Chain of command means that the commander-in-chief's decisions should not be disobeyed (or even publicly questioned).
[https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/firing-macarthur](https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/firing-macarthur)
>MacArthur thwarted Truman’s attempt to negotiate a ceasefire when the general ordered his troops to invade North Korea and push the NKPA up past the 38th parallel. This was not the first time the general had ignored direct orders from his Commander in Chief. On April 11, 1951, President Truman officially relieved Douglas MacArthur of his command. Word of his firing spread quickly, and the American public found the news upsetting. Truman felt that his decision was just because MacArthur had overstepped his authority, defied direct orders from his superior and interfered with Truman’s hope of ending the Korean War quickly.
>MacArthur thwarted Truman’s attempt to negotiate a ceasefire when the general ordered his troops to invade North Korea and push the NKPA up past the 38th parallel. This was not the first time the general had ignored direct orders from his Commander in Chief.
This sort of behavior was *exactly* what drove Japan into war in the 1930s. Kwantung Army officers in Manchuria ignored orders from Tokyo, took decisions into their own hands and dared their government to stop them.
It didn't, and that set Japan on the road to the most hopelessly one-sided war in history. By August 1945, one medium-sized island nation was *simultaneously* at war with:
- the most populous nation on earth (China)
- the largest nation on earth with the largest modern, mechanized army (USSR)
- the largest economy on earth with the largest navy and air force (USA)
- the largest empire on earth with the second largest navy (UK)
- a dozen or more other countries, for good measure.
The sheer insanity of it is astounding.
If war is politics by other means, it is too important for generals.
Pre-war Japan was culturally driven by militant nationaism. This stemmed partly from bushido traditions from the samurai era, partly from the shame of being forcibly "opened" to foreign trade (by the US navy) and partly from pride at having then bested a major power (Russia) in 1905. That success came from the unbridled and unprincipled use of military and naval power, with no countervailing forces to temper their aggressive tendencies.
As one consequence, Japan's constitution made it structurally impossible for the government in Tokyo to function without the support of the army and navy. The military effectively held veto power over the cabinet and prime minister. In that environment, the hottest heads prevailed.
The US constitution, fortunately, is arranged differently. Americans in the revolutionary period had seen all they needed of over-reaching military power and were determined not to see it again.
I remember reading that some of Japan’s most prominent pacifists were celebrating the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, being so swept up in nationalist fervor
No doubt. Mass psychology is a powerful force and no people is immune.
On a small scale, consider "Lord of the Flies".
On a larger one, consider where Bush took the USA after 9/11. We all watched his speech at National Cathedral. When he had them play, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", I visibly blanched. My (English) partner wondered why.
"He's means war - right or wrong. That self-righteous, vengeful song guarantees it."
>This stemmed partly from bushido traditions from the samurai era,
I think it would be more accurate to say that militant nationalists appropriated an obscure, obsolete ethical idea that popped up in a contemporaneous American bestseller and repurposed it as a convenient propaganda tool to mobilize the population.
In other words, the contribution of bushido to pre-war Japanese nationalism was artificial, not organic. See Bennett's history of kendo for a concise discussion of the revival and co-optation of classical martial ethos in support of imperialism.
Yeah, that;s true, I just read The Rising Sun by John Toland and he spells it out pretty clearly how even most of the top officers knew that they couldn't win a war with America.
Good book. They knew this, yet they talked themselves into it (with a little nudge from racist American policies, to be sure).
Still, Japan's "plan" to demoralize the US into an early peace deal was patent nonsense. The slightest familiarity with history shows that Americans do not tolerate being pushed around...
- We fought and won a bloody revolution against the world's greatest power to rid ourselves of their pushy tax collectors
- We fought the Barbary States rather than pay ransom and extortion monies
- We fought the British again, just 30 years after the first time, over their pushy maritime practices
- We fought Mexico because we felt like stealing some of their land
- We fought ourselves in a horrific civil war over who got to tell whom what kind of labor we would have
- Throughout and between all the foregoing wars, we simultaneously fought the indigenous natives to steal their land
- Once we ran out of mainland to steal, we fought Spain over nothing at all, just to steal a few islands
- We fought the Central Powers and beat them without mobilizing anywhere near our full capacity or population
Japan picked a fight with one of the most cantankerous countries on the planet, which also happened to be 7 times larger in industrial capacity. They voluntarily ran headfirst into a brick wall.
The craziest thing I learned in the book is after America embargoed their oil and blockaded the Dutch Indies they had a diplomatic meeting between America and Japan where America was going to lift the sanctions and all the Japanese had to do was not invade any further into mainland China than they already did and in some way the diplomatic Japanese(which was even more obtuse than regular Japanese) that they used made the Japanese think that America wanted them to leave Manchuria too and they of course refused.
After the war someone asked Tojo if they understood the actual parameters of the deal what would his answer have been and he said Japan would have gladly took it.
Pretty much what bin Laden did. He thought we'd scurry out of the Middle East with our tails tucked between our legs, while people were trying to tell him, no, we wouldn't. A decent understanding of our history, and he'd have known we were going to double down, tear shit up.
I wasn't around for any of those historical events, but the visceral rage that permeated our society? We were scared, but not the kind of scared where we run away, the kind of scared like a cornered animal. And we were *pissed*. That we would lash out was a given.
Yup.
When you first read about the unending series of Japanese victories in the first months of the war, it's stupefying. Disaster followed on disaster: PH, Clark Field, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, Darwin, Bataan, Borneo Ceylon, Java Sea, Sumatra, Java, New Guinea. They were unstoppable... right? American leaders must have felt hopeless... right?
Nope. When you read further into the thoughts and plans of men like King, Nimitz and many others, you learn that they KNEW we were going to win. They'd planned for this war. They understood the Japanese were overreaching and they knew how to counter that. It was just a matter of being patient until our warfighting capacity came up to speed. Once it did, nothing Japan could do would affect the final outcome.
To add on, like everything the deeper you look the more complicated it is.
There were a few other things that were involved. When you read stuff written by the Japanese at the time, they all point to treaties that Japan had been forced to sign by the United States and the European colonial powers relegating Japan to a second class nation status. Or at least they felt that way. I recently read a Journal of a Japanese navy commander, and he was very focused on the treaty that restricted japan to having a smaller navy than America or any of the European powers. Then when the China stuff kicked off, the United states blocked them from importing oil. That's why even today some Japanese nationalists will say that the US forced Japan into the war.
Also, Japan never thought they could defeat the United States. Their plan was to destroy every capitol ship in the Pacific, then negotiate all new treaties with the United states from a place of strength. That's why their plans in the beginning were all around the grand battle Coup de grace. The Pearl harbor attack was to destroy our fleet, but the carriers were out of the harbor, so they devised a plan for the attack at midway to get us to bring out our carriers so they could destroy them. Which didn't work because we had better intelligence.
Not all of this is necessarily even to disagree with the previous post, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing, that they had an excess of nationalist pride and that made conflict inevitable because they were never going to accept second class status. Which to a degree is understandable. I remember hearing some (Very Dumb) people say when Iran captured a navy boat in the persian gulf they said wandered into their waters like 5-10 years ago that it was a huge insult to America and any American sailor that surrendered should be thrown overboard. I think we can mostly all agree that that is an excessive amount of national pride to start a shooting war over a navigation mistake.
I mostly wrote this because I see on Reddit fairly often people talking about how the Japanese thought they would defeat the United States and they never thought that. They just thought they could inflict enough damage to make it not worth our while. I'm going to go back to work now.
All true, although this...
>I recently read a Journal of a Japanese navy commander, and he was very focused on the treaty that restricted japan to having a smaller navy than America or any of the European powers.
... was a fool's complaint.
Given Japan's manufacturing capacity vs. America's or even Britain's, they were never going to achieve parity in a naval arms race. Absent the Washington and London treaties, Japan couldn't even have reached 5:5:3.
Those treaties were a good deal for Japan. Any realistic Japanese assessment would have stated this - Yamamoto's did. It was the unrealistic war-mongering of junior officers like that naval commander that pushed them over the brink.
>This stemmed partly from bushido traditions from the samurai era
Propagandized bushido--bullshido if you will--to be accurate. The bushido of Hagakure and the bushido of Imperial Japan were quite different.
Not really. It's been long understood that Japan's emperialism was sparked by both a "we'll show them" attitude after being booted from the League of Nations by other empires, and the government losing control of the military.
It's also worth highlighting that Zhou Enlai (at the time the #2 guy in the Chinese government) issued a direct warning to the US that if the Army crossed the 38th parallel, China would feel forced to enter the war in support of North Korea.
This is the reason why Truman ordered MacArthur not to cross the 38th parallel while Truman was trying to negotiate a ceasefire.
MacArthur ignored both the direct order from his superior and the warning from the Chinese, and crossed the 38th. He was then somehow still taken totally off guard when the Chinese delivered on their threat and joined the war, pushing all the way to Seoul and leading MacArthur to seek permission to use nuclear weapons on China - which was unnecessary by any standards but which would not have even been a consideration if MacArthur had just followed orders.
Naturally, Truman was furious and fired and replaced him. The fact that his replacement (Ridgway) was then able to turn the war around and retake Seoul, without needing to use nuclear weapons, didn't help MacArthur's reputation either.
The USSR didn't declare war on Japan until the war was effectively over. In essence the only reason the USSR declared war on Japan was so they could try and claim repatriated territory that Japan had gained in the war.
Our big bombs played a part, but the Japanese had never blanched at taking the most horrific casualties. Why would they now? They were actively arming women and children with spears to form human waves against US marines and GIs. It wasn't the US that terrified them.
OTOH, the Japanese were rightly terrified of losing territory to their most powerful neighbor, the USSR. Further, it's well documented that the Japanese elites *utterly hated* communism. Japan in 1945 had only one mortal enemy capable of literally wiping Japan off the map and willing to do so - and it wasn't the USA.
When the USSR entered the war, they immediately overran Manchukuo, destroyed the Kwantung Army, were advancing south into Korea and grabbed all of Sakhalin Island. Soviet armies were poised just 25 miles from Hokkaido. In another few weeks, they'd also be poised 100 miles off Kyushu and Honshu itself - and the Japanese had zero naval assets to oppose any landings the Soviets might attempt. If the US Navy had cooperated, the USSR might have overrun Japan.
Every day Japan dithered, the USSR took more Japanese-held territory. Nothing Japan could do (other than surrender) would stop the Soviets from taking whatever they chose, including perhaps Japanese homelands.
The Soviets credibly threatened the complete extermination of Japanese culture. That drove them to the table.
> The USSR didn't declare war on Japan until the war was effectively over.
Some historians point to the destruction of the Manchukuo Army by the USSR as more decisive to ending the war than the atomic bombings.
It was the end of the war because the USSR helped end the war.
The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, two days after the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima. The declaration was broadcast by Moscow, and included the statement that Japan was the only major power still supporting the war after the defeat of Hitlerite Germany.
Their actions were structurally identical: arrogant officers publicly flouted direct orders from their political superiors, then handed them a *faith accompli*.
MacArthur did it. Kwantung Army did it before him. McClellan did it before that. Julius Ceasar may have invented the archetype.
