Perceptions of Douglas MacArthur

What is your view of General MacArthur?


  • Total voters
    23

Saigon

Warlord
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
184
I hope to create a "perceptions of" series here and on a couple other debating communities I visit, with the hopes of generating interesting debates over some of histories most controversial figures. The first such "perceptions" thread will be on American five-star general Douglas MacArthur. In this thread I will give a brief history of MacArthur's life and career, focusing primarily on the controversies (both at the time and today) surrounding his character. Please feel free to share your perceptions and thoughts on MacArthur and his actions.


Douglas MacArthur

January 26, 1880 - April 5, 1964

Douglas MacArthur was one of the most prominent and controversial military leaders of the first half of the 20th century. He graduated at the top of his class from the United States Military Academy at West Point and served in the United States Army during four military conflicts, beginning with the occupation of Veracruz during the Mexican Revolution and ending with his controversial termination during the Korean War.

MacArthur distinct service during the Mexican Revolution and World War I earned him command of the Manila military district in the Philippines. MacArthur was criticized by some for his friendship with the Filipino president (Manuel Quezon) and his attempts to improve the wages and living conditions of Filipino troops under his command. These moves were considered "dangerous" or "immoral" by some of his contemporaries, who were opposed to granting equal rights to Filipinos.

MacArthur brought further controversy upon himself by disagreeing with his fellow military jurists during the trial of General Billy Mitchell, who was being court-martialed for accusing some of his superiors of gross incompetence. Much of the military's leadership viewed Mitchell's statement as "dangerous" to their careers and/or "unprofessional," but MacArthur was one of the few judges to disagree with the majority decision (to find Mitchell guilty). Others supported MacArthur's decision, believing that Mitchell was either exercising his First Amendment rights or that he shouldn't have been court-martialed for exposing incompetence and corruption within the military.

Perhaps the largest controversy surrounding MacArthur's career was his accepting President Herbert Hoover's orders to forcefully disband the Bonus Army. The Bonus Army consisted of World War I veterans (and their sympathizers) during the Great Depression who felt as though they should have been able to cash-in their bonus wages immediately, rather than wait until the legally required date. The disbanding of the Bonus Army by MacArthur's forces was a public relations disaster for the general and for President Hoover. Defenders of MacArthur claim that he was only following the orders of President Hoover and shouldn't have been held accountable.

Despite public backlash over the dispersion of the Bonus Army protesters, MacArthur maintained his position as a general in the military and served as the head of all American forces in the Pacific during World War II. American war plans drawn up before World War II called for the Philippines to be abandoned if war broke out, a plan that MacArthur put into action. Some criticized the abandonment of the Philippines and of some Allied troops, civilians and POWs. Some argue that MacArthur should have tried to convince President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to hold and defend the Philippines.

After World War II, MacArthur was placed in the position of rebuilding Japan. MacArthur and his staff made several major policy decisions in Japan. MacArthur's team developed the current Constitution of Japan, including Article 9. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution forbids Japan from maintaining a formal military (aside from their self-defense force) and prevents Japan from engaging in wars of aggression. The clause has been considered a mistake by many of the Japanese people and by many of Japan's allies (the United States, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.).

MacArthur also oversaw a land reform program that ended the Japanese feudal system and distributed land to the workers and farmers. Feudal landlords received financial compensation for having their land stripped, but it left bitter resentment with some of the former feudal lords who had lost much of their influence over Japanese society. MacArthur also encouraged trade unionism in Japan, believing it would help protect the rights of the workers and create a more productive workforce. The trade unions were also a way to help stop the spread of communism by creating a more moderate alternative for disenfranchised workers. MacArthur also abolished many of the monopolies that controlled the Japanese economy, which alarmed some American policy-makers, who believed that the Japanese economy would be crippled if the monopolies were broken up.

In addition to overseeing the development of post-war Japan, MacArthur also served as a judge during the war crimes trials over the Far East. During the war crimes trials, MacArthur and other Allied judges granted immunity to the Japanese royal family and to some Japanese medical scientists who were accused of human experimentation. In return for granting the medical scientists immunity, the Allies were given their medical data. Some argue that the medical data could have been used to help prevent or cure people who have been affected by biological warfare (including some of their surviving victims).

MacArthur was placed in command of South Korean and United Nations forces during the Korean War. Under his command occupied areas of South Korea were liberated by United Nations peacekeepers and South Korea eventually liberated almost all of North Korea. As part of his duties with the United Nations Command, MacArthur monitored the Korean-Chinese border to watch for a potential Chinese counterattack. MacArthur flew over the border personally and didn't see evidence of a Chinese troop build up at the border. Only a day after his reconnaissance flight, China invaded Korea. Some argue that MacArthur didn't do a good enough job monitoring the border. Others argue that the Chinese troops were in hiding or were just beyond the border and waited for the reconnaissance planes to fly before making their assault.

