MacAurthur (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Chiteng -> MacAurthur (2/10/2002 3:23:00 AM)

I dont like Mac.
I think he set our war effort BACK at least
eighteen months.
He had all the disadvantages of Patton
without the compensating skill.
He was no more than passable. He had ONE virtue that wasnt always a virtue. He could be VERY stubborn. His tenure at West Point was downright scary (talking about him running the place now)
His tenure at the JCS was equally scary.
Only the extreme small size of the Army saved us from gross abuses.
YES he was first in his class and YES he graduated with honors. I say BFD. That just proves
EXACTLY what summa cum lade means. (ie NOTHING)
It is the aristos patting themselves on their own
backs that the hoops have been jumped thru.
It is time that we all stop paying for such conceit. Sorry I am in a very bad mood.



mogami -> (2/10/2002 6:31:00 AM)

Hi, Although I think this thread might get more reponse up in 'The Art of wargaming" the solution to you problem is easy. When you play the allied side in a WW2 Pacific game, relieve Mac and replace him with someone else.



stubby331 -> (2/13/2002 4:37:00 PM)

I dont like Mac either. For all the reasons mentioned and a couple more I'd like to throw in. - As JCS he was ultimately responsible for the army attacking, bashing and in some cases killing the protesting disaffected WW1 veterans at washington during the depression (dont quote me on the city).
- he was directly responsible for the australian army mounting totally needless campaigns in 1945 which resulted in thousands of dead and injured Australians. He did have good points, put these two that I have mentioned really get my blood boiling.



ratster -> (2/14/2002 2:40:00 AM)

Yeah, he was grossly incompetent. He had 10 years to work on the Phillipine defenses. He lived like a king the entire time he was there. Yet when the Japanese invaded he managed to lose the whole shebang to a numerically inferrior invasion force, and to add insult to injury he left his men there to die. The only reason he wasn't relieved and court martialed were his political connections back home, he had good press. In addition, for most of the war, he had to keep a bodyguard force with him to protect him from assasination from his own troops. He was a Prima Dona, like Patton, but Patton delivered, Mac never did. The general histories taught in schools get his "deeds" completely wrong. Of course why muddy the waters with facts...



crusher -> (2/14/2002 5:42:00 AM)

Just look at his record in Korea. one lucky landing and they want to make him god. your right his men mostly hated him.



USSMaine -> (2/14/2002 6:48:00 PM)

Oh man ......don't get me started on Mac My father served under him and idolized him whereas I bordered on despising the man. About his only redeeming feature was that he was able to surround himself with some very capable commanders that accomplished their tasks even though he took all the credit.



Ranger-75 -> (2/15/2002 12:54:00 AM)

Mac was like an american Montgomery, only worse, because while Monty (whom I'm not really fond of either) took pains to reduce the losses in his own armies while still delivering victories. Mac couldn't even deliver victories without overwhelming advantage and had no concern for his own soldiers lives. Inchon was a fine stroke, but he more than made up for that with his careless disregard for the reality of the situation with China. And to be fair, Monty was right in trying to keep losses down in his British and Canadian armies, The British Army was nearly out of infantry replacements by late 1944.



Von Rom -> (2/15/2002 2:27:00 AM)

To quote Shakespeare: "For the evil that men do lives after them, but the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar." - Mark Antony in "Julius Caesar" You guys need to read a good biography of both MacArthur and Patton. After some initial bloody battles, MacArthur strove to reduce casualties. In two years of fighting in the Pacific, his command suffered 25,000 casualties. In comparison, in one month in Normandy, the Americans suffered 40,000 casualties. MacArthur was eventually revered by his former foes, the Japanese, even to the extent of wanting him to be their first President. Was MacArthur arrogant? Probably. Was he personnally liked. Probably not. Did he make mistakes? Of course. But look at what he accomplished. If I'm going into battle, I do not want to be led by an officer or a General suffering from an inferiority complex. At the out-break of WWII in the Pacific ALL theatre commands (Pearl Harbour, Phillipines, Singapore, etc, etc) were surprised by what the Japanese did. MacArthur was lied to by Washington when his troops were defending the Phillipines. Washington knowingly lied to the General when it promised him reinforcements. When the truth finally dawned on him of the truth of his situation, MacArthur was prepared to resign from the US army and fight on AND DIE as a private soldier. Only when Australia was threatened and demanded the recall of Australian troops from the Mid-East, did Washington ORDER MacArthur to leave the Phillipines and assume command of the defence of Australia. To quote Patton: "I don't want my men to love me; I want them to FIGHT for me." Even so, he did love his men. He was buried at the head of the fallen troops of Third Army: still leading them, still watching over them, even in death. . . Patton was the only Allied Officer the Germans feared. . . These men were pure warriors. The personal bravery of both Patton and MacArthur is without refute. The only thing they knew was: If you go to war, you fight to win. A little of this thinking could have been used in Vietnam and the Gulf War. Cheers [ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Von Rom ]



