Douglas MacArthur Discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Big B -> Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/25/2008 7:23:32 AM)

Hello all,

Although I realize this seems to be a passionate subject (which is why it is here instead of the Pacific War forums) I am genuinely curious as to why Douglas MacArthur seems to be a favorite target for disparaging these days.

Quick intro - I am American, born in the 1950s. When I was growing up MacArthur was an American icon. No one is perfect, and MacArthur's performance early in WWII in the Philippines invites much second guessing. I say this so everyone knows where I am coming from.

However, as far as I have read (after all - I never knew the man) MacArthur's military record beyond the early days of the Philippines in WWII - is a very respectable record indeed.

He showed courage, enterprise, and daring in the campaign against Pancho Villa in Mexico in 1916. He showed good leadership and disregard for his personal safety while leading the 42nd Division in France during WWI - and was appreciated at the time as a great and promising leader of men by the high command.

He went on to become superintendent of the West Point Military Academy, and was asked to become the architect of the Philippine Army in the 1930s.

During the Second World War, after the loss of the Philippines, he went on to prosecute a highly successful war against Japan - loosing far fewer troops against the Japanese than the Americans did facing similar numbers of Axis troops in Africa and Europe...due mainly to his acceptance of isolating resistance and bypassing...rather than facing a head on war of attrition - a wise strategy, and appreciated the intricacies of dealing with the position of the Japanese Emperor at the end of WWII.

After WWII he fought a successful campaign in Korea until the communist flood over the Yalu River in late 1950. His daring landing at Inchon is still a textbook maneuver.

His grade point total at West Point as a Cadet are still second only to Robert E. Lee in the Corps history.

On the negative side - Douglas MacArthur has been criticized for not handling the initial invasion of the Philippines well, he has been criticized for not anticipating the Communist Chinese counter offensive in Korea, and he has been criticized for publicly differing with his commander-in-chief (Truman). But perhaps far worse than any of the forgoing - he had an ego.

All of the above criticisms seem to me, debatable at best...given hindsight. In short, he seems to have been a very successful, intelligent, and personally brave military man, hardly a candidate for derision.

This leads me to be genuinely curious as to why he is so routinely ridiculed? The only thing I can see is that his chief sin seems to be his assumed lack of humility?

I am curious as to opposing points of view - and why?

This is a genuine curiosity of mine - inviting differing points of view - and I for one promise not to flame dissenters, rather I would just like to know why he has moved from being an icon - to being an icon for disparaging today?

B



Grell -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/25/2008 2:43:53 PM)

There is a reason why his own men called him "Dugout Doug",and his ego was bigger than David Lee Roth's.

Regards,

Greg



Yogi the Great -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/25/2008 3:12:26 PM)

I wonder if the WWII Ken Burns series on PBS increased the negative view at all?  It didn't show him a positive way.

I do remember that my father who fought in the Pacific had a favorable view of him.



HansBolter -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/25/2008 3:46:08 PM)

Wasn't he also criticized for failing to visit the front line troops fighting in the Buna hellhole?

I've seen some views that much of his bypass strategy success can be attributed more to Kenney and Eichelberger, while I have no idea of the validity of such speculation.

He also didn't exactly endear himself to the Aussies by proclaiming every victory gained by the Americans as an American victory and every victory gained by the Aussies as an "Allied" victory. The Aussies took much of the brunt of th effort in his campaigns while getting very little of the credit.

He also pointedly excluded the Aussies from participation in the Phillipines campaign while tasking them with clearing out backwater nonobjectives.

I, personally don't have strong feelings one way or the other regarding him, but have found it very interesting that dependant on which author's portrayal one may reading at any given time he is either a marginally compentant egomaniac who rode to success on the laurels of the efforts of others or a strategic genius.



