Perceptions of Douglas MacArthur

PhroX said:

Sounds like a military variation of the Peter Prinicple, as it's known in the business world too - that a person's suitability for a new position is judged on their competance at their current position, rather than the attributes needed for the new one, with the inevitable result that people get promoted one level above their competancy.

Click to expand...

The Peter Principle is subtly different in that it doesn't depend on the job shifting, only that competent people are always promoted and mediocre people are never fired. The military gets around that with short-term contracts; Warrant Officers and officers above Major who sit at their rank for more than a few years usually have their applications for a renewed contract refused. What's going on is that the military limits the pool of people it can choose to do high-level administration to those who prove themselves in low-level work. You could probably make quite a good staff officer if you're not particularly fit, but you'll never get the chance because you'll be drummed out of Sandhurst or your first job.

James Stuart said:

It took me longer to type Operation: Resurrection than it did to find a source about how De Gaulle knew about the damn thing.

Click to expand...

Nobody argued De Gaulle didn't know about it. In fact, this is rather common knowledge. But the fact is, he didn't instigate it, nor did he follow up on it. The reason most likely being that when De Gaulle was asked to come back, the Algerian military thought he was on their side. Luckily for France - and democracy - he was not.

James Stuart said:

Now, if you want to argue that there is not smoking gun proving that De Gaulle gave the direct order for Resurrection, go right ahead, but know that it is the intellectual - albeit not moral - equivalent to claiming that Hitler didn't order the Holocaust, because there's no written document with his signature on it.

Click to expand...

That is probably the worst analogy you'd come up with. (By the way, mr H did plan a coup and it worked perfectly. It was, technically speaking, even legal; though of course not in spirit.)

James Stuart said:

And democrats plan coups all the time, if the country they're living in isn't democratic. Several of the July 20 plotters were Social Democrats of the pre-Nazi era, for example. The ANC planned a coup in Apartheid South Africa, but it never got off the ground. There were attempts by soldiers in both Gaddafi's Libya and Nasser's Egypt to launch (allegedly, as they may have simply lied to cover their own quest for power) pro-democracy coups.

Click to expand...

Oh dear... The 20 July coup attempt was Conservative-inspired and military effectuated; it was certainly not democratically inspired. The ANC planned a coup? An uprising perhaps. Libya and Egypt: soldiers. Were they democrats? We'll never know, will we?

James Stuart said:

I'll concede this on pedantic grounds.

Click to expand...

Well, it takes one to know one, I guess.

James Stuart said:

"Self-Defence Force," to be exact. I have no issue with this comment, except to say that all Japanese political parties bar the Communist Party accepted Article 9 without reservation. They may have thought they could change their minds when the Americans left, but it was very popular with the general public, who didn't like dying in wars. If China becomes more belligerent, however, Japan will eventually overcome the popularity of Article 9 and officially re-arm; they have been unofficially doing so for decades, of course.

Click to expand...

Of course. The reason the conservatives couldn't alter the constitution is precisely the existing support for said article.

SeekTruthFromFacts said:

This thread is almost a mirror image of one we had last year, where the OP asked about de Gaulle and we got sidetracked into MacArthur. I argued there there that 1958 clearly was a coup using a different line of reasoning (it may help to know that I was 'bras0778' when that discussion started).
Link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=459003

There's also an aspect of de Gaulle's political position in 1958 that resembles a protection racket. A really successful gangster never use violence - people just keep giving money to her. Likewise, de Gaulle never used political violence - people just kept inviting him to form unelected governments.

Click to expand...

That's pretty funny. Seems as though more posters were bad-mouthing FDR - who deserved it - than MacArthur though.

De Gaulle may have been asked to form a lot of uneleced governments, but he and his supporters also won a lot of elections.

tetley said:

MacArthur was a freemason who got his position via cronyism. That is my perception of him.

Click to expand...

I've read the Freemason thing before, but where do th croneyism accusations come from? His relationship with Queon? Or his father?

Freemasons put other Freemasons in office. Which is ironic, since it was a Freemason who fired him.

tetley said:

Freemasons put other Freemasons in office. Which is ironic, since it was a Freemason who fired him.

Click to expand...

And Jews secretly run the world?