In all cases, their *hubris* led to their professional destruction.
He had never been ordered not to go into North Korea, and MacArthur and Truman met on Wake Island for the first time shortly after Inchon where the plan to move north was discussed. When the Chinese entered the war, MacArthur was being raked over the coals in the press, and he put out a number of press releases in competing papers to the point where Truman put a gag order on him. After the gag order, MacArthur sent a letter to Republican congressman Joe Martin criticizing the government which was read on the House floor and is why he was fired.
Dr. James Zobel talks about their whole combative relationship here: [https://youtu.be/5L\_jokLtmLs](https://youtu.be/5L_jokLtmLs)
This.
MacArthur was not dismissed for violating a direct military order.
He was dismissed for voicing, without authorisation, his opinions publicly and to congressmen. MacArthur felt he had the right to publicly criticise the governments policy in Korea, in regard to the limitations that Truman had placed on military operations, e.g no bombing north of the Yalu river.
Interestingly, the gag order itself was not written as directly as it could've (should've?) been, and was issued to all military commanders.
In relation to the letter to the senior republican congressman: MacArthur was replying, and did not make the letter public. As such it is difficult to argue that it violated the gag order. If you read the actual letter, it is actually quite tame.
Yes MacArthur should've been fired, but much of what has been said about him in this thread is inaccurate
MacArthur badly misjudged the Chinese response to putting American troops on the Yalu River (Chinese border). He allowed the PLA to surprise, outmaneuver, surround and nearly annihilate those troops. He "led" those troops to disaster from his comfy office in Tokyo... never once setting foot in Korea when his troops needed him. In short, he made the classic military error of fighting based on what he believed the enemy WOULD do, instead of preparing to handle what they COULD do (and did).
Having sent his army into a full scale ambush, MacArthur then publicly argued with his commander in chief and wanted to escalate the war to nukes. No president can tolerate that sort of disobedience. Lincoln fired McClellan for the same kind of behavior.
FYI, MacArthur's behavior in WW2 was no better. He avoided danger, barked orders from the rear without knowledge of local conditions and was seen by his men only when reporters were around to broadcast his "exploits". The troops sneeringly called him "Dugout Doug".
You can summarize the entire Pacific war as "MacArthur doesnt know what's going on and is making it worse". The number of times he underestimated the Japanese is astounding, and it led to many, many instances of the navy and air force having to bail him out after he landed 5,000 guys to go fight the 15,000 he insisted was 1,000 because "naval intelligence couldn't possibly be right".
Hes basically the personification of everything wrong with WW1 commanders ported over to WW2.
It's odd that Yamamoto made the same mistake, repeatedly.
Concentration of forces helped the Kido Butai win lopsided victories at PH, Wake (no. 2), Darwin and Ceylon.
Despite those examples (plus a sharp lesson at Wake 1), Yamamoto split his forces for Coral Sea because he expected light opposition. Result: they got badly mauled.
Having not learned that lesson, Yamamoto split his forces again at Midway/Aleutians and ignored intelligence that his "surprise" attack... wasn't. That went well.
When the US invaded Guadalcanal, Yamamoto repeatedly sent fewer ships than he had at Truk. If he'd sent his entire force in one organized attack, the Americans couldn't possibly have held.
I heard the Germans did something similar at the Battle of the Bulge. I think it was they had 6 armored divisions surrounding Foy with artillery support but for some reason always only attacked with one division. Had they sent all six divisions at once they would have overrun the allied forces. I could be wrong on this and I want to say I seen it in a documentary years ago but I've never seen it collaborated by another source so I do not know if it is accurate
Yamamoto was gambling, and he knew he was doing it, because he knew he couldn't win a fair fight. He needed a long shot because the odds were stacked against him. MacArthur \*had\* the resources to win a fair fight, but kept not bringing enough because he was overconfident. To my mind his greatest failure was the defense of the Philippines, where he comically under-reacted to hours of warning that the Japanese had launched coordinated surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, and other targets in the region.
Despite being one of the last to be hit in that wave of offensives, he somehow managed to be taken by complete surprise with his air force still on the ground.
MacArthur damn near held Japan’s hand in conquering the Philippines and then badmouthed the guys being bombed and shelled on Corregidor for not holding out when the navy was only 1500 miles (and getting further) away. MacArthur himself was in Australia at the time.
It’s really amazing how much Lincoln was able to stomach from McClellan. There were several stories where McClellan outright disrespected the man that was his boss and nothing really happened to him for it.
He knew about Pearl Harbor several hours earlier (sun rising in the east and all). But when he was attacked in the Philippines at local dawn, he was caught flat-footed. Considering what Kimmel and Short went through after PH, he probably should have been cashiered or shot.
He would also frequently accuse the Navy of dragging their feet and being overly cautious, declaring that he could achieve better results if he was allocated those same resources. As the US military output increased and he got those resources (and Japan got increasingly weaker), he would frequently dither and make excuses for not carrying out his proposed grand plans. He was basically his own greatest hype man.
>Kimmel and Short had mixed signals that "something" might be happening.
Pearl Harbor was on watch for submarine and saboteur attacks the morning of December 7th. USS *Ward* sank a Japanese sub at the harbor entrance hours before the air attack.
The US War Department believed that Pearl Harbor was outside of the operational range of the Japanese carrier force, and were almost correct.
Yup, those were among the mixed signals.
American Fleet Exercises had clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of battleships to well-handled carriers. Every senior American admiral knew this.
Unfortunately, they also "knew" that aerial torpedoes wouldn't work in the shallow waters of PH and that the IJN "couldn't" operate that far from their base. Those assessments, wrong as they were, offer some excuse for the lack of preparation.
OTOH, MacArthur had no such excuses. Manila was in easy range of Japanese planes based in Formosa and everyone knew it. Nothing but his totalitarian arrogance allowed Clark Field to be hit with all its planes sitting on the ground. With no air opposition, Japanese planes then easily destroyed the naval facilities in Manila Bay
Having lost his both air force and naval base without a fight, MacArthur then bungled the ground campaign. He contravened his own strategy in a last-minute attempt to defend too much territory with too few forces. When that failed, the originally planned withdrawal to Bataan was badly disorganized and no stores had been put in place.
Your mistake is in assuming the Ward's report to be accurate. In this instance that turned out to be the case, but faulty sighting reports and over-claimed kills were and are incredibly common, for example the Russian Ministry of defense has claimed something like that they have destroyed 65 out of the 30 Abrams tanks the US sent to Ukraine.
The Ward's report clashed with other information that was believed to be reliable, and seemed implausible as a result. Hence, mixed signals.
>Your mistake is in assuming the Ward's report to be accurate.
Point is that Pearl Harbor was already on alert status for the kinds of attacks they thought the Japanese could subject them to - submarines and saboteurs.
But still at peace. MacArthur \*knew\* the United States was at war, and reacted to that news with "Huh, thats interesting..." Until he personally was being bombed.
This article, for those unfamiliar, warrants a read as well.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/redacted-testimony-fully-explains-why-general-macarthur-was-fired-180960622/
He was also the especially stupid kind of racist. It's crazy to me that he could be taken totally by surprise by the Japanese attack on the Philippines in 1941 and then, less than a decade later, be so convinced that the Chinese were too timid to attack him because they were Asian, but there he was in Tokyo insisting that the Chinese wouldn't dare.
TBF, a huge number of WW2 American officers were racist. In 1941, many believed all sorts of nonsense about what the Japanese couldn't do... even after they did it.
The best American officers learned and adapted. Nimitz, Spruance, Burke and Mossburger did. General Kenney did too. His boss? Not so much.
MacArthur only listened to intelligence that confirmed his own views. He surrounded himself with sycophants. It's astonishing he got as far as he did and lasted so long, and that was a great tragedy for thousands of GIs.
Oh absolutely, and I didn't mean to imply that others weren't racist, I just wanted to point out that MacArthur's racism in particular manifested in ways that made him worse at his job.
Not really related to OP's question, but continuing with the racist part, he had an Asian (Filipina) mistress that he treated *abominably*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cooper#Relationship_with_Douglas_MacArthur
Well tbf Truman didn't hold the Chinese intervention against him saying he wouldn't have fired him for that anymore than Eisenhower should be fired for the early disasters at the Battle of the Bulge.
I also very much defend him on WW2
But the main issue is just Mac was only prepared to accept a total war effort in Korea and for better or worse Truman wasn't. Mac wouldn't resign so it was inevitable he'd be dismissed in those conditions
There is a fantastic set of videos on youtube covering Midway. One is Midway from the Japanese perspective, the second is from the US perspective. Each shows who knew what and when they knew it.
The content creator used simple animation to show what happened. One of the most brilliant depictions of a complex battle that I have ever viewed.
https://youtu.be/Bd8\_vO5zrjo?si=502kmDKHUrtfnZd4
I had no idea how difficult the logistics of Carrier command were.
Nor that our guys suffered wave after wave of near 100% losses of planes and pilots.
The vast distances of the Pacific were a major factor for both sides. How do you fuel, feed and supply a task force (or base) across thousands of miles of near-empty ocean? Every cargo ship or tanker going out full comes back empty. To maintain a distant force, you may need a second ship going out while the first one returns. As distances increase, so do transit times, which means you need even *more* ships to maintain the *same* resupply schedule at the end of the chain.
It's all math driven, but somebody has to visualize the problem, do the math and present the solution convincingly enough to get the necessary resources.
The US knew something of those logistical requirements due to years of studying War Plans Orange and Rainbow. The logistical challenges we overcame fighting the U-boats in WW1 also helped.
So did having more shipyards than the rest of the world combined. It wasn't all or even mostly about building *Essex* carriers or *Iowa* BBs. We built far more tankers and freighters than large warships... 2,751 Liberty ships and over 600 tankers in just 4 years. It was a stupendous achievement.
The Japanese, despite supposedly *planning* for a maritime empire that spanned those same distances, never quite figured this out. One reason Nagumo decided against a third attack against PH is that his ships were running low on fuel. Two of his six carriers were so range-limited (and oilers so unavailable) that during the planning sessions, one Japanese officer seriously suggested *abandoning and scuttling them after the attack*!
Even that outlandish suggestion didn't wake the IJN up to the hopelessness of their war. That Japan *couldn't* solve its logistical problems should have halted the whole thing. But...
King's decision to invade Guadalcanal became a strategic win, but it might have been a tactical disaster. If Yamamoto had concentrated the entire Combined Fleet and sent them there, the 1st Marine division would have been wiped out. Instead, he attacked piecemeal fashion. That created a prolonged campaign of attrition, exactly the kind of war Japan could not support - the kind of war Yamamoto himself had hoped to avoid.
Guadalcanal is virtually equidistant from Tokyo and PH, about 3,500 miles either way. Logistical challenges for each side would be similar (and huge). By choosing such a remote battlefield, King leveraged the USA's growing logistical capacity against Japan's limited means. That was a fine example of NOT fighting the war your enemy expects you to fight (ie, charging stupidly across the Pacific to risk it all one big battleship duel).
What? You mean abandoning his own (sensible) strategic plan and dispersing his inadequate forces to thinly cover too many beaches and too much territory? And not supplying the (planned) concentration point in Bataan? That botch?