MacArthur firmly believed that Asian countries such as Japan, Korea and China would be economic powers in the future and that the United States would have to adopt a more Asia-centric foreign policy. Some European policymakers were worried that MacArthur might convince American policymakers to focus their attention more on Asia, thus resulting in less financial and military aid being sent to Europe.

Another controversial issue surrounding MacArthur is his decision to retreat to back to South Korea's original borders following the Chinese invasion. The Korean people had long hoped for all of Korea to be liberated under the Republican (southern) government, a dream which had finally been realized (only to be crushed days later by the Chinese). Many of MacArthur's contemporaries, as well as modern historians, argue that MacArthur's decision to retreat was a mistake. Others argue that the retreat was necessary, but that the United Nations and Korean forces retreated too far, thus giving up too much land.

MacArthur's military career came to an end during the Korean War when he was relieved of command by President Harry S. Truman. Truman and MacArthur held very low opinions of each other and with MacArthur's controversial decision to abandon North Korea (even if only meant to be a temporary retreat), Truman decided to relieve MacArthur of command. Needing an excuse to relieve MacArthur, Truman accused MacArthur of wanting to use nuclear weapons against China (and North Korea), though MacArthur never made such a claim. The allegation was formally the only reason MacArthur was relieved of command. Some believe that MacArthur needed to be relieved due to his decision to retreat, while others at the time genuinely believed President Truman's allegation. Defenders of MacArthur believe the allegation was just an excuse to eliminate the general or that it wasn't MacArthur's fault that North Korea was overrun.

MacArthur's termination was politically devastating for President Truman, whose approval rating dropped to 23% (lower than that of Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal). The Joint Chiefs of Staff following MacArthur's termination were viewed with distrust (or accused of incompetence) by the public and policymakers alike, resulting in Eisenhower eventually replacing much of the senior military leadership. MacArthur's termination also set a precedent where any military officer can be fired for disagreeing with the president.

Today MacArthur is still a controversial figure, primarily for his actions during the Bonus Army protests and the Korean War. Most contemporary criticism of MacArthur comes from "progressives" and left-wing activists, who accuse MacArthur of being a "reactionary." Some conservatives argue that he was too weak on communism for his retreat in Korea and because he believed that a rift existed between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, a view that was in the minority at the time.

What are your thoughts on the general? Do you view him in a positive or a negative light?
 
He nearly nuked North Korea. Was it not for Truman, he could have made a coup.

MacArthur was fired for "calling upon China to surrender," not because of any nuclear weapons threats. There is no evidence to suggest that he ever planned to nuke North Korea or China.
 
You're ignoring the multiple times MacArthur made public statements which were in direct contradiction to official policy as held by Truman. President is CinC, period. You want to disagree with the big boss? Fine, do it in private and respectfully and if you're still overruled, you shut up and obey, or resign.

Civilian control of the military is paramount and I have no problem with what Truman did to a general who was getting too uppity for his own good.
 
You're ignoring the multiple times MacArthur made public statements which were in direct contradiction to official policy as held by Truman. President is CinC, period. You want to disagree with the big boss? Fine, do it in private and respectfully and if you're still overruled, you shut up and obey, or resign.

Civilian control of the military is paramount and I have no problem with what Truman did to a general who was getting too uppity for his own good.

If he MacArthur truly believed that Truman's policies would lead to destruction and chaos, then was it not his duty as a human being to do everything he could (including trying to convince Congress to oppose presidential policies) to prevent disaster?

If Colin Powell went to Congress in 2003 with proof that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, even if the president didn't want him to, would you have supported Powell's right (or even obligation) to do so?
 
Some military skills (but not as much as he convinced everyone he had - his handling of the Philippines was ugly), great PR skills (see "convinced everyone", but his handling of Japan post-war deserves a positive note), and some slight difficulties with such notions as the chain of command, secrecy, and the limit of Douglas MacArthur's skill, abilities and responsibilities

And your interpretation of the fall of the Philppines is...inaccurate from all I know of it. No, it was not pre-war plans to abandon the Phil ; the original pre-war plans was to withdraw to Bataan and Coregidor and wait for the navy, but MacArthur had convinced the DoD to change to full-fledged ground defense backed up by B-17s bombing Japanese bases, all of this before the war started. That was the plan, and it was what he wanted to implement.

Then when he heard about Pearl he promptly...did nothing with his B-17s, alloewd them to get caught with their pants down on the ground (like at Pearl, except several hours after Pearl) with little to no air defense, and ended up having to withdraw to Bataan and Coregidor. Then flee while his army surrendered.

