Douglas McArthur: Overrated?

N

numbersman

Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
596
Hi guys, I have an interest in military history. I keep reading what a great general McArthur was, but I have read a biography of him and wonder if he isn't overrated. When he got to the Philippines, the US troops there were unready for combat. Unfortunately McArthur doesn't seem to have discovered this, nor did he embark on the training regime that would have got them ready. When the Japanese attacked, the US troops, although admittedly outnumbered, performed quite poorly, which seems to have taken Mac by surprise. So I don't think he recognised how well his troops were prepared, nor did he train them up to be prepared for combat. Major black mark, in my opinion.

After that, yes, he did lead a successful campaign through the Pacific. But it seems to me that the heavy lifting was done by the US Navy, and the role of the army was less significant. True, it defeated the Japanese, but lets not forget the roles played by US submarines, in sinking Japanese supplies, and the carriers in sinking Japanese carriers and destroying their maritime aviation forces.

Where McArthur did shine, in my opinion, was post war in his role as a civilian administrator. By all accounts, he did a superb job there. So, are there any amateur historians who can shed any light on this question> What do you think of McArthur? Over rated or not?
Cheers, numbersman.
 
Korean War; Successful amphib landing ,Inchon, then against Truman's orders got too close to Yalu R, Chinese border= Chinese troops join NK army , Truman fired MacArthur, overwhelming commie troops force Gen Matthew Ridgeway's meatgrinder artillery back to starting line.
I think that's how it went.
MacArthur should've stopped at the Taedong-gang River which included Pyongyang.
korean_peninsula.gif
 
Last edited:
Funny thing. When I was out and about today I heard a conversation on the radio about code breaking and the history of the NSA and CIA. When they got around to the Korea conflict they discussed McArthur. Apparently, he had all kinds of useful intel about what the Chinese and No. Koreans were doing and planning, but refused to even look at it. He was McArthur. He didn't need no stinkin' intel.
 
MacArthur got a MOH for fleeing Corregidor. He also recommended and pinned a Silver Star on Lyndon B. Johnson.
How the hell that happened ... I dont know, but it pissed me off. All those poor GI's told to surrender and had to endure years of barbaric, inhumane captivity.
There are reasons for suspect on Johnson's S.S..
 
almost the reverse of what happened to kimmel after pearl harbor. kimmel got busted from 4-star to two, and then put on the freezer.

for macarthur, kimmel and short, they were capable commanders but even for guys like them it's hard to go on a war footing during peace time, even with signs of impending war.
 
I think he was a good general. The important thing is he turned around his campaign into vicroy. Every great general in WW2 had setbacks. It was such an all encompasing war that that it changed the face of war forever.
 
you get tired reading people saying "why didn't mac fortify the philippines with 1 armored division and 3 infantry?" so easy to say that. even if he had patton's third army stationed in luzon, the japanese would have easily isolated and starved the entire army once they had neutralized american air and sea power.
 
The best and the worst. Inchon was genius. The administration of Japan was genius. The drive to the Yalu was brilliant.
But...
he was inexcusably negligent in losing the Philippines. He should have dispersed his aircraft and mobilized after Pearl Harbour. The American invasion of the Phillipines arguably was unnecessary and if the Yamato hadn't chickened out in the battle off Samar the invasion forces could have been annihilated. And he blew his gains in korea when he misread theChinese, disobeyed Truman and almost caused WW III.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top