Manchester's biography of him not that long ago and found him to be really confusing. On the one hand, he had these strokes of brilliant leadership and bravery. On the other hand, he would do utterly ridiculous things like refuse to take cover during an artillery bombardment. He also had multiple failures in leadership like the defense of the Philippines. When dealing with politics in the US he seemed to be utterly unhinged, yet when dealing with the reconstruction of Japan he demonstrated an extraordinarily degree of forethought and diplomacy. I am tempted to say that the only consistent thing about the man was that he was a giant, gaping rear end holes. But the way he utterly adored his son leads me to believe that even that wasn't always the case. MacArthur really did lead an interesting life though. I am glad I read his biography and plan to read more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
I have a crazy theory that Patton and MacArthur were somehow US Civil War Generals brought over to the 20th century by whacky Bill & Ted time machine antics.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Which ACW general was it that got shot in half by a canon? Because MacArthur strikes me as having been that guy in a past life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago The Actions in Progress section just won't be the same without the Siege of Przemysl around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
CoffeeBooze posted:Which ACW general was it that got shot in half by a canon? Because MacArthur strikes me as having been that guy in a past life. Leonidas Polk. That fat gently caress just stood around as American artillery shelled his position, and after his staff took cover he got blasted in twain by a 3-in shell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Leonidas Polk. Also of note, Sherman was the one who noticed him and his group of staff officers and ordered an at hand battery to fire upon them. e: lol Hardee and Johnston were standing with him as well, God himself could not have provided a better artillery target. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:God himself could not have provided a better artillery target. Comically enough, Polk was a pastor of some denomination, so perhaps there was some bad blood there over the whole fighting in defense of slavery thing 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Comically enough, Polk was a pastor of some denomination, so perhaps there was some bad blood there over the whole fighting in defense of slavery thing According to his Wikipedia article, he was actually an Episcopalian bishop! And here I thought bishops riding around killing people in battles was mostly a medieval thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:According to his Wikipedia article, he was actually an Episcopalian bishop! And here I thought bishops riding around killing people in battles was mostly a medieval thing. Well that makes it even a more serious "gently caress you" from the Almighty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Killing Polk was arguably a serious blow to the Union cause. My favorite quote: 'In him God may have made a bishop, but he did not make a general.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Killing Polk was arguably a serious blow to the Union cause. My favorite quote: 'In him God may have made a bishop, but he did not make a general.' He was indeed a better bishop than general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:He was indeed a better bishop than general. But that's why killing him helped. He'd been giving the Army of Tennessee a morale boost by being in the field. A "If Polk's with us, God is with us" kind of thing. When he died, especially the way he died as if cut down by a thunderbolt from God himself, it did rattle the Confederates and bolster Union morale in general and Sherman's morale in particular. Whether that alteration in the moral tone of the war in the Western Theater compensated for the fact that as a general, Polk was terrible at his job? Eh, maybe not, but Sherman called it a win and Johnston considered it a loss, so the guys on the field thought it did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:But that's why killing him helped. He'd been giving the Army of Tennessee a morale boost by being in the field. A "If Polk's with us, God is with us" kind of thing. When he died, especially the way he died as if cut down by a thunderbolt from God himself, it did rattle the Confederates and bolster Union morale in general and Sherman's morale in particular. Oh, definitely. I don't think losing a general would be considered a boon in any circumstance except maybe MacArthur getting killed after August '45 but before Korea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Oh, definitely. I don't think losing a general would be considered a boon in any circumstance except maybe MacArthur getting killed after August '45 but before Korea. So what you're saying is MacArthur should've been in the car accident instead of Patton?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:So what you're saying is MacArthur should've been in the car accident instead of Patton? they should have carpooled
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
Anyone else here actually kinda impressed that of most of the Communist revolutionary military leaders who claimed responsibility for military success, Mao's claims were generally legit? He seems to have rivaled Washington in being able to prevent the destruction of his army.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Didn't like 90% of his forces die during the Long March, though? I mean, that doesn't speak of good generalship to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