Shawkhan -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/25/2008 8:04:29 PM)

...In case noone else has noticed, perhaps it should be noted that WWII was known for its primadonnas; Patton, Monty, Rommel,Nimitz, Halsey, etc.,etc. MacArthur was just one more. He had a problem in that his theater of operations overlapped with that of naval commanders to a greater extent than most others. He was always wrangling with the navy over troop allocations as well as naval/air assets. That led to an awful lot of sour grapes type badmouthing from the sister services.
...His Korean War performance alone places him among the greatest military commanders of history. The Inchon landing is still considered one of the greatest amphibious operations in history.
...My family thought well enough of him to name one of my brothers Douglas; and we were a navy family.



mlees -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/25/2008 8:22:58 PM)

I'm guessing it's the ego thing.

Speculation:

Mac argued with his superiors (both in writing, and in person), and while I don't have access to those letters, I wouldn't be surprised if he took on a superior "tone". (Lifelong career types can do that, when dealing with the "temporary" bosses appointed over them.)

Patton and Monty attributed their victories to the spirit and training of the hard fighting men (and God). Mac may have not been so generous in sharing the credit.

This rubs people the wrong way.



Hortlund -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/25/2008 9:31:10 PM)

He wanted to start a nuclear war with Russia and China over Korea.

The man was insane.



Big B -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/26/2008 5:03:39 PM)

Thanks to all,

Any other opinions?



morvwilson -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/27/2008 10:55:20 AM)

It appears to me that Mac when he was on a good day, he could be masterful. Inchon for example.
On the other hand, when he had a bad day, it could be really bad. Chosin resevoir would be an example of that extreme.
The nick name Dug out Doug I think was given to him by the Marines and it was not meant to be complimentary.

Was Mac insane? Don't think so. Not sure if he wanted to nuc China, but he sure wanted to bomb north of the Yalu river. (don't think there was much in our nuclear inventory in 50-51 to start such a campaign anyway.) It was basically a safe zone where chinese units could regroup and refit with out being harrased. But this would have widened the war and Truman did not want another large scale war. Especially since it was his foriegn policy gaff that started the whole affair.



Twotribes -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/27/2008 1:24:19 PM)

Mac's mouth got us into a war with the Chinese. His insistance we attack China gave the Soviets the leverage they needed to convince the Communist Chinese they had few if any options with us on their border.

In 1950 the Communist were in no position for a war really, having just the year before finished driving the Nationalists out of mainland China. They had the men but not the ammo or equipment.

In the Philippines Mac positioned most of his critically needed supplies near the different beaches that could be invaded but FAILED to provide the troops to hold those beaches. Losing most of his supplies before he even engaged the Japanese. He failed to properly train and equip the Philippine Army as well. Now that is not all his fault, but part of it is.

He refused to disperse his aircraft even AFTER the word of surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Thus losing nearly his entire air force just as happened at Pearl harbor.

The complaints of his leaving the PI are sour grapes. He did NOT want to leave. He was ordered out. And he tried hard to have those orders changed.

He ABUSED subordinates. The Marines hated him because he announced that even though the Marines fought valiantly in the PI they had enough awards from WW1 and needed no more. Putting Army units in for awards and refusing to do the same for the 4th Marines.

In the later fighting he would use Australian troops for the ****ty jobs and give them no credit. He would use the Marines and again not give them any credit. He would make outrageous demands on the Navy and throw temper tantrums when he got shot down.

He encouraged a political battle between news sources in the US in an attempt to be named Supreme commander in the pacific. He belittled the Navy and Marine Corps and the Australians. He encouraged yellow journalism to try and shift public demand for his position. Encouraging his allies in the Press to belittle Marine and Navy fighting as to blood thirsty and not producing any results for the cost.

Unlike the Navy and Marines he could by pass enemy positions and pick and chose his battles. The Navy and Marines had no choice but to go head on for needed Islands and naval battles. And Mac used that to sow discord in the US.