Agent327 said:

But if setting up democratic government instead of military occupation represents a coup in your judgement, than I have little problem with that. (De Gaulle himself soon regretted his actions, withdrawing from active politics within a few years of his reorganizing civil government.) His behaviour towards the French republic - which he held in very high regard, contrary to the Vichy dictatorship - has, in fact been rather consistent.

Click to expand...

A coup is about methods, not results. There is nothing inconsistent with launching a coup to establish a democracy. Nor is anyone necessarily expressing moral judgment over DeGaulle's actions. It may very well be that a military coup to restore democratic legitimacy (or, more accurately, the threat of one) is morally justified. But this is a historical discussion and we're debating what happened not whether it was a good idea.

That's all very well, but there was no coup launched by De Gaulle. Which would be the main point in any coup accusation. In fact, De Gaulle has (despite some misgivings about parliamentary democracy) never expressed any wish to overthrow a legitimate government. So far from exemplifying some apparent tendency in the French miltary to do so, he has been rather the contrary. If you are looking for a military coupiste, look at Napoleon (a far greater hero to the French, by the way, despite the fact that he had no interest in democracy whatsoever). The key element in De Gaulle's thinking was the gloire of France, which, seeing his military background, isn't all that surprising a view. With all this talk of 'coups' (and again, none were effectuated) one might forget that the main reason for De Gaulle's return to power in '58 was the ineptitude of the republic to deal with the Algerian question. Yes, he made some constitutional changes. But they were never overthrown. Unlike the results of any actual Latin-American coups, which were generally small interest group coups, and generally not democratic, but rather anti-democratic, with little or no interest in constitutional changes. As opposed to De Gaulle the Latin-American military have shown very little respect or interest in democracy. They are, in fact, closer to the Napoleonic coup tradition than to any of De Gaulle's thoughts.

Agent327 said:

That's all very well, but there was no coup launched by De Gaulle. Which would be the main point in any coup accusation. In fact, De Gaulle has (despite some misgivings about parliamentary democracy) never expressed any wish to overthrow a legitimate government. So far from exemplifying some apparent tendency in the French miltary to do so, he has been rather the contrary. If you are looking for a military coupiste, look at Napoleon (a far greater hero to the French, by the way, despite the fact that he had no interest in democracy whatsoever). The key element in De Gaulle's thinking was the gloire of France, which, seeing his military background, isn't all that surprising a view. With all this talk of 'coups' (and again, none were effectuated) one might forget that the main reason for De Gaulle's return to power in '58 was the ineptitude of the republic to deal with the Algerian question. Yes, he made some constitutional changes. But they were never overthrown. Unlike the results of any actual Latin-American coups, which were generally small interest group coups, and generally not democratic, but rather anti-democratic, with little or no interest in constitutional changes. As opposed to De Gaulle the Latin-American military have shown very little respect or interest in democracy. They are, in fact, closer to the Napoleonic coup tradition than to any of De Gaulle's thoughts.

Click to expand...

I provide conclusive evidence that De Gaulle was well aware of, and gave his assent to, a coup to place him in power in France, and your response is word-vomit invoking a strawman about how the French military is prone to military coups, and that this is somehow De Gaulle's fault? You are arguing against a point I never made. Ineptly, I might add, given you have apparently forgotten how to use paragraphs.

Agent327 said:

That's all very well, but there was no coup launched by De Gaulle. Which would be the main point in any coup accusation.

Click to expand...

My understanding of the claim (I don't think accusation is the correct word in this context) is that he was aware of and encouraged or agreed to a coup, not that he launched it.

If you are looking for a military coupiste, look at Napoleon (a far greater hero to the French, by the way, despite the fact that he had no interest in democracy whatsoever).

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think anyone disputes Napoleon was involved in a coup, though.

That being said, if your point is that admiration of Napoleon is the reason France has been more accepting of coups in the 20th Century than the United Kingdom, I think that's quite possible. Although a military that stays out of civil affairs is more the exception than the rule worldwide.

It's pretty common knowledge that De Gaulle was aware of coup plans, since the planners contacted him. But here's the funny thing: there was no coup. Ergo nothing was instigated, let alone 'approved'. De Gaulle was officially asked to form a new government on his terms, to which he agreed. Doesn't sound much like a coup to me. In fact, by these proceedings a coup was effectively prevented. So, the exact opposite of a coup.

The point is Mr S seems to think De Gaulle instigated a coup. But fails to provide any evidence for this - except mentioning contacts with the Algerian military. Something which has been public knowledge for decades. Then goes on with strawman this and that and repeats the same thing over and over again.

