Perceptions of Douglas MacArthur

What is your view of General MacArthur?


  • Total voters
    23
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)
He needed a run-off election in '65. Thanks for that info on American elections. It's hardly my area of expertise. It would seem, by the slimmest of margins, that I'm technically correct. The best kind of correct.
 
Apologies, Oba. I really wasn't trying to be nitpicky. I was trying to clarify. Many people don't know how our Presidential system works.
 
Needing a run-off election in France is the norm ; EVERY election under the fifth republic has been a run-off election (excluding the first, which was a special format). As it should be in ANY election where you have six serious candidates and need an absolute majority to win.

He still was 13% ahead of his closest rival after the first round. That's a decisive plurality by the standards of a two-rounds system.
 
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.

Again, you are assuming the coup would succeed. In the event, it did not. In fact, there was no coup. So your conclusions are based on a flawed premiss.

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.

If you'd read my comment carefully, you might have noted Hitler abused the emergency law to abolish parliamentary proceedings permanently. That was not the intention of said law. So yes, it was a coup.

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.

The latter would be the point. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here if you are in agreement it would be a military government.

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.

I think this would a good example of strawman. Also, in very bad taste. Not to mention failed analogy.

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.

Perhaps you simply don't want somebody to agree with you.

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.

Errr, no. Presidential elections in the US rarely get a 50% turnout. It would be impossible for any candidate under such circumstances to win an absolute majority, since the majority simply doesn't vote. (Not to mention the peculiar system whereby voters don't actually elect the candidate, but elect electors.) So, Bush Jr was just following the rule.
 
Again, you are assuming the coup would succeed. In the event, it did not. In fact, there was no coup. So your conclusions are based on a flawed premiss.



If you'd read my comment carefully, you might have noted Hitler abused the emergency law to abolish parliamentary proceedings permanently. That was not the intention of said law. So yes, it was a coup.



The latter would be the point. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here if you are in agreement it would be a military government.



I think this would a good example of strawman. Also, in very bad taste. Not to mention failed analogy.



Perhaps you simply don't want somebody to agree with you.



Errr, no. Presidential elections in the US rarely get a 50% turnout. It would be impossible for any candidate under such circumstances to win an absolute majority, since the majority simply doesn't vote. (Not to mention the peculiar system whereby voters don't actually elect the candidate, but elect electors.) So, Bush Jr was just following the rule.
I'm done. You're not worth the time.
 
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?

No, because it is not a soldier's place to make policy decisions. A soldier's place is to obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed over them and the orders of the President of the United States. So even if the order may be stupid or get a lot of people killed, if it is a lawful order it must be followed without question.

MacArthur tried to be a modern-day Caesar by trying to convert his military success into political influence. Left unchecked, I have no doubt he would have made an attempt at a coup. Also, the fact that he commanded the loyalty of his men meant the only solution was to remove him from his position to avoid giving him the chance to leverage that loyalty against the federal government. Generals are obviously given much more discretionary power than lower ranked soldiers, but they still have limits and are far from being at the top of the food chain. Basically MacArthur overstepped his considerable limits as a General, and got his pee-pee slapped by Truman
 
Not long after that, Dwight D Eisenhower was president...
 
Not long after that, Dwight D Eisenhower was president...
MacArthur was the front-runner for the Republican nomination until Truman b-slapped him over his nonsense in Korea. Eisenhower was a far better general and man, and made a much better President than the clueless narcissist MacArthur would have.

With that said, we almost had a situation where the general in charge of the war against Japan, MacArthur, ran for the Presidency against the general in charge of the war in Europe, Eisenhower. Both were five-star generals, both headed up occupation forces post-war. Even more interestingly, Eisenhower was willing to run for either the Republicans or the Democrats, choosing the Republicans because they made him the better offer. If MacArthur had acted slightly less precipitously in Korea, he would have received the Republican nomination, and Eisenhower would have run as a Democrat.

Scarily, MacArthur would probably have won; Ike didn't care much for public relations, and the Republicans had a strong advantage over the Democrats in 1952 regardless of who they put up as their candidate; 20 years is a long time for any individual party to govern, and the electorate was finally turning on the Democrats. From an historical standpoint, this is a fascinating situation.
 