Joshuatree -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/27/2008 10:10:56 PM)

Well my 2 cents, and I'm no expert on this. But the points Twotribes made in his post may be valid... or they may be not, I don't know. What I do know is that *any* general I've ever read of made the same mistakes. Every big brass makes one time or another bloody horrible mistakes which cost the lives of many men, at other times they are just brilliant, saving many men, and achieving great victories. MacArthur surely will have made some *bad*  decisions, but so did Rommel, and so did Manstein.
Now, as to Big B's question: "I would just like to know why he has moved from being an icon - to being an icon for disparaging today?" How does it come that at one point in time the media, the public, people in general, think of General "X" as a mastermind, a true hero for his country, but that that same general is later thought of as being a troublemaker and a loudmouth? What makes it change? What makes it that at one point in time people don't "see" the terrible choices this general made, while at other times it's the only thing they can think about?
I don't know.
All I can repeat is this: "the weel turns". Some day one may be all powerfull and glorious, next thing you know you're down in the gutter... with very few friends.

MacArthur is still an icon to me though.



Big B -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/27/2008 10:54:18 PM)

Thank you to everyone that is participating.

To add a little gasoline to the fire, what I am really reading is that - now that the wars are over, and the generation who lived through them are passing, MacArthur's reputation has been 'thrown under the bus' primarily because he made "political" enemies.

Mac committed the greatest sin of the 21st Century - he rubbed some people the wrong way, and above all - he may not have been a 'nice guy' to everyone.

It seems clearer to me more than ever before - that the PBS piece on him "American Caesar" is closer to the truth than they may have known...like Caesar, he made political enemies, and when the time was right they collaborated against him - with Julius it was with knives in the senate, and with Douglas it was with ink-quills after his death...no?

Why else would it be so in vogue to denigrate him today? I have seen nothing concrete to show he was a poor general? Someone whom should have been relieved of command for the benefit of the nation (as game players routinely joke about today - "first thing is to get rid of MacArthur")?



Twotribes -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/27/2008 11:26:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Thank you to everyone that is participating.

To add a little gasoline to the fire, what I am really reading is that - now that the wars are over, and the generation who lived through them are passing, MacArthur's reputation has been 'thrown under the bus' primarily because he made "political" enemies.

Mac committed the greatest sin of the 21st Century - he rubbed some people the wrong way, and above all - he may not have been a 'nice guy' to everyone.

It seems clearer to me more than ever before - that the PBS piece on him "American Caesar" is closer to the truth than they may have known...like Caesar, he made political enemies, and when the time was right they collaborated against him - with Julius it was with knives in the senate, and with Douglas it was with ink-quills after his death...no?

Why else would it be so in vogue to denigrate him today? I have seen nothing concrete to show he was a poor general? Someone whom should have been relieved of command for the benefit of the nation (as game players routinely joke about today - "first thing is to get rid of MacArthur")?


He was relieved for cause. He REFUSED to obey his Boss. He OPENLY refused. The President not the General decide policy. Mac ignored direct orders. He was given at least 2 chances to shut the hell up.



Big B -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/27/2008 11:43:25 PM)

Be that as it may (and I wished to God more generals today would openly dispute the policy of their "boss" for the good of the country) Mac followed his conscience, and when fired, Mac stepped down.

That does not mean by any stretch that Truman was correct or Mac was a bad general - it merely means he had the courage to speak out against what he saw as bad policy for his country...and was willing to be cashiered for it.

If being a 'corporate team player' is what it's all about - or that is the definition of a good general...then Irwin Rommel was a bad general indeed.

B
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Thank you to everyone that is participating.

To add a little gasoline to the fire, what I am really reading is that - now that the wars are over, and the generation who lived through them are passing, MacArthur's reputation has been 'thrown under the bus' primarily because he made "political" enemies.

Mac committed the greatest sin of the 21st Century - he rubbed some people the wrong way, and above all - he may not have been a 'nice guy' to everyone.

It seems clearer to me more than ever before - that the PBS piece on him "American Caesar" is closer to the truth than they may have known...like Caesar, he made political enemies, and when the time was right they collaborated against him - with Julius it was with knives in the senate, and with Douglas it was with ink-quills after his death...no?

Why else would it be so in vogue to denigrate him today? I have seen nothing concrete to show he was a poor general? Someone whom should have been relieved of command for the benefit of the nation (as game players routinely joke about today - "first thing is to get rid of MacArthur")?