Chiteng -> (2/15/2002 4:52:00 AM)

I have. Start with 'American Caesar'
Then John Toland
Then Morrison I think quoting casualties to prove a point is silly. Let cut to peacetime when he headed the JSC. How about him hopnobing with Huey Long?
Without the Hearst press backing him up,
Roosevelt would have fired him. King detested him.
He was also insubordinate, which the USA doesnt like in their commanders. Sure he was lied to
in the PI yep absolutely true. That says nothing
at all about him. It does say something about FDR.



crusher -> (2/15/2002 6:31:00 AM)

my dad was a marine also and he made the inchon landing and was at frozen chosen. he states that macs race to the yalu river was the most reckless american venture of the war. he disreguarded the advice of his generals on the ground and believed only what he wanted. he was a dangerous leader



Von Rom -> (2/15/2002 6:55:00 AM)

Chiteng: Quoting casualty lists is silly? Maybe the men who fought and died would think differently about that, hmm? MacArthur felt that only mediocre commanders turned in high casualty rates; he wanted to achieve his objectives with the least loss of life possible. You mention that Roosevelt and King detested him. What does that say about them? Roosevelt lied to MacArthur in the Phillipines, and Washington essentially wrote off the Americans and Filipinos fighting and dying in the jungle there. Yet MacArthur felt it was America's DUTY to defend the brave Phillipine nation. What does that say about his character. . . crusher: MacArthur did not do anything that was not mandated by the UN. Remember, it wasn't America's war (although it bore the greatest burden). It was the UN that sactioned both the intervention in Korea and the pursuit to the Yalu. The intention was to liberate ALL of Korea. MacArthur was trying to fulfill that mandate the best way he knew how. When the Chinese did intervene, MacArthur was not permitted to bomb the Yalu, the bridges spanning the Yalu, the staging areas where the Chinese troops were gathering, nor even the bases from which the Chinese were flying their Migs. He complained bitterly that he was not permitted to use the weapons available to him that would slow down the Chinese and save American and UN soldier's lives. I admire your dad's devotion to duty and his part in the war, but what he and so many other soldiers suffered could have been alleviated in great part by massive B-52 bombing raids. . . [ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Von Rom ]



Chiteng -> (2/15/2002 8:26:00 AM)

Any lieutenant can stand at the head of his troops
and become a martyr. That may or may NOT be courage. It could be he wanted to be a martyr. Mac was a three star general, holding not one but
TWO commisions. No one forced him to take them.
If you hold a commision you had better damn well do what the prez says. Disagreement is a luxury.
The ultimate protest is to simply resign. He didnt.



stubby331 -> (2/15/2002 10:39:00 AM)

Does Mac sending the army in to murder the protesting WW1 vets (your own men for gods sake) mean nothing to you people (and if you dont know what Im talking about, go read your own history books). In my books for that alone he should be written off as a callous **** whose greatest priority in life was his own political standing.



Chiteng -> (2/15/2002 11:01:00 AM)

Sure Stubby, the Wobblies (I think)
mached ob Washington DC in 1932.(again I think) Mac fired on the crowd, doing his best imitation
of Napoleon. But without the talent. The men were indigent and dying of starvation
the Gov owed them pensions. The idea that they
would die of starvation before they ever got the pensions made the kinda angry.



Ranger-75 -> (2/15/2002 11:12:00 AM)

The army was also called the "bonus army" after their objective, the promised bonus from washington that was reneged on.
I'll admit that Mac was ordered by the President to leave the Phillipines in March 1942., but that cannot and will not excuse him from gewtting caught with his entire air force on the ground 10 hours after the PH raid. The Japanese commanders were actually expecting a US raid when they were enveloped with bad weather on formosa, but the USAAF in the Phillipines under Mac's command failed miserably to account for itself. In Korea Mac badly underestimated the real and potential problems that he caused and then later did not have the will to fight. He astually implored the President to use atomic bombs against the Chinese units in the field. That would have started a global nuclear war in 1950 and we might have still been in the middle it if now, only without our comfortable living room computers to discuss the past.