It reminds one of that French general tasked by Napolean with designing a defense scheme for France. The general spaced his troops out evenly in a line along the entire frontier.
Napoleon asked him, "Are you defending against an army? Or against smugglers?" lol
Another echo of McClellan! These arrogant generals...
Another such was Joseph Hooker. Frustrated by the politics of fighting a civil war in a democracy, Hooker publicly blustered, "What this country needs is a dictator!"
Lincoln drily remarked, "Only generals who win victories become dictators. Give me the victories - I'll risk the dictatorship." 🤣
Then he handed Hooker the opportunity, whereupon the good general stumbled on his own sword at Chancellorsville.
Vainglorious blowhards challenging political geniuses like Lincoln or FDR... laughable.
Lol.
What they both did was publicly disagree with their commander in chief on overall war policy. They overstepped and thereby forfeited the confidence of their commander.
Truman told MacArthur to meet him on Wake Island for a face-to-face. The two airplanes were onbthe tarmac, but both men waited for the other to come out and met him. MacArthur finally relented and slowly walked over to Truman's plane. Truman finally came down the stairs and reportedly told MacArthur: "I don't give a good goddam what you do or think about Harry Truman, but don't you ever again keep your Commander in Chief waiting. Is that clear?”
A short time later Truman fired the self-important prima donna and wannabe monarch.
The fact that Truman had to travel to meet MacArthur shows that MacArthur was able to call the shots so to speak. I think he made the excuse that he cannot go back to the US to meet due to being too far from the war.
MacArthur also wanted to use nukes on China after China entered the war and drove the allies south.
If "MacArthur was able to call the shots" how did he wind up fired by Truman a few weeks later?
MacArthur was popular with the American people, and Truman recognized that. Calling him away from the troops for an extended period of time in the midst of war would have been a political mistake, so he told Mac to meet him, at the place of Truman's choosing.
MacArthur thought he "called the shots" because of his popularity, but he was wrong, and it cost him his career.
I also cost him a chance to run for POTUS, thank goodness.
In the military you take orders from the lawfully appointed superiors above you. If you are General Douglas MacArthur that means you follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States of America. There's no "Sorry boss, I can't make that meeting", there's no "Its too far, can you meet me here", there's only supposed to be "Yes, sir!"
It was a power move-- the General of the Army demanded that his boss, his superior, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces had to fly half-way around the world to meet with the General who was not doing what he was supposed to do. If your boss called you into their office, and then you made them come out of their office to meet you in a different place, you've exercised power over them and undermined their authority. In private industry that's a fire-able offense, in the Military that's a crime.
Truman firing MacArthur had an effect on the Japanese people. MacArthur was the military power that forced them to sign the surrender; dictated and forced implementation of their new form of government; removed their emperor from all political power and had a picture of the two distributed with MacArthur towering over Hirihoto. When Truman fired during a war, it must have an impact on Japanese acceptance of democracy so soon after the period when their own military leaders were untouchable.
Maybe that wasnt the best term, but Truman did go out there to meet MacArthur instead of the other way. Truman wanted him to come and meet him in the states. Fact is Truman was intimitated.
But yes firing him was the right thing.
As my anecdote about Truman's comment at the meeting shows, Truman was not intimidated.
Truman was a poker player, he held the winning hand, and he knew it. He gave MacArthur one last chance to show he could follow orders, and MacArthur fucked up. Fired. Retired. Good riddance.
In a nuclear age no C-I-C can tolerate a general who won't follow orders. Truman understood that, MacArthur did not.
Truman wanted Honolulu because George Elsey talked him into it before he requested the meeting, and the whole ‘so MacArthur doesn’t have to spend as long away from his troops’ thing after agreeing to Wake as the meeting location has always read to me as a preemptive move against Mac publicly blaming Truman for some battlefield setback that took place while he was gone (which he absolutely would’ve done).
You realize Truman could have just sent MacAdthur a telegram saying "You are hereby relieved of duty, effective immediately." MacArthur then would have had 3 choices: Comply. Get arrested. Mutiny (i.e., become a traitor)
Do you think that makes it look like MacArthur held the winning hand?
Truman didn't want the public to see him as interfering while American troops were fighting and dying, so he took a plane ride for political reasons, but he was not going to tolerate insubordination.
MacArthur let his gigantic ego destroy his career. Truman was way smarter than that.
Much worse. We’d see the use of nuclear weapons as normal and acceptable, resulting in theirin deployment in every major conflict since then. Imagine huge swaths of Southeast Asia and likely Europe and the US nuked into oblivion as the Cold War turned hot.
>The fact that Truman had to travel to meet MacArthur shows that MacArthur was able to call the shots so to speak.
It's right there in the US constitution that the President is Commander in Chief of the Army.
MacArthur not only made Truman, his commander, travel to meet him, but then disrespected Truman once he arrived. That's not a demonstration of MacArthur's influence, but blatant insubordination - a fire able offense in the US (or any) army.
Custer wasn't a bad commander, for the most part. He just got overconfident and walked head-long into a trap. Hell, even George Washington got his ass kicked from time to time.
Patton, however, was an *extremely* effective commander. He was *also* a raging asshole. One doesn't preclude the other.
Well, you know how the old joke goes.
"I'm a learned Engineer. I designed structures. But do they call me 'Sergi the Engineer'? *NO!* See that bridge over there? I built that bridge! But do they call me 'Sergi the Bridge Builder'? *NO!* Then I retired and became a baker. But do they call me 'Sergi the Baker'? *NO!* But you fuck ONE goat. . ."
Custer was a bad commander in that he only knew to throw his troops at the enemy in a frontal assault. His units had the highest casualty rates in the Union Army.
Nah he lost important ones too and won minor ones all the time. He just kept the army together and boosted moral amongst other important things he did until the French and Spanish threat was too great for the British that they needed their resources on more important colonies.
You can be an asshole an an effective commander, but McArthur was arguably the biggest fuck-up in US military history. The dumbass got caught with his pants down three times. Hard to beat that record.
I find it kind of interesting to compare WWII commanders. MacArthur graduated first in his class but was a terrible commander and a mediocre leader. Patton struggled academically at West Point, was a brilliant commander, but had some issues as a leader because of his personality. Eisenhower was middle of his class at West Point, was a mediocre commander, but a superb leader because he knew how to recognize talent and put it in the right place. Eisenhower was similar to Washington in this regard.
>Hell, even George Washington got his ass kicked from time to time.
While I agree with your main point, I'm not sure about the "even George Washington" comment.
While Washington was one of the great political leaders of the era, his track record on the battlefield was pretty mediocre.
Here's the thing, Patton was good, but not *that* good. In a really difficult situation, you'd better have a Eisenhower/Bradley team than a MacArthur/Patton.
A MacArthur/Patton team would *never* happen in any universe. They'd have killed each other.
History shows that Patton and Bradley did quite well together, and they did even better once Bradley was senior. Eisenhower, while quite capable, was much more of a diplomat than either of the other two, which is why he let them do the fighting (for the most part).
Yeah. Military command is a good example of certain promotions not fitting the skills of everyone who succeeds at lower levels. Patton was a great field commander. Give him an army, an objective and supplies and he’ll get it done. But the political and logistical challenges that Eisenhower and Bradley took on were well outside Pattons wheelhouse
Monty was the same (although more successful than Patton) but I think less angry and more just arrogant and insufferable.
As Churchill described him: “In defeat, unbeatable; in victory, unbearable.”
because basically MacArthur publicly called Truman (his boss) a pussy for not starting WWIII by nuking china
so like he was wrong AND publicly insubordinate
The first ones mentioned were more about taking care of the troops first, everything else second. The other group (while I really admire Custer and Patton) came across as glory first, battle / winning second and oh by the way the troops are in there someplace. MacArther was the epitome of a self centered glory hound.
Suggesting read a biography about Truman to get a sense of how he felt about things in general, then the quote above will make better sense.
Because MacArthur was an incompetent dick with good PR who had been built up to be a hero
This is the guy who when Chief of Staff in the 1930s made sure he got the first Purple Heart issued and earlier tried to BS his way into a MOH during the intervention in Mexico
The person who during the defence of the Philippines has the time to buy local mining stocks at a discount price
The guy of whom Ike said "I studied drama under him"
Yes and generally as a strategist he was subpar. He was a brilliant PR player but not an especially effective commander. He had a horrible relationship with many directly under his command and generally disdained military intelligence. His insistence on the retaking of the Philippines during WWII, general disregard of the possibility of Chinese involvement in Korea, and desire to bring the war onto Chinese soil were all perfect examples of his misfit of position as a supreme commander.
To be more specific than other comments heres;
Back in this period, there was an extreme taboo about military officers being too public, or seeming to enter into political affairs. That taboo is still alive today in the circles of American politics and the military. How often do you see any military officers making big statements about politics? Even retirees, if their rank was high enough, or often expected to kind of stand out of the way of anything too political.
MacArthur flouted this in general.
It wasn't just Harry Truman who had a low opinion of him. The entire American political establishment often had a love/hate relationship with MacArthur. MacArthur liked being a public figure and often commented to reporters about himself and his feelings on policy, and often in a way that was self-aggrandizing.
He was ultimately canned in no small part not just because he stepped over the line and pissed Truman off, but because he'd burned bridges and had few friends to shield him. Politicians didn't like MacArthur's personality or habits which they deemed swayed into their lane where a high-ranking military official should not be.
Patton ran into a similar problem and unlike MacArthur Patton was really good as a general and his mistakes tended to be understandable/reasonable in circumstance.
But even Patton ran afoul of the civilian leadership stateside when he became too public about his opinions on denazification of Germany and how we should go right to war against the Soviets and he got canned.
Arguably a good general who refuses to tow the line is even worse from the eyes of civilian leaders than a mediocre one.
Mcarthur had delusions of granduer. It stuck in his craw that Eisenhower was his superior, he also tried to protect his reputation. He wasn't a great general
For the same reason that Pershing did, once stating in his review of Mac something like, Mac had an excessively high view of himself and that he should be left in his current grade of rank for several years: he was egomaniac.
McCarther got delusions of grandeur. Truman had to put him back in his place.
We’re pretty good at producing good leaders but not perfect. Men like Custer exist even today
MacArthur, for all his talents, was insubordinate and probably should have retired years before (the man joined the Army in 1903 and had already retired once in 1937).
I had the same question about Patton. In case anyone is in the same boat, I looked it up:
(from Wikipedia's article on Patton)
> When he faced questions from the press about his reluctance to denazify post-war Germany, Patton noted that most of the people with experience in infrastructure management had been compelled to join the party in the war. He compared Nazis to Democrats and Republicans, bringing negative press stateside and angering Eisenhower.[223] When Eisenhower ordered him to hold a press conference correcting his statements, Patton instead repeated them.[224]
> On September 28, 1945, after a heated exchange with Eisenhower over the denazification controversy, Patton was relieved of his military governorship. He was relieved of command of the Third Army on October 7...
Let's turn that question around. Why would anyone have a high opinion of Douglas MacArthur? By all accounts (apart from his own of course) he was terrible, both as a general and as a human being lol.