I'm done. You're not worth the time.

You have a funny way of admitting you have no argument.

But let's get back to business:

MacArthur was the front-runner for the Republican nomination until Truman b-slapped him over his nonsense in Korea. Eisenhower was a far better general and man, and made a much better President than the clueless narcissist MacArthur would have.

With that said, we almost had a situation where the general in charge of the war against Japan, MacArthur, ran for the Presidency against the general in charge of the war in Europe, Eisenhower.

Yes, except Eisenhower was supreme allied commander.

Both were five-star generals, both headed up occupation forces post-war. Even more interestingly, Eisenhower was willing to run for either the Republicans or the Democrats, choosing the Republicans because they made him the better offer. If MacArthur had acted slightly less precipitously in Korea, he would have received the Republican nomination, and Eisenhower would have run as a Democrat.

Humbug. Eisenhower declined offers to run for presidency in 1948 and made public his preference for the Republicans in 1952. 'Better offer' had nothing to do with it. MacArthur, on the other hand, didn't even run for the Republican primaries.

Scarily, MacArthur would probably have won; Ike didn't care much for public relations, and the Republicans had a strong advantage over the Democrats in 1952 regardless of who they put up as their candidate; 20 years is a long time for any individual party to govern, and the electorate was finally turning on the Democrats. From an historical standpoint, this is a fascinating situation.

Yes. It's also utterly fantastic. I'd suggest doing some actual research before posting your views.
 
You have a funny way of admitting you have no argument.

But let's get back to business:



Yes, except Eisenhower was supreme allied commander.



Humbug. Eisenhower declined offers to run for presidency in 1948 and made public his preference for the Republicans in 1952. 'Better offer' had nothing to do with it. MacArthur, on the other hand, didn't even run for the Republican primaries.



Yes. It's also utterly fantastic. I'd suggest doing some actual research before posting your views.
Please stop harassing me in multiple threads, especially to post insults, strawmen, and inaccurate information.
 
Moderator Action: James Stuart and Agent327, if you can't converse civilly, please avoid engaging with each other at all.

For clarity's sake, let me add that there is nothing in the forum rules against strawmanning or using bad arguments, so don't report each other for doing so.

Please keep the discussion constructive and respectful and avoid deliberately antagonising each other.

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Yes, except Eisenhower was supreme allied commander.

If by that you mean he was in overall charge of the allied war effort, wrong. The rank of SAC was limited to specific theaters (Eisenhower's beign western europe).

If by that you mean he had that title and MacArthur did not, it's worth opinting out that MacArthur had similar responsibility over an entire theater of operation. And of course at war's end he was appointed Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (to oversee the occupation of Japan). Which is effectively the same title, just with a slightly different wording.

He was also in fact the general in charge of all military operations by the western allies in the Pacific (with Nimitz being in charge of all naval ones) by the end of the war.

So...effectively, yes, "The general in charge of the war in Europe" vs "The general in charge of the war in the pacific" is pretty much accurate.
 
If by that you mean he was in overall charge of the allied war effort, wrong. The rank of SAC was limited to specific theaters (Eisenhower's beign western europe).

If by that you mean he had that title and MacArthur did not, it's worth opinting out that MacArthur had similar responsibility over an entire theater of operation. And of course at war's end he was appointed Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (to oversee the occupation of Japan). Which is effectively the same title, just with a slightly different wording.

He was also in fact the general in charge of all military operations by the western allies in the Pacific (with Nimitz being in charge of all naval ones) by the end of the war.

So...effectively, yes, "The general in charge of the war in Europe" vs "The general in charge of the war in the pacific" is pretty much accurate.
No need to waste your time, Oda. It's a well-known, frequently attested to fact that Eisenhower was offered the nomination by both parties in 1951, and decided on the Republicans because he felt they had better national security chops. It's not in dispute. Yet this guy is still denying it. There's no point attempting to argue with someone who treats discussion so dishonestly and does no research, while decrying the research abilities of others.
 
Top Bottom