Mind, I'm not sure his plan would have worked even if he hadn't gone goofing around with his bombers. Heck, I'm not sure any plan would have worked. Even without Pearl Harbor, the original plan for sending the navy all the way to the Philippines sound like a recipe for a reverse battle of Leyte ending in something far worse than Pearl for the Pacific Fleet. But getting caught on the ground with his pants down just like Pearl when he had all the advantages Pearl didn't (being specifically listed as a potential target in the november war warning ; having a machine for reading the Japanese diplomatic code ; being a completely obvious elephant in the hallway target for Japan that anyone would know they'd have the ability and will to hit; and nine hours warning that the Japanese attack had begun)? That's inexcusable in my opinion.

MacArthur should have been given the same treatment Kimmel and Short got, if not worse ; he faild harder than they did. But Pearl was the more moral-impacting of the two, and MacArthur had good PR on his side to make himself look the hero in the whole thing. And perhaps that's for the best, because in the end, if he had been given that treatment whoever handled Japan might have done a much crappier job of it.
 
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution forbids Japan from maintaining a formal military (aside from their self-defense force) and prevents Japan from engaging in wars of aggression.

Actually, article 9 forbids Japan to have a military period. But then the Cold War happened (turning hot in Korea). Which is why Japan now has a 'self defense force'. More commonly known as military forces. It's just named different because of article 9, not the other way around.
 
If he MacArthur truly believed that Truman's policies would lead to destruction and chaos, then was it not his duty as a human being to do everything he could (including trying to convince Congress to oppose presidential policies) to prevent disaster?
Not before resigning his commission first.
If Colin Powell went to Congress in 2003 with proof that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, even if the president didn't want him to, would you have supported Powell's right (or even obligation) to do so?
Colin Powell was SecState in 2003, not a general in the Army, so that comparison really doesn't fly at all given what my entire argument in favor of Truman's actions is.
 
If he MacArthur truly believed that Truman's policies would lead to destruction and chaos, then was it not his duty as a human being to do everything he could (including trying to convince Congress to oppose presidential policies) to prevent disaster?

If Colin Powell went to Congress in 2003 with proof that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, even if the president didn't want him to, would you have supported Powell's right (or even obligation) to do so?

Not before resigning his commission first.Colin Powell was SecState in 2003, not a general in the Army, so that comparison really doesn't fly at all given what my entire argument in favor of Truman's actions is.

This is a tricky one but I'm with bhsup on it. The civilian government commands the army, and the army derives its right to use force from the orders of the civilian government. Once military officers start selectively disobeying civilian orders, that breaks down. You're obliged to disobey an unlawful order or one which is manifestly against your conscience, but that doesn't mean that you should be able to keep your job while doing so.
 
If he MacArthur truly believed that Truman's policies would lead to destruction and chaos, then was it not his duty as a human being to do everything he could (including trying to convince Congress to oppose presidential policies) to prevent disaster?

If Colin Powell went to Congress in 2003 with proof that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, even if the president didn't want him to, would you have supported Powell's right (or even obligation) to do so?


If a general thinks that he can not in good conscious follow orders, then his responsibility is to resign. While he is in office, he is wrong to try to go behind his boss's back.
 
This is a tricky one but I'm with bhsup on it. The civilian government commands the army, and the army derives its right to use force from the orders of the civilian government. Once military officers start selectively disobeying civilian orders, that breaks down. You're obliged to disobey an unlawful order or one which is manifestly against your conscience, but that doesn't mean that you should be able to keep your job while doing so.

I absolutely agree with you there. You have an obligation to disobey unlawful or unconstitutional orders, and a duty to attempt to set the nation on the right path to avert tragedy. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have lost his job, I'm not arguing that.
 
I absolutely agree with you there. You have an obligation to disobey unlawful or unconstitutional orders, and a duty to attempt to set the nation on the right path to avert tragedy.

While the latter is a civic duty, not a military one, I wonder how often the first actually happens.
 
In addition to what other posters, like Cutlass, have said, let's not forget that MacArthur was revealed, in the 1990s, to have received a US$500,000 payment for "services to the Commonwealth" from Philippines President Quezon, a personal friend of his, after losing control of the archipelago. He also bullied a junior officer into making a phone call buying him stocks using Filipino treasury money and tipped off several of his corporate friends to cancel shipments to the Philippines before war was officially declared. This was during his several hours of not allowing his aerial commander, Lt. General Brereton, to launch a bombing raid on Formosa. Like Cutlass, I believe the plan MacArthur devised for the defence of the Philippines was a poor one, but, due to conditions outside the control of both himself and the Japanese - the weather conditions over Formosa - he actually had the opportunity to bomb the crap out of the Japanese attack force there, transports included. He wasted six hours reading the Bible and buying stocks in arms corporations when he could have been executing his war plan. He received a direct order from General George Marshall to execute that plan, by the way, and lied to his superior, claiming that "the birds are already in the air." That's an exact quote, as reported by Marshall.