The thing is, is it democratic proceedings if the democratic proceedings occur under threat of a military coup?

The idea that de Gaulle should simply have stood by or discouraged the angry military (expressed by James Stuard in the thread he linked to) doesn't hold much water in my opinion . It relies on the fundamentally unsound assumption the military wouldn't have found another, more sympathetic leader to put in power if de Gaulle had turned them down. The truth being that the military had begun moving (taking over civilian government in Algiers, occupying Corsica, both of which happened before any meeting between the plotters and de Gaulle) before talking to de Gaulle.

In that light, for de Gaulle, turning down the protesters would have been a formidable application of what, in DnD terms, is refered to as being "Lawful Stupid". IE, when following the letter of the law even to situation where applying the law lead to extremely negative results. That'S what de Gaulle would have been to simply denounce the coup and hope he could talk them out of it.

Certainly, if democratic action occurring under threat of military force is still democratic, then Vichy France is entirely lawful.

Agent327 said:

Nobody argued De Gaulle didn't know about it. In fact, this is rather common knowledge. But the fact is, he didn't instigate it, nor did he follow up on it. The reason most likely being that when De Gaulle was asked to come back, the Algerian military thought he was on their side. Luckily for France - and democracy - he was not.

Click to expand...

I didn't even see this post the first time around. I'm unsure of how I missed it.

I never said he instigated it, and the reason for it evaporated when he was recalled by the government. Why would he follow through on military coup to place him in power when he was able to gain that power legitimately? As I have stated more than once, Operation: Resurrection was to be a pro-democracy coup.

Agent327 said:

That is probably the worst analogy you'd come up with. (By the way, mr H did plan a coup and it worked perfectly. It was, technically speaking, even legal; though of course not in spirit.)

Click to expand...

Hitler never launched a coup. I'm unsure what it is you are referring to; his assumption of the office of the Presidency comes the closest, but as you said, it was legal. And please point out why my analogy is bad; simply saying something is wrong is meaningless if you offer no facts to back up your assertion.

Agent327 said:

Oh dear... The 20 July coup attempt was Conservative-inspired and military effectuated; it was certainly not democratically inspired. The ANC planned a coup? An uprising perhaps. Libya and Egypt: soldiers. Were they democrats? We'll never know, will we?

Click to expand...

You love strawmen, don't you? I never said the July 20 Plot was democratically inspired. I said several of its members were pre-war Social Democrats. I didn't even say that the coups end-goal was a return to parliamentary democracy, which was certainly on the drawing board, but may have been abandoned by the plotters had they actually succeeded. It's easy to argue against a point that a person doesn't make, but it also happens to be both against forum rules, and pathetic.

Agent327 said:

Well, it takes one to know one, I guess.

Click to expand...

I'm lot of things, but a "pedant" isn't one of them.

Agent327 said:

It's pretty common knowledge that De Gaulle was aware of coup plans, since the planners contacted him. But here's the funny thing: there was no coup. Ergo nothing was instigated, let alone 'approved'. De Gaulle was officially asked to form a new government on his terms, to which he agreed. Doesn't sound much like a coup to me. In fact, by these proceedings a coup was effectively prevented. So, the exact opposite of a coup.

The point is Mr S seems to think De Gaulle instigated a coup. But fails to provide any evidence for this - except mentioning contacts with the Algerian military. Something which has been public knowledge for decades. Then goes on with strawman this and that and repeats the same thing over and over again.

Click to expand...

I'm reporting this post for the repeated use of a strawman argument, in spite of me pointing it out to you and repeatedly asking you to stop. If you can find a single post I made stating that "De Gaulle instigated a coup" I will personally give you a damn lap dance.

And your argument fails on logical grounds anyway. De Gaulle found out that his buddies were holding a gun to the French state's head and ordering it to accept him, then calmly accepted its offer of power. If France were a woman, we'd call that rape.

Oda Nobunaga said:

The thing is, is it democratic proceedings if the democratic proceedings occur under threat of a military coup?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. I have a very favourable opinion of De Gaulle, but I still recognise that there was nothing democratic about his actions. Even with the state in chaos, he still barely won a plurality.

Oda Nobunaga said:

The idea that de Gaulle should simply have stood by or discouraged the angry military (expressed by James Stuard in the thread he linked to)

Click to expand...