He was relieved for cause. He REFUSED to obey his Boss. He OPENLY refused. The President not the General decide policy. Mac ignored direct orders. He was given at least 2 chances to shut the hell up.




JamesM -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/28/2008 12:20:30 AM)

If he did not have strong political backing he would never have survived as the bumbling campaign in the Philippines. Also as an Australian, I feel that he treated our army very poorly after the New Guinea by using our troops as garrison troops and sending them into the sideshow campaign in Borneo.

Nimitz and Slim never seemed to have these issues.



morvwilson -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (4/28/2008 6:39:32 AM)

I remember watching an interview of a Japanese soldier from the New Ginea campaign. They certainly had respect for the Aussies.
This vet told a story of how he saw an Aussie soldier charge into a group of ten Japanese soldiers with a live grenade in each hand both of which detonated when he was in the middle of them. Killing all 10 jappanese soldiers. (bear in mind that these were not regulars but territorials that fought in New Ginea)
Also, the Marines did not have any great love for Mac either. Particularly the 4th regiment which was transfered to the PI from China just befor the war broke out. You see, all the army units that fought in the PI against the Japanese invasion got commendations. But the Marines did not because, "they had enough already"



Twotribes -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/1/2008 1:17:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Be that as it may (and I wished to God more generals today would openly dispute the policy of their "boss" for the good of the country) Mac followed his conscience, and when fired, Mac stepped down.

That does not mean by any stretch that Truman was correct or Mac was a bad general - it merely means he had the courage to speak out against what he saw as bad policy for his country...and was willing to be cashiered for it.

If being a 'corporate team player' is what it's all about - or that is the definition of a good general...then Irwin Rommel was a bad general indeed.

B
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Thank you to everyone that is participating.

To add a little gasoline to the fire, what I am really reading is that - now that the wars are over, and the generation who lived through them are passing, MacArthur's reputation has been 'thrown under the bus' primarily because he made "political" enemies.

Mac committed the greatest sin of the 21st Century - he rubbed some people the wrong way, and above all - he may not have been a 'nice guy' to everyone.

It seems clearer to me more than ever before - that the PBS piece on him "American Caesar" is closer to the truth than they may have known...like Caesar, he made political enemies, and when the time was right they collaborated against him - with Julius it was with knives in the senate, and with Douglas it was with ink-quills after his death...no?

Why else would it be so in vogue to denigrate him today? I have seen nothing concrete to show he was a poor general? Someone whom should have been relieved of command for the benefit of the nation (as game players routinely joke about today - "first thing is to get rid of MacArthur")?


He was relieved for cause. He REFUSED to obey his Boss. He OPENLY refused. The President not the General decide policy. Mac ignored direct orders. He was given at least 2 chances to shut the hell up.



I love when people talk about Generals disobeying. So tell me? When some Generals seize the Country cause the DULY elected President doesn't do as they want, will they too be hero's of the people?



Grell -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/1/2008 2:13:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Mac's mouth got us into a war with the Chinese. His insistance we attack China gave the Soviets the leverage they needed to convince the Communist Chinese they had few if any options with us on their border.

In 1950 the Communist were in no position for a war really, having just the year before finished driving the Nationalists out of mainland China. They had the men but not the ammo or equipment.

In the Philippines Mac positioned most of his critically needed supplies near the different beaches that could be invaded but FAILED to provide the troops to hold those beaches. Losing most of his supplies before he even engaged the Japanese. He failed to properly train and equip the Philippine Army as well. Now that is not all his fault, but part of it is.

He refused to disperse his aircraft even AFTER the word of surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Thus losing nearly his entire air force just as happened at Pearl harbor.

The complaints of his leaving the PI are sour grapes. He did NOT want to leave. He was ordered out. And he tried hard to have those orders changed.

He ABUSED subordinates. The Marines hated him because he announced that even though the Marines fought valiantly in the PI they had enough awards from WW1 and needed no more. Putting Army units in for awards and refusing to do the same for the 4th Marines.

In the later fighting he would use Australian troops for the ****ty jobs and give them no credit. He would use the Marines and again not give them any credit. He would make outrageous demands on the Navy and throw temper tantrums when he got shot down.