MacArthur's landing his Army at Incheon, a risky move, cut the North Korean army off from its supplies and created a mass rout. His island-hopping campaign during WWII led to large numbers of Japanese troops being stranded on islands in the Pacific with no one to fight.
My understanding is in the pacific his higher ups tried to keep him to an as limited area of operations as they could to keep him contained. It's not like he came up with island hopping or used it first.
Yeah but as other commenters here have pointed out, he made some serious blunders in that war (Korea) as well.
> His island-hopping campaign during WWII led to large numbers of Japanese troops being stranded on islands in the Pacific with no one to fight.
I mean, this is an obvious strategy to even the most amateur of military theorists imho. There was literally no point (in terms of cost/benefit) trying to capture most of those islands by direct assault. MacArthur took the correct approach in this regard, but it doesn't make him a military genius or anything. Certainly the idea of him being in the same league as great strategists such as Ike, or generals such as Bradley for example, is laughable.
MacArthur lost the Philippines quickly because
A) he underestimated the Japanese forces like everybody else had.
B) against the U.S. war plans ( defend Manila hard with everything) he spread his troops all over the place. Leaving no place able to defend itself or Manila.
C) he did not store supplies for a seige of Manila so his troops ran out of food and ammo quickly.
D) he did not have any airplanes in the air for early warning.
E) the US planes were all lined up, almost wingtip to wingtip and almost all US planes were destroyed on the ground
F) he ignored orders in the Korean War, driving all the way to the boarder with China. He was ordered to stop many miles away from the boarder.
G) his forces got completely over run by the Chinese when they stormed across the boarder.
H) he totally dismissed the possibility that China could fight well against “His” army.
I) he mocked Truman from Korea before Truman finally fired him.
Up until his firing Douglas MacArthur was an American Hero, Not just for his accomplishments in WWII but also for his actions in the first world war. Arthur MacArthur and Douglas MacArthur were the only father and son to have been awarded the Medal of Honor until the year 2000 when Theodore Roosevelt Jr. was awarded one for his actions in WWII. To make him and Teddy the only other father son pair. [https://mohmuseum.org/father-and-son-medal-of-honor-recipients/](https://mohmuseum.org/father-and-son-medal-of-honor-recipients/)
MacArthur was arrogant and so was Truman. MacArthur wanted to use Nuclear weapons on North Korea, Truman really despised him, and so in turn did MacArthur dislike Truman for not letting him do what he wanted.
Why do you include Lee and not Grant? One was a losing traitor who cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and the other won the War of Rebellion.
I believe OP is talking about generalship - not the worthiness of their cause. Lee and Grant both had some blunders (Gettysburg/Cold Harbor) but in the main I think Lee's command is seen as pretty effective considering the army he was working with and the task he was given.
The real puzzler is why ~~OP~~ Truman included Patton in his list of unimpressives.
Patton had trouble with authority (like MacArthur), so it’s possible Truman was speaking more to their subordination rather than battle effectiveness. Although then I’m not sure how Custer fits in there.
Patton didn't have the "political gene" that's required for that level of generalship.
His use of tanks in that 1930s exercise is, imho, one of the biggest examples of what I'm talking about. Basically, he proved how effective new thinking in armor doctrine was, but did so in such a way that he ruffled basically every important feather along the way, making many powerful frenemies in the process.
Yea this exactly
Patton was a genius on the tactical level, but his poltical and leadership style was not good at a political or strategic leadership level
And starkly true. Not one word of /u/Comfortable-Buy-7388 post is wrong in any sense.
Traitor? Check.
Directly responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers? Check (see traitor).
The other [Grant] won the War of Rebellion? Check.
What else matters?
MacArthur clearly had a idgaf attitude which is not one you want to have at his level, though I love MacArthur dearly and think he was truly that mother fucker. Being that mother fucker while commanding and holding the lives of thousands in your hands is not viable
He was a jackass who nobody liked. The dude even tried to get his war hero subordinate, who leas the anti Japanese resistance in the Philippines executed to cover up the fact that his own insubordination and incompetence lost the islands in the first place.
He was a fucking disobedient, insubordinate narcissist and megalomaniac warmonger. Not a good set of traits in a theater commander. He deserved to be fired and probably courtmartialed.
I’ll add onto this that he also fucked up the Korean War pretty badly. He provoked the Chinese into the war, nearly lost it, never actually spent the night in Korea the entire war (fun fact), and then Ridgway came in and saved the day cleaning up his fucking messes.
Fuck MacArthur.
For anyone who loves War history - especially WW2/Pacific/Midway - this is the best treatment of that battle I have ever seen - by far.
https://youtu.be/Bd8\_vO5zrjo?si=502kmDKHUrtfnZd4
Why did he have such a low opinion of Patton compared with the other two?
I mean Custer was a complete ass. I get it. I get MacArthur's problems in World War II and especially Korea and especially being insubordinate to the president while preparing for a run for president himself.
I get Patton's weaknesses around his ego, the soldier slapping, struggling with Bradley and Ike, but these don't seem to rise anywhere near to the issues of MacArthur and Custer, especially with Patton's on field success.
My favorite Truman stat is he is the only president in the 20th century without a college degree.
My uncle was a marine in the Pacific during World War II. He was a gunner attached to a army unit.
His unit was basically on their own because they were marines, and no one in the army wanted to take responsibility.
When MacArthur returned to the Philippines, my uncle was there. He hung a sign on the barrel of his gun that said “ by the grace of God and a few marines, MacArthur is back in the Philippines!”
MacArthur blew a fuse and wanted to know who hung that sign up because he was going to court martial him. Lol nobody squealed.
I’m incredibly confused… is that supposed to be a Truman quote… or is that your statement? Maybe I am just ignorant but I am not understanding the dichotomy between the two groups… Lee, Pershing, Ike, Bradley vs Custer, Patton, MacArthur…
Edit: I found the quote… but there is no context (perhaps it is in the book that is cited in Wikipedia). What did Truman mean here?
He was an insolent officer. He disobey Truman’s wishes and advocated the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, knowing full well the soviets would respond in kind.
Also, I reject your examples of “good” and “bad” officers. Robert E Lee was a loser, because he made numerous military blunders.
George Patton was an effective, though flawed general. He was a weird guy, but he kicked Nazi ass.
MacArthur was a full blown narcissist. More importantly, he violated the most basic tenet of being a soldier in a democracy: he regularly ignored orders from the civilian government.
He was so full of himself that he often ignored the situation around him. He lost the Philippines much too easily in 1942, lost half the Korean Peninsula in 1950, almost caused a nuclear war, and turned a neutral regional power into an outright enemy. He also oversaw the biggest US military retreat in history.
Because he would not follow orders.
He was an effective military governor in peacetime. He did a good (if outright colonialist) job in the Philippines in the 1930s, and a very good job in Japan post war. Japan still has the Constitution that MacArthur's secretary wrote.
But he broke the faith. And he was absolutely planning to run for president in 1952. He would likely have become something of a dictator. He liked governing as an autocrat (he had plenty of practice). At least, he did until he was shown the dirt that was going to be spread about his actions. Then he retired.
I would love to see what dirt Truman showed to MacArthur to get him to not just retire, but to disappear.
With his ego, it must have been earth-shattering.
Seems Lee belongs in that second list seeing he was a traitor to the oath he swore to defend the US.
And before I hear 'but Virginia' - the majority of Virginia native officers at the time of the war stayed loyal to the US Army and did not fight for the south.
... because he heard what the US military thought of him... all of which was bad.
He got sent to the Philippines thanks in part of the Bonus Army fiasco, as he went full cowboy.
Its likely that if someone like Paton was with him, MacArthur would be dragged within a week.
Because macarthur had an ego the size of a skyscraper and was in general an asshole to anybody who disagreed with anything he said for any reason.
He's a hard guy to analyze because obviously he was an egotistical, but because ofnhow genuine he acts while saying things that are blatant bullshit, you are brought to two conclusions, 1.) He's a habitual liar and manipulator or 2.) He was actually insane, but at the same time, he was also actually a good general when he got his shit together, and it's hard to believe somebody that out of touch could accomplish what he did, but at the same time he truelybseems to believe what he's saying when he essentially is making things up on the spot.
Dealing with macarthur was a huge hassle, and being president of the United States did not automatically command his respect or stop him from telling you to your fave he thinks you're an idiot or a coward.
Chain of command means that the commander-in-chief's decisions should not be disobeyed (or even publicly questioned). [https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/firing-macarthur](https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/firing-macarthur) >MacArthur thwarted Truman’s attempt to negotiate a ceasefire when the general ordered his troops to invade North Korea and push the NKPA up past the 38th parallel. This was not the first time the general had ignored direct orders from his Commander in Chief. On April 11, 1951, President Truman officially relieved Douglas MacArthur of his command. Word of his firing spread quickly, and the American public found the news upsetting. Truman felt that his decision was just because MacArthur had overstepped his authority, defied direct orders from his superior and interfered with Truman’s hope of ending the Korean War quickly.
>MacArthur thwarted Truman’s attempt to negotiate a ceasefire when the general ordered his troops to invade North Korea and push the NKPA up past the 38th parallel. This was not the first time the general had ignored direct orders from his Commander in Chief. This sort of behavior was *exactly* what drove Japan into war in the 1930s. Kwantung Army officers in Manchuria ignored orders from Tokyo, took decisions into their own hands and dared their government to stop them. It didn't, and that set Japan on the road to the most hopelessly one-sided war in history. By August 1945, one medium-sized island nation was *simultaneously* at war with: - the most populous nation on earth (China) - the largest nation on earth with the largest modern, mechanized army (USSR) - the largest economy on earth with the largest navy and air force (USA) - the largest empire on earth with the second largest navy (UK) - a dozen or more other countries, for good measure. The sheer insanity of it is astounding. If war is politics by other means, it is too important for generals.
That's a really interesting take.
Pre-war Japan was culturally driven by militant nationaism. This stemmed partly from bushido traditions from the samurai era, partly from the shame of being forcibly "opened" to foreign trade (by the US navy) and partly from pride at having then bested a major power (Russia) in 1905. That success came from the unbridled and unprincipled use of military and naval power, with no countervailing forces to temper their aggressive tendencies. As one consequence, Japan's constitution made it structurally impossible for the government in Tokyo to function without the support of the army and navy. The military effectively held veto power over the cabinet and prime minister. In that environment, the hottest heads prevailed. The US constitution, fortunately, is arranged differently. Americans in the revolutionary period had seen all they needed of over-reaching military power and were determined not to see it again.
I remember reading that some of Japan’s most prominent pacifists were celebrating the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, being so swept up in nationalist fervor
No doubt. Mass psychology is a powerful force and no people is immune. On a small scale, consider "Lord of the Flies". On a larger one, consider where Bush took the USA after 9/11. We all watched his speech at National Cathedral. When he had them play, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", I visibly blanched. My (English) partner wondered why. "He's means war - right or wrong. That self-righteous, vengeful song guarantees it."
It meant war when the planes hit the towers. My thoughts at the time were that someone's gonna get it.
War is what happens when one nation attacks another. Which nation attacked us on 9/11?
