Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Dispersing"? You mean when they attacked the marchers to evict them from their camps? My grandfather, a WWI U.S. Army vet who was gassed in France, took part in the Bonus March on Washington, D.C. and had his head bashed in. Lest his patriotism be questioned he spent the next 25 years volunteering as a civilian ordnance disposal expert disarming bombs and handling unstable explosives. He was the guy Uncle Sam called when no one else could do the job.
"Dispersing". That's an exceptionally polite word for a very violent act against men who had served their country.
You have to remember that Mac was a military man and he like Eisenhower would jump to obey the first order given to them from a superior officer. Especially Ike. He was a yes man from the word go.
You have to remember that Mac was a military man and he like Eisenhower would jump to obey the first order given to them from a superior officer. Especially Ike. He was a yes man from the word go.
Based on my experience in the Army, If you didn't obey orders, you didn't stay in the Army.
MacArthur was a good general under some circumstances. But he was quite egotistical, pompous, and vain-glorious and had an obsession about returning to the Philippines which caused him to ignore intelligence estimates if it was something he didn't want to hear. He wasted American lives by insisting on continuing to clear out Leyte instead of just leaving the Japanese in their mountain strongholds. It was the opposite of his wisdom in bypassing certain Japanese held islands.
Later, in Korea, he ignored signs that the Chinese were massing, again showing his tendency to not hear what he didn't want to hear. That is inexcusable in any commander at any level.
Yes, he did a good job as potentate in Japan. He was the right man at the right place at the right time for that particular job.
MacArthur was a general longer than most officers are in the military. 1918 until he was fired during the Korean War. except for a few years when he was "retired" and in the Philippines. With a career of that length anyone would have their fair share of mistakes and bad judgment calls.
MacArthur was a good general under some circumstances. But he was quite egotistical, pompous, and vain-glorious and had an obsession about returning to the Philippines which caused him to ignore intelligence estimates if it was something he didn't want to hear. He wasted American lives by insisting on continuing to clear out Leyte instead of just leaving the Japanese in their mountain strongholds. It was the opposite of his wisdom in bypassing certain Japanese held islands.
Later, in Korea, he ignored signs that the Chinese were massing, again showing his tendency to not hear what he didn't want to hear. That is inexcusable in any commander at any level.
Yes, he did a good job as potentate in Japan. He was the right man at the right place at the right time for that particular job.
I agree. The army did an excellent job in Papua and New Guinea. I am less familiar with his role during the occupation of Japan, but it seems like he should get high marks for that as well. It also seems that, eventually, he and Ernest King came to respect each other. That, in itself, should erase a few demerits from his record.
General Patton, a true legend, a great general, leads aggressively from the front.
But, unfortunately, a complete disaster when it came to coalition warfare. He was oblivious to the subtleties of it, and by his actions and statements didn't appear to much comprehend the more overt aspects of it.
Patton's commands were at the Army [unit, not branch] level. Not at the theater level. Not at the diplomatic level. He shone when aggressively harrying a retreating enemy. But aside from that, his talents were not worth the unnecessary political headaches he created. When there was no longer a foreign army to be harried, he needed to be cashiered. And he was.
He truly did not understand Clausewitz's observation that war is but an extension of diplomacy by other means.
Ultimately, this leads us back to McCarthur. He, too, could not manage to limit himself to the strategy and tactics of a commander. He insisted on trying to force political foreign policy decisions that are the province of the civilian leadership, and did so intentionally. As with Patton, the problems he caused were more problematic than the benefits of his military leadership.
In nations not as secure in their civilian leadership, each man might actually have been successful in his intended usurpation of power. Fortunately, their country was no such nation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