He encouraged a political battle between news sources in the US in an attempt to be named Supreme commander in the pacific. He belittled the Navy and Marine Corps and the Australians. He encouraged yellow journalism to try and shift public demand for his position. Encouraging his allies in the Press to belittle Marine and Navy fighting as to blood thirsty and not producing any results for the cost.

Unlike the Navy and Marines he could by pass enemy positions and pick and chose his battles. The Navy and Marines had no choice but to go head on for needed Islands and naval battles. And Mac used that to sow discord in the US.


Well put, Thank you.

Regards,

Greg



Big B -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/1/2008 5:30:50 PM)

Twotribes - how is publicly differing with the president and getting sacked for it (and of course retiring after that) - remotely the same as taking over the civilian government?????


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I love when people talk about Generals disobeying. So tell me? When some Generals seize the Country cause the DULY elected President doesn't do as they want, will they too be hero's of the people?



WOW! I never heard this before - Mac dragged Red China into the Korean War???!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Mac's mouth got us into a war with the Chinese. His insistance we attack China gave the Soviets the leverage they needed to convince the Communist Chinese they had few if any options with us on their border.
In 1950 the Communist were in no position for a war really, having just the year before finished driving the Nationalists out of mainland China. They had the men but not the ammo or equipment.


ok...



HansBolter -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/1/2008 6:07:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Twotribes - how is publicly differing with the president and getting sacked for it (and of course retiring after that) - remotely the same as taking over the civilian government?????




It isn't remotely the same and we wll know you are intelligent enough to recognize that simple fact of reality.

We all also know you are intelligent enough to recognize the validity of the analogy of presenting the possible extreme result of allowing oneself to take the first fledgling step onto the slippery slope of disobediance.

Only those who want to blind themselves to potential consequences of their actions refuse to engage in the exercise of considering ALL of the potential results including the worst ones.

Engaging in the game of attempting to belittle him for doing what you refused to only serves to undermine your own credibility.



Big B -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/1/2008 6:56:44 PM)

Well, I promised not to flame anyone, so I'll stop here.

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views - it has all been most enlightening.



Gem35 -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/1/2008 7:32:13 PM)

Like him or not, the general was a very important commander during and after WWII.[:)]



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/1/2008 10:17:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B


WOW! I never heard this before - Mac dragged Red China into the Korean War???!!!



Dragged, no. Was largely responsible for, yes. MacArthur decided to call Mao's bluff when China declared that the UN forces would not be allowed to advance further. Only, Mao wasn't bluffing.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if MacArthur had given the order to stop advancing. IMHO, there wasn't enough territory left in communist hands for a viable nation: the UN forces had already taken Pyongyang. There would have been a stream of defections southward, and Korea would have been effectively re-united.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/2/2008 12:48:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

In the Philippines Mac positioned most of his critically needed supplies near the different beaches that could be invaded but FAILED to provide the troops to hold those beaches. Losing most of his supplies before he even engaged the Japanese. He failed to properly train and equip the Philippine Army as well. Now that is not all his fault, but part of it is.


MacArthur provided the troops to hold the beaches, he just didn't have a realistic appreciation of his army's combat ability. It was still in training and at the long end of a supply chain from the US. I wouldn't blame him for failure to train or equip his army (he was in the process of both), but for attempting something for which his army was not capable and simultaneously destroying its fallback plan.

quote:

He refused to disperse his aircraft even AFTER the word of surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Thus losing nearly his entire air force just as happened at Pearl harbor.


He lost about half his airforce in the initial strike.

quote:

He ABUSED subordinates.


He got along well w/ Kinkaid, Barbey, Hill, Kenney and Halsey (if you consider him a subordinate). He didn't seem to like or trust Blamey, but I wouldn't say he abused him. As far as lower ranks, I have no idea.

quote:

The Marines hated him because he announced that even though the Marines fought valiantly in the PI they had enough awards from WW1 and needed no more. Putting Army units in for awards and refusing to do the same for the 4th Marines.