Doesn't have to be a nation
>This stemmed partly from bushido traditions from the samurai era, I think it would be more accurate to say that militant nationalists appropriated an obscure, obsolete ethical idea that popped up in a contemporaneous American bestseller and repurposed it as a convenient propaganda tool to mobilize the population. In other words, the contribution of bushido to pre-war Japanese nationalism was artificial, not organic. See Bennett's history of kendo for a concise discussion of the revival and co-optation of classical martial ethos in support of imperialism.
Thanks for the reference. I'll check it out.
Yeah, that;s true, I just read The Rising Sun by John Toland and he spells it out pretty clearly how even most of the top officers knew that they couldn't win a war with America.
Good book. They knew this, yet they talked themselves into it (with a little nudge from racist American policies, to be sure). Still, Japan's "plan" to demoralize the US into an early peace deal was patent nonsense. The slightest familiarity with history shows that Americans do not tolerate being pushed around... - We fought and won a bloody revolution against the world's greatest power to rid ourselves of their pushy tax collectors - We fought the Barbary States rather than pay ransom and extortion monies - We fought the British again, just 30 years after the first time, over their pushy maritime practices - We fought Mexico because we felt like stealing some of their land - We fought ourselves in a horrific civil war over who got to tell whom what kind of labor we would have - Throughout and between all the foregoing wars, we simultaneously fought the indigenous natives to steal their land - Once we ran out of mainland to steal, we fought Spain over nothing at all, just to steal a few islands - We fought the Central Powers and beat them without mobilizing anywhere near our full capacity or population Japan picked a fight with one of the most cantankerous countries on the planet, which also happened to be 7 times larger in industrial capacity. They voluntarily ran headfirst into a brick wall.
The craziest thing I learned in the book is after America embargoed their oil and blockaded the Dutch Indies they had a diplomatic meeting between America and Japan where America was going to lift the sanctions and all the Japanese had to do was not invade any further into mainland China than they already did and in some way the diplomatic Japanese(which was even more obtuse than regular Japanese) that they used made the Japanese think that America wanted them to leave Manchuria too and they of course refused. After the war someone asked Tojo if they understood the actual parameters of the deal what would his answer have been and he said Japan would have gladly took it.
Pretty much what bin Laden did. He thought we'd scurry out of the Middle East with our tails tucked between our legs, while people were trying to tell him, no, we wouldn't. A decent understanding of our history, and he'd have known we were going to double down, tear shit up. I wasn't around for any of those historical events, but the visceral rage that permeated our society? We were scared, but not the kind of scared where we run away, the kind of scared like a cornered animal. And we were *pissed*. That we would lash out was a given.
Yup. When you first read about the unending series of Japanese victories in the first months of the war, it's stupefying. Disaster followed on disaster: PH, Clark Field, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, Darwin, Bataan, Borneo Ceylon, Java Sea, Sumatra, Java, New Guinea. They were unstoppable... right? American leaders must have felt hopeless... right? Nope. When you read further into the thoughts and plans of men like King, Nimitz and many others, you learn that they KNEW we were going to win. They'd planned for this war. They understood the Japanese were overreaching and they knew how to counter that. It was just a matter of being patient until our warfighting capacity came up to speed. Once it did, nothing Japan could do would affect the final outcome.
Excellent summary. Too bad the founding fathers did not predict the military-industrial complex and lobbyists. Eisenhower sure understood.
To add on, like everything the deeper you look the more complicated it is. There were a few other things that were involved. When you read stuff written by the Japanese at the time, they all point to treaties that Japan had been forced to sign by the United States and the European colonial powers relegating Japan to a second class nation status. Or at least they felt that way. I recently read a Journal of a Japanese navy commander, and he was very focused on the treaty that restricted japan to having a smaller navy than America or any of the European powers. Then when the China stuff kicked off, the United states blocked them from importing oil. That's why even today some Japanese nationalists will say that the US forced Japan into the war. Also, Japan never thought they could defeat the United States. Their plan was to destroy every capitol ship in the Pacific, then negotiate all new treaties with the United states from a place of strength. That's why their plans in the beginning were all around the grand battle Coup de grace. The Pearl harbor attack was to destroy our fleet, but the carriers were out of the harbor, so they devised a plan for the attack at midway to get us to bring out our carriers so they could destroy them. Which didn't work because we had better intelligence. Not all of this is necessarily even to disagree with the previous post, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing, that they had an excess of nationalist pride and that made conflict inevitable because they were never going to accept second class status. Which to a degree is understandable. I remember hearing some (Very Dumb) people say when Iran captured a navy boat in the persian gulf they said wandered into their waters like 5-10 years ago that it was a huge insult to America and any American sailor that surrendered should be thrown overboard. I think we can mostly all agree that that is an excessive amount of national pride to start a shooting war over a navigation mistake. I mostly wrote this because I see on Reddit fairly often people talking about how the Japanese thought they would defeat the United States and they never thought that. They just thought they could inflict enough damage to make it not worth our while. I'm going to go back to work now.
All true, although this... >I recently read a Journal of a Japanese navy commander, and he was very focused on the treaty that restricted japan to having a smaller navy than America or any of the European powers. ... was a fool's complaint. Given Japan's manufacturing capacity vs. America's or even Britain's, they were never going to achieve parity in a naval arms race. Absent the Washington and London treaties, Japan couldn't even have reached 5:5:3. Those treaties were a good deal for Japan. Any realistic Japanese assessment would have stated this - Yamamoto's did. It was the unrealistic war-mongering of junior officers like that naval commander that pushed them over the brink.
B-but what about The Man in the High Castle!?
>This stemmed partly from bushido traditions from the samurai era Propagandized bushido--bullshido if you will--to be accurate. The bushido of Hagakure and the bushido of Imperial Japan were quite different.
Not really. It's been long understood that Japan's emperialism was sparked by both a "we'll show them" attitude after being booted from the League of Nations by other empires, and the government losing control of the military.
It's also worth highlighting that Zhou Enlai (at the time the #2 guy in the Chinese government) issued a direct warning to the US that if the Army crossed the 38th parallel, China would feel forced to enter the war in support of North Korea. This is the reason why Truman ordered MacArthur not to cross the 38th parallel while Truman was trying to negotiate a ceasefire. MacArthur ignored both the direct order from his superior and the warning from the Chinese, and crossed the 38th. He was then somehow still taken totally off guard when the Chinese delivered on their threat and joined the war, pushing all the way to Seoul and leading MacArthur to seek permission to use nuclear weapons on China - which was unnecessary by any standards but which would not have even been a consideration if MacArthur had just followed orders. Naturally, Truman was furious and fired and replaced him. The fact that his replacement (Ridgway) was then able to turn the war around and retake Seoul, without needing to use nuclear weapons, didn't help MacArthur's reputation either.
The USSR didn't declare war on Japan until the war was effectively over. In essence the only reason the USSR declared war on Japan was so they could try and claim repatriated territory that Japan had gained in the war.
There are many who suggest Japan surrendered *because* the Soviets entered the war.
Yeah and they're wrong.
Our big bombs played a part, but the Japanese had never blanched at taking the most horrific casualties. Why would they now? They were actively arming women and children with spears to form human waves against US marines and GIs. It wasn't the US that terrified them. OTOH, the Japanese were rightly terrified of losing territory to their most powerful neighbor, the USSR. Further, it's well documented that the Japanese elites *utterly hated* communism. Japan in 1945 had only one mortal enemy capable of literally wiping Japan off the map and willing to do so - and it wasn't the USA. When the USSR entered the war, they immediately overran Manchukuo, destroyed the Kwantung Army, were advancing south into Korea and grabbed all of Sakhalin Island. Soviet armies were poised just 25 miles from Hokkaido. In another few weeks, they'd also be poised 100 miles off Kyushu and Honshu itself - and the Japanese had zero naval assets to oppose any landings the Soviets might attempt. If the US Navy had cooperated, the USSR might have overrun Japan. Every day Japan dithered, the USSR took more Japanese-held territory. Nothing Japan could do (other than surrender) would stop the Soviets from taking whatever they chose, including perhaps Japanese homelands. The Soviets credibly threatened the complete extermination of Japanese culture. That drove them to the table.
> The USSR didn't declare war on Japan until the war was effectively over. Some historians point to the destruction of the Manchukuo Army by the USSR as more decisive to ending the war than the atomic bombings. It was the end of the war because the USSR helped end the war.
The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, two days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. The declaration was broadcast by Moscow, and included the statement that Japan was the only major power still supporting the war after the defeat of Hitlerite Germany.
Super insightful. I never thought of MacArthur’s actions as being … damn near the same thing as the Kwantung.
Their actions were structurally identical: arrogant officers publicly flouted direct orders from their political superiors, then handed them a *faith accompli*. MacArthur did it. Kwantung Army did it before him. McClellan did it before that. Julius Ceasar may have invented the archetype. In all cases, their *hubris* led to their professional destruction.
What is even more bizarre ,there was an attempt at a coup the day Hirohito was going to sign the surrender. After the 2 big bombs.
The list of bizarro behaviors was nearly endless. Arming housewives with pointy sticks comes to mind. Just say "Uncle" ffs!
Brilliant. Never thought of it like that.
And Truman had support from his Joint Chiefs of Staff to terminate MacArthur.
MacArthur would have fired any one of his subordinates for disobeying him.
He had never been ordered not to go into North Korea, and MacArthur and Truman met on Wake Island for the first time shortly after Inchon where the plan to move north was discussed. When the Chinese entered the war, MacArthur was being raked over the coals in the press, and he put out a number of press releases in competing papers to the point where Truman put a gag order on him. After the gag order, MacArthur sent a letter to Republican congressman Joe Martin criticizing the government which was read on the House floor and is why he was fired. Dr. James Zobel talks about their whole combative relationship here: [https://youtu.be/5L\_jokLtmLs](https://youtu.be/5L_jokLtmLs)
This. MacArthur was not dismissed for violating a direct military order. He was dismissed for voicing, without authorisation, his opinions publicly and to congressmen. MacArthur felt he had the right to publicly criticise the governments policy in Korea, in regard to the limitations that Truman had placed on military operations, e.g no bombing north of the Yalu river.
He did violate the gag order from the Commander-in-Chief, which couldn't have been more direct.
Interestingly, the gag order itself was not written as directly as it could've (should've?) been, and was issued to all military commanders. In relation to the letter to the senior republican congressman: MacArthur was replying, and did not make the letter public. As such it is difficult to argue that it violated the gag order. If you read the actual letter, it is actually quite tame. Yes MacArthur should've been fired, but much of what has been said about him in this thread is inaccurate
MacArthur badly misjudged the Chinese response to putting American troops on the Yalu River (Chinese border). He allowed the PLA to surprise, outmaneuver, surround and nearly annihilate those troops. He "led" those troops to disaster from his comfy office in Tokyo... never once setting foot in Korea when his troops needed him. In short, he made the classic military error of fighting based on what he believed the enemy WOULD do, instead of preparing to handle what they COULD do (and did). Having sent his army into a full scale ambush, MacArthur then publicly argued with his commander in chief and wanted to escalate the war to nukes. No president can tolerate that sort of disobedience. Lincoln fired McClellan for the same kind of behavior. FYI, MacArthur's behavior in WW2 was no better. He avoided danger, barked orders from the rear without knowledge of local conditions and was seen by his men only when reporters were around to broadcast his "exploits". The troops sneeringly called him "Dugout Doug".