Chiteng -> (2/15/2002 12:09:00 PM)

I have to say that Morrison gives a good reason
for why Macs planes got blown away. He admits he is guessing, but he states that
Berenton and Macs chief of staff hated each others guts. They flatly refused to cooperate
with each other. He implies that someone simply
didnt get critical information because of it,
AND that it was delibrete. Well that is hardly
Macs fault, except in the abstract



Von Rom -> (2/15/2002 1:19:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Chiteng:
1)Any lieutenant can stand at the head of his troops
and become a martyr. That may or may NOT be courage. It could be he wanted to be a martyr. 2)Mac was a three star general, holding not one but
TWO commisions. No one forced him to take them.
If you hold a commision you had better damn well do what the prez says. Disagreement is a luxury.
The ultimate protest is to simply resign. He didnt.
1)MacArthur was a professional soldier who dedicated his life to his profession and his country. He also felt that he could not ask his men to be brave if, he himself, was not also brave. It is interesting to note that he was highly decorated for bravery in WWI. 2) As to your second point, MacArthur became a 5 Star General, and was promoted Field Marshall of the Phillipine Army. Disagreement was a luxury? MacArthur had a brilliant mind and he also knew the Oriental mind, and his enemy. He could clearly see what needed to be done in Korea. He saw China as a very real threat. It is interesting today to see China's military buildup in the Far East. Maybe we have yet to see the threat that China can be. [ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Von Rom ] [ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Von Rom ]



Von Rom -> (2/15/2002 1:27:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Stubby:
Does Mac sending the army in to murder the protesting WW1 vets (your own men for gods sake) mean nothing to you people (and if you dont know what Im talking about, go read your own history books). In my books for that alone he should be written off as a callous **** whose greatest priority in life was his own political standing.
You forget one thing: MacArthur was a professional soldier, sworn to obey and do his duty. I do not personally agree with what happened. But Washington ORDERED him to dispurse the protestors. As a soldier he had to obey, or be relieved of command. Also, there is substantial evidence that MacArthur and many others sincerely believed that
Communists were behind the protestors.

Where is your proof that ANYONE was murdered? Even so, one does not judge an entire life based on one incident.



Ranger-75 -> (2/15/2002 1:33:00 PM)

Sorry Chiteng, the Commander is responsible for EVERYTHING that anyone in his unit does or fails to do. This is the vital part of Command responsibility of which I am intimately familiar. Mac set up that command system and it is his ultimate responsibility for the failures on that day after the PH raid. This is where Roosevelt came closest to relieving Mac.



Von Rom -> (2/15/2002 1:38:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Chiteng:
Sure Stubby, the Wobblies (I think)
mached ob Washington DC in 1932.(again I think) Mac fired on the crowd, doing his best imitation
of Napoleon. But without the talent. The men were indigent and dying of starvation
the Gov owed them pensions. The idea that they
would die of starvation before they ever got the pensions made the kinda angry.
Mac fired on the crowd? In fact, it was the police that fired on the protestors, not the army. But I agree, that the burning of the protestors' shanty town was inexcusable.



Von Rom -> (2/15/2002 1:53:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
In Korea Mac badly underestimated the real and potential problems that he caused and then later did not have the will to fight. He astually implored the President to use atomic bombs against the Chinese units in the field. That would have started a global nuclear war in 1950 and we might have still been in the middle it if now, only without our comfortable living room computers to discuss the past.
I'll repeat part of my reply from a previous post: MacArthur did not do anything that was not mandated by the UN. Remember, it wasn't America's war (although it bore the greatest burden). It was the UN that sactioned both the intervention in Korea and the pursuit to the Yalu. The intention was to liberate ALL of Korea. MacArthur was trying to fulfill that mandate the best way he knew how. The South Koreans and UN forces were facing TOTAL defeat around the Pusan perimeter. It was very likely that they would have been defeated and the UN forces driven from the Korean Peninsula. MacArthur, and only MacArthur, conceived of, and pushed through, the plan to land at Inchon. EVERYBODY was against it! But he argued for it forcefully, and in doing so, pulled off one of the greatest and daring military feats in history. He turned TOTAL defeat into TOTAL victory within a matter of days. It took the intervention of China to stop his victorious drive north. When the Chinese did intervene, MacArthur was not permitted to bomb the Yalu, the bridges spanning the Yalu, the staging areas where the Chinese troops were gathering, nor even the bases from which the Chinese were flying their Migs. He complained bitterly that he was not permitted to use the weapons (non-nuclear B-52s) available to him that would slow down the Chinese and save American and UN soldier's lives. MacArthur NEVER backed down from a fight. He still felt the UN could win complete victory over the Chinese forces.



