Gen MacArthur

Lilmissflamethrower

Active member
According to Ambroise Pierce they were both brilliant and difficult.

He said many people effuse over MacArthur like he is the second coming of Christ or just too magnificent for words...

He wouldn't follow military regulations re: dress. He would contradict himself if he got into trouble, but he also brought West Point up to date and enfused modern day thinking into the academy when he was Superintendent.

He didn't want anyone to get close to him and he wanted to maintain an air of austerity. He also referred to himself in the third person.

Pierce says:

"He had a deeply rooted need to always be right. It increased as he grew older. Henceforth he would hold to his ideas, no matter wht any member of his staff might say, and if the event proved him wrong, he would deny, vehemently, that he had ever said or ordered this or that. His monumental egotism allowed him to ignore all contary documentary evidence-he simply denied its existence. MacArthur had to be right, to be omnipotent, to be MacArthur."

He failed in the Phillipines because he had an idea how Asians thought - and was sure the Japanese would not advance and they did (and they bombed Pearl Harbor).

He also had a persecution complex (I guess because the foreign policy of the President and everyone else was different then his).

He could be extraordinarily petty. Even though he lost the Phillipines, Marshall awarded him a medal of honor. Marshall wanted to award a medal of honor to someone named Wainright who served under MacArthur but they had to have a letter of recommendation from MacArthur and he refused. Finally the guy got it after the war and only because Marshall insisted.

He refused to credit the Marines for helping him in the Phillipines and when he went back to return he said "I came through and I shall return." The Office of War Information asked him if they could change it to "We shall return" and he insisted it be only "I."

Yet he did fight to go back to the Phillipines and he did and five months later the Japanese surrendered.

Pierce never denies that MacArthur was a brilliant leader and none could beat his strategy and brilliance campaigns.

Oddly enought when he went to occupy Japan he turned into a very liberal and democratic leader there.

In Korea, with an under equipped and unprepared soldiers he did a fairly good job of holding the North Koreans at bay. At one point he had idea to take his X Corps to Inchon, the Port of Seoul, and cut the North Korean supply line. Both the Army and the Navy opposed saying there was not enough landing craft, the port was too small and the tides amongst the highest in the world.

MacArthur ignored everyone and ignoring careful scientific planning, he went on instinct and totally triumphed. The Marines did get ashore, raced to Seoul and broke the siege at Puson, they went on to take back the 38th parallel, the pre-war boundary.

This time he also decided to thank the Marines and the Navy.

So I don't know what to say - he was both great and terrible. Egotistical, selfish, petty and brilliant.
 
On a scale of 1 to 10 (in military brilliance), Mac was a 7.

In his own mind, he was a 12.

His overall importance to the world: Mac was a 4.

In his own mind he was a 20.
 
Patton was like Guderian. A pure frontline commander who didn't have time nor patience for politics. Patton never was not the drama queen that MacArthur was, nor did he go out of his way to tell the world how good he was. And neither did Guderian. Guderian is so much of a better military commander than Patton or MacArthur ever dreamed of being, but I find the comparison fascinating. Anyone have an accurate count of the number of times that Guderian got in a screaming match fight with a superior commander? Anyone have Patton's count of that sort of thing? Neither one rose to the rank that they ought to have been because the were never the very tactful about telling off their superiors. Guderian, the best commander that Germany ever had was never raised to the rank of Field Marshall, and Patton was never a five star even though he was the best we'd had in decades.

Naw, Patton and MacArthur were nothing alike.
 
I think MacArthur was a little more important than a 4, his occupation of Japan is one of the most succesfull occupations of all time.
 
I think you MacArthur lovers should read some of the posts under Who was the worst American general or battlefield tactician? Also, lets not forget he was the commander that is credited with the greatest defeat in U. S. history,
 
I'm just learning about him. The only view I have read is Ambrose Pierce. So whose to say he is the definitive expert?

He did say that he was brilliant and his contributions were outstanding. Its just his personality was complex both good and very bad.
 
Seems that most people on this forum either love or hate Mac. I'm neutral. I see his brilliant successes and giant blunders, weigh them together and we come out with this: The man is an above par military leader. Certainly above the average level of brilliance compared to others in similar levels of command. His ego is a very limiting factor, and ruins him on occasion. It is also his final downfall.
 
Honestly - I didn't know that (about people having strong opinions about him). Since I read that one chapter about him by Ambroise Pierce, I think it would not be fair to judge him on that alone.

He does sound like somewhat of a butthead though.
 
David Hurlbert said:
I think you MacArthur lovers should read some of the posts under Who was the worst American general or battlefield tactician? Also, lets not forget he was the commander that is credited with the greatest defeat in U. S. history,
I always was of the opinion that Vietnam (taken all together) is the worst defeat in US history.
 
attention forum members.

We moderators have taken control...we have taken control...do not be alarmed...do not adjust your computer terminal.

If you have been following the postings of God and Flame, you might be wondering what happened to this off topic saga?

Fear not gentle readers. Look in the General interest topic area..its under the post "Off Topic Fun with God and Flame"

We moderators now relinquish control...and return you to the General MacArthur topic...already in progress... :D
 
South Koreans worship MacArthur, but I think contrarily. Even before reading this, I always believed that. He was very egotistical and when I see that pipe hanging out of his mouth I think: show-off.....
 
He saved Korea twice.
He might be unpleasant personally but credit should be given where it is due. Though after Incheon, his effectiveness in the Korean War was highly questionable.
 
Right

He saved Korea twice.
He might be unpleasant personally but credit should be given where it is due. Though after Incheon, his effectiveness in the Korean War was highly questionable.

You're right. Although I dislike his personality personally, I have to give him credit for saving our country.
 
Well, he was egotistical and power-hungry. He made several blunders in the Pacific War, notably not mobilizing his forces even though he had been warned that the Japanese will attack. He also made many blunders in the Korean War. However, the Incheon landing was a stroke of brilliance and he was relatively good.
I'd say due to his blunders and personality: -6. The occasional brilliance: +4. Experience: +3. Result: 1. Note that I started at 0
 
MacArthur's raid on Inchon was about the best thing he had done, but I think he gets to much credit for the war in the Pacific. Much of the fighting had been done under Admiral Halsey and the American Marines who had secured many of Japanese bases and Islands before MacArthur had even put his foot into the Ocean
 
MacArthur's raid on Inchon was about the best thing he had done, but I think he gets to much credit for the war in the Pacific. Much of the fighting had been done under Admiral Halsey and the American Marines who had secured many of Japanese bases and Islands before MacArthur had even put his foot into the Ocean
For a truely amazing read about McArthur's Pacific War get "General Kenny reports" by Gen. George Kenny. Kenny was head of the 5th Air Force & they pulled some astounding things off that most people are unaware of, with all the coverage given to the 8th Air Force & the Carrier War.
 
On a side note, I think there's too much reading done on World War II.
Times have changed and we really need to move on and read about conflicts that more accurately reflect the challenges we face today.
 
He ordered his men to charge WW1 veterans who were protesting their treatment after the war. The fascist bastard should never have had the support from soldiers he did.
 
Back
Top