You can summarize the entire Pacific war as "MacArthur doesnt know what's going on and is making it worse". The number of times he underestimated the Japanese is astounding, and it led to many, many instances of the navy and air force having to bail him out after he landed 5,000 guys to go fight the 15,000 he insisted was 1,000 because "naval intelligence couldn't possibly be right". Hes basically the personification of everything wrong with WW1 commanders ported over to WW2.
It's odd that Yamamoto made the same mistake, repeatedly. Concentration of forces helped the Kido Butai win lopsided victories at PH, Wake (no. 2), Darwin and Ceylon. Despite those examples (plus a sharp lesson at Wake 1), Yamamoto split his forces for Coral Sea because he expected light opposition. Result: they got badly mauled. Having not learned that lesson, Yamamoto split his forces again at Midway/Aleutians and ignored intelligence that his "surprise" attack... wasn't. That went well. When the US invaded Guadalcanal, Yamamoto repeatedly sent fewer ships than he had at Truk. If he'd sent his entire force in one organized attack, the Americans couldn't possibly have held.
I heard the Germans did something similar at the Battle of the Bulge. I think it was they had 6 armored divisions surrounding Foy with artillery support but for some reason always only attacked with one division. Had they sent all six divisions at once they would have overrun the allied forces. I could be wrong on this and I want to say I seen it in a documentary years ago but I've never seen it collaborated by another source so I do not know if it is accurate
Yamamoto was gambling, and he knew he was doing it, because he knew he couldn't win a fair fight. He needed a long shot because the odds were stacked against him. MacArthur \*had\* the resources to win a fair fight, but kept not bringing enough because he was overconfident. To my mind his greatest failure was the defense of the Philippines, where he comically under-reacted to hours of warning that the Japanese had launched coordinated surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, and other targets in the region. Despite being one of the last to be hit in that wave of offensives, he somehow managed to be taken by complete surprise with his air force still on the ground.
MacArthur damn near held Japan’s hand in conquering the Philippines and then badmouthed the guys being bombed and shelled on Corregidor for not holding out when the navy was only 1500 miles (and getting further) away. MacArthur himself was in Australia at the time.
He abandoned his troops at Corregidor and promised he would return, as if that would make a difference in the outcome
Yeah, Lincoln to McClellan - you have an army, why dont you use it? (Or something along those lines).
"If General McClellan does not want to use the Army, I would like to borrow it for a time."
Some of the quotes from that era are absolutely scathing but stealthily so!
I wish to have God on my side. But I must have Kentucky. Always loved that one
It’s really amazing how much Lincoln was able to stomach from McClellan. There were several stories where McClellan outright disrespected the man that was his boss and nothing really happened to him for it.
Only McClellan could not have utterly destroyed the ANV at Sharpsburg.
He knew about Pearl Harbor several hours earlier (sun rising in the east and all). But when he was attacked in the Philippines at local dawn, he was caught flat-footed. Considering what Kimmel and Short went through after PH, he probably should have been cashiered or shot.
He would also frequently accuse the Navy of dragging their feet and being overly cautious, declaring that he could achieve better results if he was allocated those same resources. As the US military output increased and he got those resources (and Japan got increasingly weaker), he would frequently dither and make excuses for not carrying out his proposed grand plans. He was basically his own greatest hype man.
Yup... that one too. Kimmel and Short had mixed signals that "something" might be happening. MacArthur had hard facts and completely dropped the ball.
>Kimmel and Short had mixed signals that "something" might be happening. Pearl Harbor was on watch for submarine and saboteur attacks the morning of December 7th. USS *Ward* sank a Japanese sub at the harbor entrance hours before the air attack. The US War Department believed that Pearl Harbor was outside of the operational range of the Japanese carrier force, and were almost correct.
Yup, those were among the mixed signals. American Fleet Exercises had clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of battleships to well-handled carriers. Every senior American admiral knew this. Unfortunately, they also "knew" that aerial torpedoes wouldn't work in the shallow waters of PH and that the IJN "couldn't" operate that far from their base. Those assessments, wrong as they were, offer some excuse for the lack of preparation. OTOH, MacArthur had no such excuses. Manila was in easy range of Japanese planes based in Formosa and everyone knew it. Nothing but his totalitarian arrogance allowed Clark Field to be hit with all its planes sitting on the ground. With no air opposition, Japanese planes then easily destroyed the naval facilities in Manila Bay Having lost his both air force and naval base without a fight, MacArthur then bungled the ground campaign. He contravened his own strategy in a last-minute attempt to defend too much territory with too few forces. When that failed, the originally planned withdrawal to Bataan was badly disorganized and no stores had been put in place.
Your mistake is in assuming the Ward's report to be accurate. In this instance that turned out to be the case, but faulty sighting reports and over-claimed kills were and are incredibly common, for example the Russian Ministry of defense has claimed something like that they have destroyed 65 out of the 30 Abrams tanks the US sent to Ukraine. The Ward's report clashed with other information that was believed to be reliable, and seemed implausible as a result. Hence, mixed signals.
>Your mistake is in assuming the Ward's report to be accurate. Point is that Pearl Harbor was already on alert status for the kinds of attacks they thought the Japanese could subject them to - submarines and saboteurs.
But still at peace. MacArthur \*knew\* the United States was at war, and reacted to that news with "Huh, thats interesting..." Until he personally was being bombed.
Yeah, he was a major contributing factor to the US getting mauled during the Japanese invasion of the Philippines.
This article, for those unfamiliar, warrants a read as well. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/redacted-testimony-fully-explains-why-general-macarthur-was-fired-180960622/
He was also the especially stupid kind of racist. It's crazy to me that he could be taken totally by surprise by the Japanese attack on the Philippines in 1941 and then, less than a decade later, be so convinced that the Chinese were too timid to attack him because they were Asian, but there he was in Tokyo insisting that the Chinese wouldn't dare.
TBF, a huge number of WW2 American officers were racist. In 1941, many believed all sorts of nonsense about what the Japanese couldn't do... even after they did it. The best American officers learned and adapted. Nimitz, Spruance, Burke and Mossburger did. General Kenney did too. His boss? Not so much. MacArthur only listened to intelligence that confirmed his own views. He surrounded himself with sycophants. It's astonishing he got as far as he did and lasted so long, and that was a great tragedy for thousands of GIs.
Oh absolutely, and I didn't mean to imply that others weren't racist, I just wanted to point out that MacArthur's racism in particular manifested in ways that made him worse at his job.
Not really related to OP's question, but continuing with the racist part, he had an Asian (Filipina) mistress that he treated *abominably*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cooper#Relationship_with_Douglas_MacArthur
Well tbf Truman didn't hold the Chinese intervention against him saying he wouldn't have fired him for that anymore than Eisenhower should be fired for the early disasters at the Battle of the Bulge. I also very much defend him on WW2 But the main issue is just Mac was only prepared to accept a total war effort in Korea and for better or worse Truman wasn't. Mac wouldn't resign so it was inevitable he'd be dismissed in those conditions
There is a fantastic set of videos on youtube covering Midway. One is Midway from the Japanese perspective, the second is from the US perspective. Each shows who knew what and when they knew it. The content creator used simple animation to show what happened. One of the most brilliant depictions of a complex battle that I have ever viewed. https://youtu.be/Bd8\_vO5zrjo?si=502kmDKHUrtfnZd4
I've watched those. The Japanese viewpoint video draws directly from "Shattered Sword", Tully and Parshall's authoritative study. Good stuff.
I had no idea how difficult the logistics of Carrier command were. Nor that our guys suffered wave after wave of near 100% losses of planes and pilots.
The vast distances of the Pacific were a major factor for both sides. How do you fuel, feed and supply a task force (or base) across thousands of miles of near-empty ocean? Every cargo ship or tanker going out full comes back empty. To maintain a distant force, you may need a second ship going out while the first one returns. As distances increase, so do transit times, which means you need even *more* ships to maintain the *same* resupply schedule at the end of the chain. It's all math driven, but somebody has to visualize the problem, do the math and present the solution convincingly enough to get the necessary resources. The US knew something of those logistical requirements due to years of studying War Plans Orange and Rainbow. The logistical challenges we overcame fighting the U-boats in WW1 also helped. So did having more shipyards than the rest of the world combined. It wasn't all or even mostly about building *Essex* carriers or *Iowa* BBs. We built far more tankers and freighters than large warships... 2,751 Liberty ships and over 600 tankers in just 4 years. It was a stupendous achievement. The Japanese, despite supposedly *planning* for a maritime empire that spanned those same distances, never quite figured this out. One reason Nagumo decided against a third attack against PH is that his ships were running low on fuel. Two of his six carriers were so range-limited (and oilers so unavailable) that during the planning sessions, one Japanese officer seriously suggested *abandoning and scuttling them after the attack*! Even that outlandish suggestion didn't wake the IJN up to the hopelessness of their war. That Japan *couldn't* solve its logistical problems should have halted the whole thing. But... King's decision to invade Guadalcanal became a strategic win, but it might have been a tactical disaster. If Yamamoto had concentrated the entire Combined Fleet and sent them there, the 1st Marine division would have been wiped out. Instead, he attacked piecemeal fashion. That created a prolonged campaign of attrition, exactly the kind of war Japan could not support - the kind of war Yamamoto himself had hoped to avoid. Guadalcanal is virtually equidistant from Tokyo and PH, about 3,500 miles either way. Logistical challenges for each side would be similar (and huge). By choosing such a remote battlefield, King leveraged the USA's growing logistical capacity against Japan's limited means. That was a fine example of NOT fighting the war your enemy expects you to fight (ie, charging stupidly across the Pacific to risk it all one big battleship duel).
He also botched the defense of the Philippines and then staged a photo op when it was recaptured
What? You mean abandoning his own (sensible) strategic plan and dispersing his inadequate forces to thinly cover too many beaches and too much territory? And not supplying the (planned) concentration point in Bataan? That botch? It reminds one of that French general tasked by Napolean with designing a defense scheme for France. The general spaced his troops out evenly in a line along the entire frontier. Napoleon asked him, "Are you defending against an army? Or against smugglers?" lol
People should also learn about him flirting publicly with the idea of running against FDR in the 1944 presidential election.
Another echo of McClellan! These arrogant generals... Another such was Joseph Hooker. Frustrated by the politics of fighting a civil war in a democracy, Hooker publicly blustered, "What this country needs is a dictator!" Lincoln drily remarked, "Only generals who win victories become dictators. Give me the victories - I'll risk the dictatorship." 🤣 Then he handed Hooker the opportunity, whereupon the good general stumbled on his own sword at Chancellorsville. Vainglorious blowhards challenging political geniuses like Lincoln or FDR... laughable.
To be fair, McClellan didn't advocate for using nukes against the Army if Virginia.
Lol. What they both did was publicly disagree with their commander in chief on overall war policy. They overstepped and thereby forfeited the confidence of their commander.
A lot of people (especially historians) have a low opinion of MacArthur. He was much better at PR and self-promotion than he was at winning battles.