I didn't link to any thread. I assume you mean SeekTruthFromFacts.

Louis XXIV said:

Certainly, if democratic action occurring under threat of military force is still democratic, then Vichy France is entirely lawful.

Click to expand...

As was Cromwell's Commonwealth, Imperial Japan's actions post-WWI, Mussolini's March on Rome, Sulla's proscriptions, ad nauseum ad infinitum.

Oda Nobunaga said:

The thing is, is it democratic proceedings if the democratic proceedings occur under threat of a military coup?

The idea that de Gaulle should simply have stood by or discouraged the angry military (expressed by James Stuard in the thread he linked to) doesn't hold much water in my opinion . It relies on the fundamentally unsound assumption the military wouldn't have found another, more sympathetic leader to put in power if de Gaulle had turned them down. The truth being that the military had begun moving (taking over civilian government in Algiers, occupying Corsica, both of which happened before any meeting between the plotters and de Gaulle) before talking to de Gaulle.

In that light, for de Gaulle, turning down the protesters would have been a formidable application of what, in DnD terms, is refered to as being "Lawful Stupid". IE, when following the letter of the law even to situation where applying the law lead to extremely negative results. That'S what de Gaulle would have been to simply denounce the coup and hope he could talk them out of it.

Click to expand...

De Gaulle had huge moral authority in 1950s France. Think George Washington (I'm not sure sven Abraham Lincoln comes close). If he'd have said the plotters were repeating the mistakes of Pétain and Vichy, the whole thing would have been over very quickly.

SeekTruthFromFacts said:

De Gaulle had huge moral authority in 1950s France. Think George Washington (I'm not sure sven Abraham Lincoln comes close). If he'd have said the plotters were repeating the mistakes of Pétain and Vichy, the whole thing would have been over very quickly.

Click to expand...

I doubt that, to be honest. I think the plotters would probably have launched a coup anyway, just with someone else taking the figurehead role. Several of these people did try to kill De Gaulle when he stopped supporting their program for Algeria, after all.

James Stuart said:

I never said he instigated it, and the reason for it evaporated when he was recalled by the government. Why would he follow through on military coup to place him in power when he was able to gain that power legitimately? As I have stated more than once, Operation: Resurrection was to be a pro-democracy coup.

Click to expand...

Not in the view of the Algerian military.

James Stuart said:

Hitler never launched a coup. I'm unsure what it is you are referring to; his assumption of the office of the Presidency comes the closest, but as you said, it was legal. And please point out why my analogy is bad; simply saying something is wrong is meaningless if you offer no facts to back up your assertion.

Click to expand...

The Reichstag fire was used as a pretext to abolish all semblance of democratic government by invoking the Ermächtigungsgestez, intended for a national emergency situation. Since the Reichstag fire was the act of a sole person, no such national emergency situation existed. So, effectively, it was a coup.

James Stuart said:

I never said the July 20 Plot was democratically inspired. I said several of its members were pre-war Social Democrats. I didn't even say that the coups end-goal was a return to parliamentary democracy, which was certainly on the drawing board, but may have been abandoned by the plotters had they actually succeeded.

Click to expand...

Actually, the July 20 plotters were aiming for a military government. But even the takeover of critical military positions in Berlin failed.

James Stuart said:

If you can find a single post I made stating that "De Gaulle instigated a coup" I will personally give you a damn lap dance.

Click to expand...

I'm glad we finally agree De Gaulle never instigated any coup.

James Stuart said:

And your argument fails on logical grounds anyway. De Gaulle found out that his buddies were holding a gun to the French state's head and ordering it to accept him, then calmly accepted its offer of power. If France were a woman, we'd call that rape.

Click to expand...

You miss the obvious fact that the government asked De Gaulle to return to power - on his own terms. The fact that the algerian miliatry situation was seriously getting out of hand would have been a major factor in this, obviously.

James Stuart said:

Absolutely not. I have a very favourable opinion of De Gaulle, but I still recognise that there was nothing democratic about his actions. Even with the state in chaos, he still barely won a plurality.

Click to expand...

That's actually quite common in democratic elections. It's also quite immaterial: coalition governments are nothing revolutionary. It would, in fact, have been more worrisome if De Gaulle had won elections by a clear majority. Even in a two party system such as the US this is rarely the case: presidents are generally elected by a plurality, not a majority.