Blackhorse -> (2/15/2002 1:55:00 PM)

I enjoy reading posts about controversial generals, because they alternate between "if not for him we'd all be speaking Japanese/German/ Dancing with wolves" and "he is jam betwixt the toes of Satan." Like most great men, MacArthur had tremendous abilities and tremendous flaws. He doesn't fit easily into the inspiring-genius-saint or stupid-evil-corrupt boxes we try to shoehorn everyone into. In the Great War he demonstrated his personal courage and his mental agility. He was superb as the Supreme Commander in post-war Japan. In Korea, his record was mixed. Inchon was *brilliant*: a calculated risk requiring good judgment and nerves of steel. But the "Race to the Yalu" was a military horror. Mac ignored intelligence warnings and allowed his units to straggle up to the Yalu spread out and unsupported. That was his call -- not the UNs. And with all due respect to Strategic Bombing supporters, no conceivable number of conventional bombs in the 1950s would have kept the Chinese out of Korea. Bombing beyond the Yalu would have expanded the war, but it wouldn't have won it. Mac's World War II record was, methinks, subpar. He *did* allow his air force to be destroyed on the ground in the Philippines. His defense of the P.I. was uninspired. While quick to recognize the benefits of an island-hopping campaign, his grand strategy -- to get back to the Philippines -- was immaterial to the ultimate Allied victory. Personally, I gather he wasn't a pleasant guy to be around, unless you were the boot-licking type. And his politics were scary. So what? Patton, Stonewall Jackson and Sherman were political-fringe types -- but great Generals, nonetheless. MacArthur clearly overreacted to the Veterans Bonus March, IMHO. Does that make him a bad man? Perhaps. An evil man? Maybe. But history is replete with evil men of bad character who were also great commanders. Hey, here's a new slogan: "It takes an evil man to make an Evil Empire."



Tomanbeg -> (2/15/2002 2:01:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Chiteng:
I dont like Mac.
I think he set our war effort BACK at least
eighteen months.
He had all the disadvantages of Patton
without the compensating skill.
He was no more than passable. He had ONE virtue that wasnt always a virtue. He could be VERY stubborn. His tenure at West Point was downright scary (talking about him running the place now)
His tenure at the JCS was equally scary.
Only the extreme small size of the Army saved us from gross abuses.
YES he was first in his class and YES he graduated with honors. I say BFD. That just proves
EXACTLY what summa cum lade means. (ie NOTHING)
It is the aristos patting themselves on their own
backs that the hoops have been jumped thru.
It is time that we all stop paying for such conceit. Sorry I am in a very bad mood.
It's about to get worse. I don't like McAuther the Man, but he is the second best General the USA ever produced. Number 1 being marse Robert.
His Island hopping campaign knocked at least 18 months off the Pacific War. Without his taking the attention of the bulk of the Japanese troops, the Marines would have had a much rouger time. And then there is Korea. Inchon was one of the finest military operations in history. If Truman Had listened to Mac,the cold war would have been over in 55. And last but not least, Mac fought through the M1 garand, which is still the best infantry weapon ever made. Without the M1, the american troops would not have lived long enogh to develop the battle experience needed to beat the Germans. He was an asshole of the first magnitude, but unless you are completly prejudiced or real soft in the brain, you cannot deny his military skill. If it wasn't for Mac, Japan would be a mess nowdays instead of a trusted ally. My favorite McAuther story is where he is chewing out an Austrailian (or New Zealand, I forget which)General and he finishes the lecture with "If you were an American, I would have you shot!" The General replies, "If I was an American, I would shoot myself!" Mac could not have done Ike's job, But Ike could not have done Mac's either.
T. (Patton was average on a good day. I think you have no idea what a generals job is).