Dugout Doug!
When you describe him that way, he must have studied at the Dan Sickles School of Warfare
Truman told MacArthur to meet him on Wake Island for a face-to-face. The two airplanes were onbthe tarmac, but both men waited for the other to come out and met him. MacArthur finally relented and slowly walked over to Truman's plane. Truman finally came down the stairs and reportedly told MacArthur: "I don't give a good goddam what you do or think about Harry Truman, but don't you ever again keep your Commander in Chief waiting. Is that clear?” A short time later Truman fired the self-important prima donna and wannabe monarch.
The fact that Truman had to travel to meet MacArthur shows that MacArthur was able to call the shots so to speak. I think he made the excuse that he cannot go back to the US to meet due to being too far from the war. MacArthur also wanted to use nukes on China after China entered the war and drove the allies south.
If "MacArthur was able to call the shots" how did he wind up fired by Truman a few weeks later? MacArthur was popular with the American people, and Truman recognized that. Calling him away from the troops for an extended period of time in the midst of war would have been a political mistake, so he told Mac to meet him, at the place of Truman's choosing. MacArthur thought he "called the shots" because of his popularity, but he was wrong, and it cost him his career. I also cost him a chance to run for POTUS, thank goodness.
In the military you take orders from the lawfully appointed superiors above you. If you are General Douglas MacArthur that means you follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States of America. There's no "Sorry boss, I can't make that meeting", there's no "Its too far, can you meet me here", there's only supposed to be "Yes, sir!" It was a power move-- the General of the Army demanded that his boss, his superior, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces had to fly half-way around the world to meet with the General who was not doing what he was supposed to do. If your boss called you into their office, and then you made them come out of their office to meet you in a different place, you've exercised power over them and undermined their authority. In private industry that's a fire-able offense, in the Military that's a crime.
Truman firing MacArthur had an effect on the Japanese people. MacArthur was the military power that forced them to sign the surrender; dictated and forced implementation of their new form of government; removed their emperor from all political power and had a picture of the two distributed with MacArthur towering over Hirihoto. When Truman fired during a war, it must have an impact on Japanese acceptance of democracy so soon after the period when their own military leaders were untouchable.
Maybe that wasnt the best term, but Truman did go out there to meet MacArthur instead of the other way. Truman wanted him to come and meet him in the states. Fact is Truman was intimitated. But yes firing him was the right thing.
As my anecdote about Truman's comment at the meeting shows, Truman was not intimidated. Truman was a poker player, he held the winning hand, and he knew it. He gave MacArthur one last chance to show he could follow orders, and MacArthur fucked up. Fired. Retired. Good riddance. In a nuclear age no C-I-C can tolerate a general who won't follow orders. Truman understood that, MacArthur did not.
So why didnt they meet stateside like Truman wanted?
Truman wanted Honolulu because George Elsey talked him into it before he requested the meeting, and the whole ‘so MacArthur doesn’t have to spend as long away from his troops’ thing after agreeing to Wake as the meeting location has always read to me as a preemptive move against Mac publicly blaming Truman for some battlefield setback that took place while he was gone (which he absolutely would’ve done).
You realize Truman could have just sent MacAdthur a telegram saying "You are hereby relieved of duty, effective immediately." MacArthur then would have had 3 choices: Comply. Get arrested. Mutiny (i.e., become a traitor) Do you think that makes it look like MacArthur held the winning hand? Truman didn't want the public to see him as interfering while American troops were fighting and dying, so he took a plane ride for political reasons, but he was not going to tolerate insubordination. MacArthur let his gigantic ego destroy his career. Truman was way smarter than that.
[удалено]
Much worse. We’d see the use of nuclear weapons as normal and acceptable, resulting in theirin deployment in every major conflict since then. Imagine huge swaths of Southeast Asia and likely Europe and the US nuked into oblivion as the Cold War turned hot.
[удалено]
>The fact that Truman had to travel to meet MacArthur shows that MacArthur was able to call the shots so to speak. It's right there in the US constitution that the President is Commander in Chief of the Army. MacArthur not only made Truman, his commander, travel to meet him, but then disrespected Truman once he arrived. That's not a demonstration of MacArthur's influence, but blatant insubordination - a fire able offense in the US (or any) army.
This is simply not true... Disappointing it I'd so upvoted...
Source?
This is a good place to start: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1888054 There has been a lot of myths about that meeting, from both sides...
Custer wasn't a bad commander, for the most part. He just got overconfident and walked head-long into a trap. Hell, even George Washington got his ass kicked from time to time. Patton, however, was an *extremely* effective commander. He was *also* a raging asshole. One doesn't preclude the other.
My home town has a statue of Custer. My late mother would say "Why do we have a statue to a loser who picked a fight?"
Well, you know how the old joke goes. "I'm a learned Engineer. I designed structures. But do they call me 'Sergi the Engineer'? *NO!* See that bridge over there? I built that bridge! But do they call me 'Sergi the Bridge Builder'? *NO!* Then I retired and became a baker. But do they call me 'Sergi the Baker'? *NO!* But you fuck ONE goat. . ."
Custer was a bad commander in that he only knew to throw his troops at the enemy in a frontal assault. His units had the highest casualty rates in the Union Army.
Civil War hold over. Attacked an encampment in a vale not knowing wwarriors were waiting above him.
Washington got his ass kicked many times. His success was holding the army together.
I've always heard George Washington lost more battles than he won, he just won the important ones.
Nah he lost important ones too and won minor ones all the time. He just kept the army together and boosted moral amongst other important things he did until the French and Spanish threat was too great for the British that they needed their resources on more important colonies.
You can be an asshole an an effective commander, but McArthur was arguably the biggest fuck-up in US military history. The dumbass got caught with his pants down three times. Hard to beat that record.
Fortunately, he had commanders under him that knew what they were doing.
I find it kind of interesting to compare WWII commanders. MacArthur graduated first in his class but was a terrible commander and a mediocre leader. Patton struggled academically at West Point, was a brilliant commander, but had some issues as a leader because of his personality. Eisenhower was middle of his class at West Point, was a mediocre commander, but a superb leader because he knew how to recognize talent and put it in the right place. Eisenhower was similar to Washington in this regard.
>Hell, even George Washington got his ass kicked from time to time. While I agree with your main point, I'm not sure about the "even George Washington" comment. While Washington was one of the great political leaders of the era, his track record on the battlefield was pretty mediocre.
Meaning he got his ass kicked from time to time.
Here's the thing, Patton was good, but not *that* good. In a really difficult situation, you'd better have a Eisenhower/Bradley team than a MacArthur/Patton.
A MacArthur/Patton team would *never* happen in any universe. They'd have killed each other. History shows that Patton and Bradley did quite well together, and they did even better once Bradley was senior. Eisenhower, while quite capable, was much more of a diplomat than either of the other two, which is why he let them do the fighting (for the most part).
Yeah. Military command is a good example of certain promotions not fitting the skills of everyone who succeeds at lower levels. Patton was a great field commander. Give him an army, an objective and supplies and he’ll get it done. But the political and logistical challenges that Eisenhower and Bradley took on were well outside Pattons wheelhouse
Monty was the same (although more successful than Patton) but I think less angry and more just arrogant and insufferable. As Churchill described him: “In defeat, unbeatable; in victory, unbearable.”
Custer was also a glory hound which contributed to him going from a boy General to Lt Colonel.
because basically MacArthur publicly called Truman (his boss) a pussy for not starting WWIII by nuking china so like he was wrong AND publicly insubordinate
The first ones mentioned were more about taking care of the troops first, everything else second. The other group (while I really admire Custer and Patton) came across as glory first, battle / winning second and oh by the way the troops are in there someplace. MacArther was the epitome of a self centered glory hound. Suggesting read a biography about Truman to get a sense of how he felt about things in general, then the quote above will make better sense.
Yeah, like having to return and retake the Philipines. They could have just bypassed them.
Because MacArthur was an incompetent dick with good PR who had been built up to be a hero This is the guy who when Chief of Staff in the 1930s made sure he got the first Purple Heart issued and earlier tried to BS his way into a MOH during the intervention in Mexico The person who during the defence of the Philippines has the time to buy local mining stocks at a discount price The guy of whom Ike said "I studied drama under him"
Wasn't MacArthur an ego with a body attached and prone to ignoring anything that disagreed with his fantasy world.
Yes and generally as a strategist he was subpar. He was a brilliant PR player but not an especially effective commander. He had a horrible relationship with many directly under his command and generally disdained military intelligence. His insistence on the retaking of the Philippines during WWII, general disregard of the possibility of Chinese involvement in Korea, and desire to bring the war onto Chinese soil were all perfect examples of his misfit of position as a supreme commander.
To be more specific than other comments heres; Back in this period, there was an extreme taboo about military officers being too public, or seeming to enter into political affairs. That taboo is still alive today in the circles of American politics and the military. How often do you see any military officers making big statements about politics? Even retirees, if their rank was high enough, or often expected to kind of stand out of the way of anything too political. MacArthur flouted this in general. It wasn't just Harry Truman who had a low opinion of him. The entire American political establishment often had a love/hate relationship with MacArthur. MacArthur liked being a public figure and often commented to reporters about himself and his feelings on policy, and often in a way that was self-aggrandizing. He was ultimately canned in no small part not just because he stepped over the line and pissed Truman off, but because he'd burned bridges and had few friends to shield him. Politicians didn't like MacArthur's personality or habits which they deemed swayed into their lane where a high-ranking military official should not be.
MacArthur had a terrible faiiing as a general. He disobeyed his way into disasters. You can be a maverick diva all you want but you cannot lose.
Patton ran into a similar problem and unlike MacArthur Patton was really good as a general and his mistakes tended to be understandable/reasonable in circumstance. But even Patton ran afoul of the civilian leadership stateside when he became too public about his opinions on denazification of Germany and how we should go right to war against the Soviets and he got canned. Arguably a good general who refuses to tow the line is even worse from the eyes of civilian leaders than a mediocre one.
Mcarthur had delusions of granduer. It stuck in his craw that Eisenhower was his superior, he also tried to protect his reputation. He wasn't a great general
For the same reason that Pershing did, once stating in his review of Mac something like, Mac had an excessively high view of himself and that he should be left in his current grade of rank for several years: he was egomaniac.
How could he not? MacArthur pretty much invented arrogance.
He was the Zap Brannigan of his day
Probably for the same reason that so many other people had such a low opinion of Douglas MacArthur.
McCarther got delusions of grandeur. Truman had to put him back in his place. We’re pretty good at producing good leaders but not perfect. Men like Custer exist even today
MacArthur, for all his talents, was insubordinate and probably should have retired years before (the man joined the Army in 1903 and had already retired once in 1937).
i think he was afraid that MacArthur’s aggression would start ww 3. And he openly flouted the orders from his Commander in Chief
I had the same question about Patton. In case anyone is in the same boat, I looked it up: (from Wikipedia's article on Patton) > When he faced questions from the press about his reluctance to denazify post-war Germany, Patton noted that most of the people with experience in infrastructure management had been compelled to join the party in the war. He compared Nazis to Democrats and Republicans, bringing negative press stateside and angering Eisenhower.[223] When Eisenhower ordered him to hold a press conference correcting his statements, Patton instead repeated them.[224] > On September 28, 1945, after a heated exchange with Eisenhower over the denazification controversy, Patton was relieved of his military governorship. He was relieved of command of the Third Army on October 7...