He shouldn't have been court-martialled. He should have been bloody shot. His actions were, at a minimum, incompetence of the highest order. The payment by Quezon, who hoped to keep the Philippines neutral in the event of war between the US and Japan, indicates possible treason. He got away with it largely because Secretary of War Stimson had a hand in drafting the Philippines defence plan MacArthur wanted to use, and Marshall, while expressing misgivings, signed off on it. In other words, had MacArthur been called to account, the Republicans in both Congress and the Senate would have rightly destroyed Stimson, and possibly Marshall as well, due to the obvious strategic faults of the Far East Defense Strategy.

Needless to say, I voted for "Very Negative." MacArthur was not without his positive attributes. He was very brave; he had to be talked out of resigning his commission and fighting on the front lines at Corregidor, and he was also known for leading from the front during WWI. He was a capable administrator; his stewardship of the Army of the Philippines saw tremendous improvement in the quality of the small Commonwealth's army, though he lacked the funds to complete his grandiose - though, if you look at the numbers, probably feasible if funded adequately - plan to train and equip 400,000 Filipino regulars by April 1942. His transformation of Japan as SCAP-J is still considered the prototype for nation-building operations to this day; the UN and US have never matched it. While he was late to recognise the merits of air power - he was one of the judges at General William "Billy" Mitchell's court-martial for criticising the lack of a quality US Air Force - once he converted he was a loud proponent of the strategic uses of air power.

The negatives, however, far outweigh the few positives. He was a decent strategist, but a very, very poor tactician. His narcissism was so evident as to possibly be a mental illness; General Eisenhower once joked that he "studied dramatics under him" at Manila. Instead of accepting his punishment for offences, he made a second career of covering his arse and pinning the blame for his own mistakes on his subordinates; his attempt to blame Brereton for the lack of action after Pearl Harbor and before the Japanese bombing of the Philippines is a perfect example of this behavior.

Finally, his attempt to undermine the President through his own popularity in Congress was very nearly a military coup, and was potentially disastrous for American Democracy. Fortunately, Truman refused to back down and fired MacArthur; a weaker President would have rolled over and presented the US with a military dictator.

As for the argument over whether or not he should have opposed Truman's decisions in Korea; let's ignore, for a moment, the fact that MacArthur's plans for the conflict were objectively terrible, and the tactical success he is best-known for - the Incheon landing - was a terrible decision that only succeeded due to the North taking too long to set up their minefield across the mouth of the harbour. If you, as a soldier, and especially as a senior general, disagree with the decisions of your commander-in-chief, it is your duty to take those issues up with your CinC privately, threaten to resign, and if necessary follow through on that threat. Once you have resigned, you are free to criticise the CinC as much as you like, provided you do not reveal classified information. But not beforehand. The sole exception to this is if you are given an illegal order, or an order that threatens the existence of the state; few would argue that the German military would have been wrong to launch their planned coup in October 1938, for example, over Hitler's planned invasion of Czechoslovakia, given that such an invasion would have led to Germany's defeat in a war with France, the UK, and probably the USSR. That General Beck elected to retire rather than continue to plan the coup is somewhat ironic, given the tone of this discussion.

If the military is allowed to involve itself in political decision-making, then the separation between civilian and military government is meaningless; Israel has had problems in this area, but they have (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) been outweighed by its other problems. France suffered a coup by Marshal Petain in 1940 due to the involvement of the military in poitical decision-making. Many military men remained loyal to Petain due to their belief in the legality of his regime, in spite of their misgivings over his actions; this legality is questionable, but if France had a strictly delineated separation between civilian and military government - which it was given, amusingly enough, by a later military strongman, Charles De Gaulle - it is likely that some of the high-ranking officers who supported Petain, like General Juin in North Africa, would have favoured De Gaulle's government-in-exile, which at least had the decency to admit that its legality was questionable. The US did well to avoid such problems in the 1950s, with MacArthur's sacking and disappearance from the scene in favour of the far more politically-astute General Eisenhower.
 
I assume you're only referring to the modern British military here. The military has, historically, been a great profession for people who want to issue illegal orders.

Quite, but I don't think there's much comparison between the system that produced Sulla and the one that produced Slim.
 
Quite, but I don't think there's much comparison between the system that produced Sulla and the one that produced Slim.
We do have the French instigating a military coup as recently as 1958, and attempting another one in 1964. You'd know better than me, but I don't think the modern British and French systems are that different.
 
Top Bottom