Chiteng -> (2/15/2002 6:07:00 PM)

Really? Having overwelming resources can coverup ALOT of mistakes. You really think mac could beat Gall?
(a sioux? warrior, he doesnt get alot of PR)
How about Forrest? That is why Rommel impresses people. That he accomplished so much with so little. Any time things were slowing down Mac could just raise the ante. That isnt brillance. But your right he never shirked responsibility, he did however make
whining and heel dragging a new art form. Truman made it very clear that Mac was NOT going to get nukes. If he disagreed he should have resigned.



crusher -> (2/15/2002 8:46:00 PM)

Mac had more than fair warning that the chinese were going to intervine. he had units fighting small actions days before the main chinese intervention. yet he totally disreguarded these reports. he refused to believe that china would get involved. when it happened he went into shock. if it was not for the marines spirit and leadership mac would have been general of the bigest disaster of american or un arms. he was unfit to command.



crusher -> (2/15/2002 8:50:00 PM)

you would have had to bomb the entire river it was frozen and they were crossing everywhere but at the bridges.



Von Rom -> (2/16/2002 12:07:00 AM)

Well, first off I am no MacArthur apologist or fanboy. Mac had both good and bad aspects to his character and command decisions. But, given that WE ARE ALL deeply flawed, weak, and prone to making a myriad of bad decisions, etc, look at what MacArthur DID and accomplished even though he was burdened with these very same human flaws. WWII: At the outbreak of WWII in the Pacific, NO ONE expected the Japanese to attack. Every commander and every theatre was caught flat-footed by the Japanese attack. From Washington to Pearl Harbour, from Singapore to the Phillipines, everyone was both shocked, surprised, and numb from the attacks. Mac was human. To single out just Mac's command is just unfair. KOREA: As far as the bombing goes, we will never know the effect it could have had. As to the bombings widening the war - the war had already expanded - the Chinese intervened in the conflict and were determined to drive the Americans and UN forces from Korea. It then became a test of wills. The US backed down and the Chinese smelled weakness. . . Currently, you can bet that China will test the west's resolve over Taiwan. And guess what? Wwe will back down here too, and China will take over that island nation that America promised to protect. Sound familiar? Take a look at the Phillipine situation at the outbreak of WWII in the pacific to see the parallels As to Patton: It does not matter what my opinion of what a general should be is; what matters is WHAT Patton thought HIS role as a general should be. Patton was a combat General. Like Rommel, he believed in leading from the front. He knew this, and all those close to him knew this. He was not suited for peacetime. He knew how to inspire, lead, and fight. This is the ONLY role he wanted, and it was a role for which he was best suited. Even Patton's worst critics realized that Patton was their best fighting general. Patton was the ONLY general the Germans actually feared. They also considered him the Allies best general. Patton was only at home in war; in peacetime, he was a lost soul. As he, himself remarked about war: "God help me, I love it so." [ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Von Rom ]



Von Rom -> (2/16/2002 12:14:00 AM)

*Double Post* [ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Von Rom ]



Chiteng -> (2/16/2002 12:15:00 AM)

Actually, I am not that impressed with Patton either. It kinda helps to have the entire OB
of the enemy. All he did was read the Intercepts
and find ways to bypass strongpoints.
The reason he was successful was because he
actully TRUSTED the intercepts. The true test of a commander is the defensive
battle, where you have no idea what is going on.
The fighting withdrawl. Very few generals have
faced such situations. Manstein ,Rommel Mac did not do well in either of these tests
I cant think of even one battle where Patton faced
such. Lawton Collins was the best USA general in my opinion.



Von Rom -> (2/16/2002 12:30:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Chiteng:
Actually, I am not that impressed with Patton either. It kinda helps to have the entire OB
of the enemy. All he did was read the Intercepts
and find ways to bypass strongpoints.
The reason he was successful was because he
actully TRUSTED the intercepts. The true test of a commander is the defensive
battle, where you have no idea what is going on.
The fighting withdrawl. Very few generals have
faced such situations. Manstein ,Rommel Mac did not do well in either of these tests
I cant think of even one battle where Patton faced
such. Lawton Collins was the best USA general in my opinion.
Both MacArthur and Patton believed in the offense. Defense was repugnant to both Generals. I am sure lawton was a fine general; but it was Patton the Germans feared the most. . .



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625