Whether the Marines hated him or not is irrelevant. The 4th Marines was little more than a garrison force at Corregidor when MacArthur was still in there. They fought valiantly, but that was after MacArthur had left. I've never seen a direct quote from MacArthur about 'enough awards' so I won't comment.

quote:

In the later fighting he would use Australian troops for the ****ty jobs and give them no credit.


What job wasn't ****ty in SwPac?

quote:

He would use the Marines and again not give them any credit.


When did he ever have any Marine lcus under his command after the PI disaster?

quote:

He would make outrageous demands on the Navy and throw temper tantrums when he got shot down.


Outrageous being a relative term, making demands usually means bidding for allocation of scarce resources. Something all theatre commanders did. MacArthur was in a difficult position vis-a-vis Nimitz. Nimitz and MacArthur were both theatre commanders, but Nimitz was in charge of all naval assets in the Pacific. MacArthur was not in charge all army and army air corps assets in the Pacific. If MacArthur needed naval assets he usually had make do w/ what was alloted to the 7th Fleet by Nimitz or King. With the exception of Leyte and after, a comparison of 3rd/5th Fleet oobs w/ 7th Fleet oobs shows he did pretty well w/ not much.

quote:

Unlike the Navy and Marines he could by pass enemy positions and pick and chose his battles. The Navy and Marines had no choice but to go head on for needed Islands and naval battles. And Mac used that to sow discord in the US.


He could only pick and choose his battles to the extent that he didn't require significant naval assets (i.e. carriers) or a secure sealane to get there or, once taken, supply it.

I think MacArthur is the most fascinating of all the American brass in WWII, equally admirable and repugnant. I don't like him but for some reason I feel compelled to defend him. Oh well, too bad we can't bookmark this for 2009, around the time the next .50 cal v. 20mm debate breaks out.



AcePylut -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/12/2008 7:32:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Thanks to all,

Any other opinions?


A gentleman that worked for my dad was a soldier in the PI when WW2 brokeout. This guy ended up doing the Bataan Death March, 3.5 years in a POW camp. All that bad crap.

He hated "Dougout Doug" with a passion. Not as much as he hated the Japs (any asians for that matter), but he never had a kind word about it.

To sum up his litany of abuses heaped on Gen Mac into a few words: prima-donna, glory hunter, terrible leader.



jnier -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/12/2008 9:10:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

...His Korean War performance alone places him among the greatest military commanders of history. The Inchon landing is still considered one of the greatest amphibious operations in history.




Sorry, while I agree with the second half of this statement, the first half is absurd. To be "among the greatest military commanders in history" you have to understand the broader political objectives of the mission. Granted, the mission in Korea was murkey, but when you measure Mac in terms of whether he acheived US/UN political objectives for Korea, his performance in Korea was a failure. While Inchon was a marvelous success, he wasted that success by taking actions that ensured Chinese intervention, and ultimately resulted in the disastrous US retreat. He won the battle, but lost the war. Great commanders win battles and wars.

To say that he has a bad repuation now because he rubbed powerful political figures the wrong way is not really accurate, IMHO. Those political figures had a good understading of the important political objectives in Korea, Mac did not.

And if there was a genius in Korea it was Ridgeway, not MacArthur.



JamesM -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/13/2008 10:37:21 AM)

quote:

Great commanders win battles and wars.


I.e. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, William the Conquer, Nelson, Napoleon, Grant, Monash and Zhukov. MacArthur definitely does not belong in list of these great warriors!



Sarge -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/13/2008 2:13:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier
Great commanders win battles and wars.

Then explain Gen Washington ?

He won the war by loosing and retreating from every engagement [:D]



JamesM -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/13/2008 3:25:46 PM)

quote:

Then explain Gen Washington ?

He won the war by loosing and retreating from every engagement [:D]


Probably the same way that General Vo Nguyen Giap won, by understanding how to defeat the enemy.



morvwilson -> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion (5/13/2008 5:36:24 PM)

In the Revolutionary war all Washington had to do was survive. As long as there was a continental army, he was winning.
It was the same way in the American Civil war, the south could not be defeated while their army still stood.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.109375