That is quite incorrect. No president has ever been elected without a majority. Understand that a president is elected by the electoral college. The popular vote is solely to pick the electors, nothing more.

You understood perfectly well what he meant, it was relevant in the context of the discussion, whereas the presidential college most pointedly is not relevant.

Agent327 said:

Not in the view of the Algerian military.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean the French military in Algeria. Since De Gaulle was the one they were placing in charge, it doesn't particularly matter what Massu and others thought. Once De Gaulle had power, he always intended on calling either an election or a referendum. Likely a referendum; he seemed very predisposed towards them. This is probably for the same reason he preferred direct election of a President than the Fourth Republic's system; it's a simple yes or no from the people.

Agent327 said:

The Reichstag fire was used as a pretext to abolish all semblance of democratic government by invoking the Ermächtigungsgestez, intended for a national emergency situation. Since the Reichstag fire was the act of a sole person, no such national emergency situation existed. So, effectively, it was a coup.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this is simply laughable. I'm unsure if you don't know what a coup is, or if you don't know how the emergency decree was actually passed, but the Nazi Party seeking parliamentary approval to pass a bill on emergency powers is about as far from a coup as you can get. It's one of a small minority of cases where the Nazi Party acted entirely within the constitution.

Agent327 said:

Actually, the July 20 plotters were aiming for a military government. But even the takeover of critical military positions in Berlin failed.

Click to expand...

Yes, a Cabinet consisting of Carl Goerdeler as Chancellor and Wilhelm Lueschner is a military government. The military men behind the July 20 Plot were mostly anti-democratic; many of them strongly supported Hitler in the early years of his rule. Some were monarchists. But the civilian officials they formed alliances with to gain power were, by and large, pre-war democrats, mostly from the National and Centre parties, with a few Social Democrats thrown in for good measure.

Agent327 said:

I'm glad we finally agree De Gaulle never instigated any coup.

Click to expand...

I wish I could swear on these boards, because if ever a comment deserved a great big "FU," it's this one. I'm reporting you for it, again. To claim I am "finally" agreeing with you, after you repeatedly use a strawman argument against something I never said, is just sad, and shows your argument up for what it really is.

Moderator Action: Infracted for language. Please don't try to get around the autocensor like that.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Agent327 said:

You miss the obvious fact that the government asked De Gaulle to return to power - on his own terms. The fact that the algerian miliatry situation was seriously getting out of hand would have been a major factor in this, obviously.

Click to expand...

She gave her consent, your honour! The fact that my buddy was holding her at gunpoint and threatening to rip her pants off was a major factor, obviously.

Agent327 said:

That's actually quite common in democratic elections. It's also quite immaterial: coalition governments are nothing revolutionary. It would, in fact, have been more worrisome if De Gaulle had won elections by a clear majority. Even in a two party system such as the US this is rarely the case: presidents are generally elected by a plurality, not a majority.

Click to expand...

I said De Gaulle barely achieved a plurality. You comment that presidents are generally elected by pluralities, not majorities. I'm not sure what point you're tryin to make here.

@Oda: bhsup is right. I'm unsure why you took issue with it. Even so, I believe most US Presidents have historically won both the electoral college and the popular vote anyway. Bush, Jr is the exception, not the rule.

He's right, but he's also being nitpicky about rather irrelevant details. The point being made was about popular support for the president (or lack of thereof) and their ability to get it; in that regard it's the popular vote, not the electoral college that matters.

And Bush Jr. didn't "barely achieve a plurality" - he outright failed to achieve even that. Gore had the plurality of votes, but Bush Jr. won the electoral college (note that I'm not saying anything about the legitimacy of either as president, just nothing that in comparison de Gaulle had a popular support landslide). There were three other such cases in US history. In addition to which we have a further 14 cases of a candidate being elected president with the most votes, but less than 50% of the popular votes, including some who won by the narrowest margins (Garfield in 1880, Kennedy in 1960), and more who won by less than the 3% margin between the Gaullists and thei closest rival party in the 1958 legislative election (Nixon in 68, Carter in 76, Bush in 04, who had a majority but a lower margin...)

It's also worth noting that these are the results of CDG's supporters in the legislative election, so elections that were only indirectly about de Gaulle himself. The first presidential election was not done by popular vote so doesn't really tell us much, but his second one in 65 was a clear victory with no "barely" about it)