You mean let the nationalists do the fighting and then proclaim victory?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Didn't like 90% of his forces die during the Long March, though? I mean, that doesn't speak of good generalship to me. Counter point, Hannibal. JaucheCharly posted:You mean let the nationalists do the fighting and then proclaim victory? The Communists did plenty of fighting, the Hundred Regiments Offensive was one such action along with guerrilla fighting; but really, there's something like two decades of military history here you're kinda ignoring here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:You mean let the nationalists do the fighting and then proclaim victory? The communists' minor raids probably had more of a strategic impact than the farces the nationalist armies put on from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:You mean let the nationalists do the fighting and then proclaim victory? Most of the dying and very little of the winning. Seems smart to me!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Mao himself was certainly a great politician, and whatever his merits as a commander of armies, like all successful leaders he was a better manager of generals. Both the communist and nationalist military leaders were trained at the same Soviet sponsored military academy, by the same Soviet instructors. The communists just ended up for the most part with the better graduates. Mao is curiously one of the few members of the communist leadership who had not received any foreign education and was an entirely home grown Chinese revolutionary. Both communist and nationalist armies were organized along the same Soviet lines too, the ROC Army still had commissars up until the 1990s I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
In a semi related note, I kissed a MiG.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Przemysl falls. Once I get some time I'm going to go back through the last few months, and properly colour inside the outlines that I've sketched so far. The Navy holds a conference and declares that the Dardanelles cannot be forced; it's now up to Sir Ian Hamilton to work out what to do next. No, his staff still hasn't arrived yet. He writes home asking for all kinds of supplies, most of which barely exist and those that do have already been bagsied by the BEF. Meanwhile, progress on the labour relations front, and there's a great baccy ad from the newspaper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Didn't like 90% of his forces die during the Long March, though? I mean, that doesn't speak of good generalship to me. He relocated his army to a new stronghold while repeatedly evading "assured destruction" resulting from Nationalist encirclements. It was an incredibly impressive operation carried out by a relatively primitive army over an incredible distance, against crushing odds. JaucheCharly posted:You mean let the nationalists do the fighting and then proclaim victory? The Communists did more productive things in the wars than the "let's kill millions of our people by blowing up the Yangtze dams" Nationalist camps. The vigorousness of the pacification campaign carried out by the Japanese and the collaborating regimes, aimed specifically against Communist partisans, proves this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
The war in East Asia before/during/after WW2 seems like the biggest clusterfuck I could conceive of in living memory. Jesus Christ, what a mess. I can't with any confidence definitely say that I know all of the competing factions involved in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
So, does anyone take the World War II "Stalin wanted to strike first" theory of Victor Suvorov's Icebreaker seriously? I ask this question because actually I know the answer: someone does, and his name is Dr. Norman Davies, professor emeritus of University College London. A few years ago my brother bought a book by him on European history to study for the Western Civilizations CLEP exam and I came across it today at my parents' house. I flipped through it and found the World War II section, which claimed this: quote:In the absence of the necessary documentation, the circumstances have never been clarified. Conventional wisdom has usually held that either Stalin could not comprehend the depths of Hitler's treachery or that he was playing for time to complete his defences. Neither seems likely. One did not have to be an expert to realize that the German war machine had nowhere to go but eastwards. Hitler's earlier thinking had foreseen all-out war in 1942 or 1943; but he had now to decide either to follow the momentum of success or to call a halt and risk losing the initiative. For the ex-corporal and his gang of adventurers there was hardly a moment's hesitation; their urge was to ride on to glory or to Götterdämmerung. Emphasis mine. I thought that argument sounded familiar, so I followed the citation to the back: quote:See Suvorov, Icebreaker: op. cit. A large part of the Soviet air force, for example, was located in vulnerable forward positions. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
I haven't heard of any attack being prepared. The reason planes were lost on the ground was a combination of poor military infrastructure, and an amazing capacity of Stalin's to disbelieve that an attack was being prepared (in spite of numerous warnings from spies, recon and even a German communist whom he had shot for being a lying poop mouth). On the subject of the use of chemical weapons, I've read (in Ivan's War I believe) that the Germans used poison gas to clear a soviet-held cave complex. Also, it's rather uncontroversial that Japan used poison gas during landing assaults in China.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Nope. The Soviets and the Germans might have been allies as late as WInter 1940. Either way, Stalin might have wanted to attack first, but that was beyond the capabilities of the Red Army until 1942 when Gay Black Hitler apparently just chills in Western Europe watching his oil and other reserves dwindle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 08:43
|
|