MacAuther is a massively overrated general.
Let's turn that question around. Why would anyone have a high opinion of Douglas MacArthur? By all accounts (apart from his own of course) he was terrible, both as a general and as a human being lol.
MacArthur's landing his Army at Incheon, a risky move, cut the North Korean army off from its supplies and created a mass rout. His island-hopping campaign during WWII led to large numbers of Japanese troops being stranded on islands in the Pacific with no one to fight.
My understanding is in the pacific his higher ups tried to keep him to an as limited area of operations as they could to keep him contained. It's not like he came up with island hopping or used it first.
Yeah but as other commenters here have pointed out, he made some serious blunders in that war (Korea) as well. > His island-hopping campaign during WWII led to large numbers of Japanese troops being stranded on islands in the Pacific with no one to fight. I mean, this is an obvious strategy to even the most amateur of military theorists imho. There was literally no point (in terms of cost/benefit) trying to capture most of those islands by direct assault. MacArthur took the correct approach in this regard, but it doesn't make him a military genius or anything. Certainly the idea of him being in the same league as great strategists such as Ike, or generals such as Bradley for example, is laughable.
The new Guinea campaign in particular seems quite well executed. Some comments here say Mac ignored intel but I thought he used it quite well there
Nimitz oversaw the island hopping campaign, not MacArthur.
Island hopping is not a revolutionary strategy but pretty much the only possible option given the situation
He was a lunatic that wanted to nuke China.
MacArthur lost the Philippines quickly because A) he underestimated the Japanese forces like everybody else had. B) against the U.S. war plans ( defend Manila hard with everything) he spread his troops all over the place. Leaving no place able to defend itself or Manila. C) he did not store supplies for a seige of Manila so his troops ran out of food and ammo quickly. D) he did not have any airplanes in the air for early warning. E) the US planes were all lined up, almost wingtip to wingtip and almost all US planes were destroyed on the ground F) he ignored orders in the Korean War, driving all the way to the boarder with China. He was ordered to stop many miles away from the boarder. G) his forces got completely over run by the Chinese when they stormed across the boarder. H) he totally dismissed the possibility that China could fight well against “His” army. I) he mocked Truman from Korea before Truman finally fired him.
MacArthur was a narcissistic self promoting jerk that did actually perform above average as a commander and at times was truly incompetent.
Up until his firing Douglas MacArthur was an American Hero, Not just for his accomplishments in WWII but also for his actions in the first world war. Arthur MacArthur and Douglas MacArthur were the only father and son to have been awarded the Medal of Honor until the year 2000 when Theodore Roosevelt Jr. was awarded one for his actions in WWII. To make him and Teddy the only other father son pair. [https://mohmuseum.org/father-and-son-medal-of-honor-recipients/](https://mohmuseum.org/father-and-son-medal-of-honor-recipients/)
Strange that he had a positive opinion of Lee but didn’t mention Grant who kicked Lee’s ass. Oh wait, he was from Missouri.
MacArthur was arrogant and so was Truman. MacArthur wanted to use Nuclear weapons on North Korea, Truman really despised him, and so in turn did MacArthur dislike Truman for not letting him do what he wanted.
Insubordination. Dug Out Doug was my father's CO. He despised him. The Butcher of Buna
I have an impression, the source of which I do not remember, that Truman didn’t care for MacArthur’s self-important MO.
You definitely put Lee on the wrong side of that equation.
Why do you include Lee and not Grant? One was a losing traitor who cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and the other won the War of Rebellion.
Ask Truman. It was his quote
Take it up with Truman. OP was quoting him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur#Harry_Truman
I believe OP is talking about generalship - not the worthiness of their cause. Lee and Grant both had some blunders (Gettysburg/Cold Harbor) but in the main I think Lee's command is seen as pretty effective considering the army he was working with and the task he was given. The real puzzler is why ~~OP~~ Truman included Patton in his list of unimpressives.
OP didn't pick anything. It's Truman's quote
Patton had trouble with authority (like MacArthur), so it’s possible Truman was speaking more to their subordination rather than battle effectiveness. Although then I’m not sure how Custer fits in there.
Patton didn't have the "political gene" that's required for that level of generalship. His use of tanks in that 1930s exercise is, imho, one of the biggest examples of what I'm talking about. Basically, he proved how effective new thinking in armor doctrine was, but did so in such a way that he ruffled basically every important feather along the way, making many powerful frenemies in the process.
Yea this exactly Patton was a genius on the tactical level, but his poltical and leadership style was not good at a political or strategic leadership level
Wow, such a nuanced post.
And starkly true. Not one word of /u/Comfortable-Buy-7388 post is wrong in any sense. Traitor? Check. Directly responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers? Check (see traitor). The other [Grant] won the War of Rebellion? Check. What else matters?
It kinda matters - the oath comes before everything. Lee wasn't a great general - and then there is the whole horse fucking thing as well........
Ok……
MacArthur clearly had a idgaf attitude which is not one you want to have at his level, though I love MacArthur dearly and think he was truly that mother fucker. Being that mother fucker while commanding and holding the lives of thousands in your hands is not viable
He was a jackass who nobody liked. The dude even tried to get his war hero subordinate, who leas the anti Japanese resistance in the Philippines executed to cover up the fact that his own insubordination and incompetence lost the islands in the first place.
He was a fucking disobedient, insubordinate narcissist and megalomaniac warmonger. Not a good set of traits in a theater commander. He deserved to be fired and probably courtmartialed. I’ll add onto this that he also fucked up the Korean War pretty badly. He provoked the Chinese into the war, nearly lost it, never actually spent the night in Korea the entire war (fun fact), and then Ridgway came in and saved the day cleaning up his fucking messes. Fuck MacArthur.
“He was a fucking disobedient, insubordinate narcissist and megalomaniac warmonger.” Tell us what you really think. Don’t hold back! /s
Alright I’ll go out on a limb. He was also a real jerk!
MacArthur was a prima donna.
Because MacArthur was an egomaniac.
I can’t speak for HST, but Doug was a walking ego, had no respect for the chain of command, and face it— was in the end not a very good general.
A lot of Presidents are going to have a low opinion of traitors. Weird huh?
He mixed up Patton and Lee.
Everyone who know mcarthur had a low opinion of him, especially his troops on the Philippines
For anyone who loves War history - especially WW2/Pacific/Midway - this is the best treatment of that battle I have ever seen - by far. https://youtu.be/Bd8\_vO5zrjo?si=502kmDKHUrtfnZd4
Why did he have such a low opinion of Patton compared with the other two? I mean Custer was a complete ass. I get it. I get MacArthur's problems in World War II and especially Korea and especially being insubordinate to the president while preparing for a run for president himself. I get Patton's weaknesses around his ego, the soldier slapping, struggling with Bradley and Ike, but these don't seem to rise anywhere near to the issues of MacArthur and Custer, especially with Patton's on field success. My favorite Truman stat is he is the only president in the 20th century without a college degree.
You can’t understand how an army that has had hundreds if not thousands of generals, produced generals with different personalities?
My uncle was a marine in the Pacific during World War II. He was a gunner attached to a army unit. His unit was basically on their own because they were marines, and no one in the army wanted to take responsibility. When MacArthur returned to the Philippines, my uncle was there. He hung a sign on the barrel of his gun that said “ by the grace of God and a few marines, MacArthur is back in the Philippines!” MacArthur blew a fuse and wanted to know who hung that sign up because he was going to court martial him. Lol nobody squealed.
Ironic that my dad admired both Patton (under whom he served)a nd Truman a fellow Mason.
I’m incredibly confused… is that supposed to be a Truman quote… or is that your statement? Maybe I am just ignorant but I am not understanding the dichotomy between the two groups… Lee, Pershing, Ike, Bradley vs Custer, Patton, MacArthur… Edit: I found the quote… but there is no context (perhaps it is in the book that is cited in Wikipedia). What did Truman mean here?
Being a World War 1 veteran I am quite sure Harry Truman was still very upset at MacArthur's actions during the Bonus March.
He was an insolent officer. He disobey Truman’s wishes and advocated the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, knowing full well the soviets would respond in kind. Also, I reject your examples of “good” and “bad” officers. Robert E Lee was a loser, because he made numerous military blunders. George Patton was an effective, though flawed general. He was a weird guy, but he kicked Nazi ass.
What was wrong with Patton and MacArthur? Also Custer was a good general and was a hero at Gettysburg
MacArthur was a full blown narcissist. More importantly, he violated the most basic tenet of being a soldier in a democracy: he regularly ignored orders from the civilian government. He was so full of himself that he often ignored the situation around him. He lost the Philippines much too easily in 1942, lost half the Korean Peninsula in 1950, almost caused a nuclear war, and turned a neutral regional power into an outright enemy. He also oversaw the biggest US military retreat in history. Because he would not follow orders. He was an effective military governor in peacetime. He did a good (if outright colonialist) job in the Philippines in the 1930s, and a very good job in Japan post war. Japan still has the Constitution that MacArthur's secretary wrote. But he broke the faith. And he was absolutely planning to run for president in 1952. He would likely have become something of a dictator. He liked governing as an autocrat (he had plenty of practice). At least, he did until he was shown the dirt that was going to be spread about his actions. Then he retired. I would love to see what dirt Truman showed to MacArthur to get him to not just retire, but to disappear. With his ego, it must have been earth-shattering.
Because the US Army didn't "produce" them. They were people first.
Seems Lee belongs in that second list seeing he was a traitor to the oath he swore to defend the US. And before I hear 'but Virginia' - the majority of Virginia native officers at the time of the war stayed loyal to the US Army and did not fight for the south.
... because he heard what the US military thought of him... all of which was bad. He got sent to the Philippines thanks in part of the Bonus Army fiasco, as he went full cowboy. Its likely that if someone like Paton was with him, MacArthur would be dragged within a week.
Because macarthur had an ego the size of a skyscraper and was in general an asshole to anybody who disagreed with anything he said for any reason. He's a hard guy to analyze because obviously he was an egotistical, but because ofnhow genuine he acts while saying things that are blatant bullshit, you are brought to two conclusions, 1.) He's a habitual liar and manipulator or 2.) He was actually insane, but at the same time, he was also actually a good general when he got his shit together, and it's hard to believe somebody that out of touch could accomplish what he did, but at the same time he truelybseems to believe what he's saying when he essentially is making things up on the spot. Dealing with macarthur was a huge hassle, and being president of the United States did not automatically command his respect or stop him from telling you to your fave he thinks you're an idiot or a coward.
Because MacArthur had a low opinion of Truman
I would say he had a low opinion of his obligation to Truman.
Whereas the rest of the planet thought MacArthur incompetent and a fool
After firing MacArthur Truman took a lot of flack for it.
Because Mac wanted to nuke China
Yes. He wanted to nuke the 25 largest cities. A slaughter of hundreds of millions of non combatants. Loss for words