Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do Aussies and Kiwis hold grudges about Douglas MacArthur?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    HORSE PUCKY!

    He lost the Philipines for one. His air force was still on the ground 10 hours after Pearl Harbour. He was beaten by the Chinese. And he had the gall to flip off his CIC.

    I would've relieved him.
    Air Commander Lewis H. Brereton and Lieutenant General Richard K. Sutherland deserve most of the blame for the debacle at Clark Air Base. Brereton was denied access to MacArthur by Sutherland who for inexplicable reasons took it upon himself to speak to the General. Brereton also failed to get his aircraft and aircrew out of the danger zone when the Japanese threat was clearly growing by the hour. As I understand it, Brereton was partly responsible for disastrous military operations such as Operation Tidal Wave and Operation Market Garden where he presided over even greater losses in American aircraft. It is no wonder MacArthur had no confidence in him.

    Thankfully MacArthur managed to preside over the eventual American victory over Imperial Japan and her allies. He clearly was a winner when he accepted the Japanese surrender on board the USS Missouri. I would have given him a sixth star.

    Comment


    • #62
      Fortunately, you're not a military man. And the Japanese surrender has more to do with two atomic bombs than MacArthur.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Triple C View Post
        I have read some Chinese sources on the Korean War. Essentially the Chinese saw MacArthur's forces as national security threat which, considering MacArthur's anti-communism and insubordination to Trumman, had a firmer basis than mere paranoia. They also saw MacArthur's race to Yalu as a reckless move which set himself up for a decisive PLA counterblow.

        More to the point, the Chinese sources agree that the PLA exhausted itself in trying to catch the motorized Americans in a pocket. The PLA leadership did not anticipate the difficulties of trying to bring up supplies through Korean terrain, or to outrun a motorized army on foot. The exact number of Chinese losses was unclear, but reportedly it was huge, many inflicted by frostbite and hypothermia.

        The Chinese apparently believed that Ridgeway was a harder enemy to fight; they were not thrilled to fight positional warfare, and found Ridgeway's deliberate assaults difficult to parry.

        Btw: If Mac knew Asians so well, why didn't he realize that Mao would attack him inspite of the tremendous casaulties that he believed would deter a Chinese move?
        I am also convinced MacArthur wanted a showdown with Mao's forces. He said many times he wanted to destroy Communism in Asia once and for all. MacArthur was let down by Washington's lack of intelligence on Communist China and the Truman administration made the General a scapegoat for the defeats the UN suffered in the wake of that lack of intelligence.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          LOL, the "oriental" mind-set, someone stuck in the 1950s still?
          Did you also find that statement mildly offensive?
          All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
          -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Albert1981 View Post
            I am also convinced MacArthur wanted a showdown with Mao's forces. He said many times he wanted to destroy Communism in Asia once and for all. MacArthur was let down by Washington's lack of intelligence on Communist China and the Truman administration made the General a scapegoat for the defeats the UN suffered in the wake of that lack of intelligence.
            I don't know about that. If MacArthur was spoiling for a fight, that made his lackluster performance in the said fight the more inexcusable. It seemed an astounding lack of prudence for him to attack happily to the Yalu when a Chinese army gathered for an attack at his flank. Did he not have screening forces? Why didn't he take the reports of contact with substantial Chinese troops seriously?
            Last edited by Triple C; 28 May 08,, 17:11.
            All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
            -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

            Comment


            • #66
              Thankfully MacArthur managed to preside over the eventual American victory over Imperial Japan and her allies. He clearly was a winner when he accepted the Japanese surrender on board the USS Missouri. I would have given him a sixth star.
              What a load of crap. MacArthur did not win the pacific war, at best he waded ashore at leyte (twice).
              Victory was delivered by the carriers of the Pacific fleet and admiral Nimitz.

              And btw, Market Garden was all Monty and maybe a little ike for listening to him.
              Last edited by bolo121; 28 May 08,, 17:30.
              For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

              Comment


              • #67
                So Albert, you blame everybody around MacArthur except MacArthur himself. That kind of BS is no longer tolerated in today's military.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by astralis View Post
                  LOL, the "oriental" mind-set, someone stuck in the 1950s still?

                  So you mean to tell me that Orientals are not cunning & wily folk who only respect the White Man when he shows them how powerful he is? \

                  Gosh astralis, next think you'll be telling me that black folk can think for themselves. Where will it end?
                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Same place where it always end. Us men folk cowering before our wives.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      So Albert, you blame everybody around MacArthur except MacArthur himself. That kind of BS is no longer tolerated in today's military.

                      Remarkable thing about Mac, whenever he succeeded it was all his own work, whenever he failed it was those worthless subordinates again. Guess he was just a poor judge of character.
                      sigpic

                      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Albert1981 View Post
                        I am also convinced MacArthur wanted a showdown with Mao's forces. He said many times he wanted to destroy Communism in Asia once and for all. MacArthur was let down by Washington's lack of intelligence on Communist China and the Truman administration made the General a scapegoat for the defeats the UN suffered in the wake of that lack of intelligence.

                        No, Truman sacked a General who thought that he was no longer bound by the chain of command. MacArthur thought that it was his role to set America's foreign policy. A dangerous & deluded man by any measure.

                        Fortunately most American officers did & do not share his contempt for democracy. Fortunately Truman had the courage to assert the primacy of government over military, even in time of war. That is one of the reasons that America has remained a democracy.
                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                          I don't know about that. If MacArthur was spoiling for a fight, that made his lackluster performance in the said fight the more inexcusable. It seemed an astounding lack of prudence for him to attack happily to the Yalu when a Chinese army gathered for an attack at his flank. Did he not have screening forces? Why didn't he take the reports of contact with substantial Chinese troops seriously?
                          The intelligence provided to him was faulty. The Chinese easily outflanked the Eighth Army and the X Corps because of the sloppy and haphazard way in which they were being led (by Walker and Almond). Washington was just as guilty as Tokyo when it came to underestimating the Chinese.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Again, why were those two not relieved? There is ONLY ONE answer. MacArthur was satisfied with their progress. In the end, MacArthur is the one who is guitly, not Walker and not Almond.

                            You know, it would help greatly if you actually knew who attacked. On Thanksgiving Day, the Communists hit back with THREE armies. Two Chinese and one North Korean. In other words, the North Koreans were far from being defeated and whose fault is that? It ain't Washington misreading the Chinese.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Replacing commanders during a war could damage morale. And besides, it looked like the UN troops were winning at the time. MacArthur had no reason to fire his generals.

                              MacArthur had all the qualities of leadership that Erwin Rommel, George Patton, Georgy Zhukov, Bernard Montgomery and Isoroku Yamamoto all exhibited during the Second World War. He was absolutely brilliant.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Albert1981 View Post
                                Replacing commanders during a war could damage morale. And besides, it looked like the UN troops were winning at the time. MacArthur had no reason to fire his generals.
                                So he was satisfied with their performance and saw nothing wrong. Never mind the fact that they've made contact with both the Chinese and the North Koreans at the divisions level. The fault was MacArthur's pure and simple.

                                Originally posted by Albert1981 View Post
                                MacArthur had all the qualities of leadership that Erwin Rommel, George Patton, Georgy Zhukov, Bernard Montgomery and Isoroku Yamamoto all exhibited during the Second World War. He was absolutely brilliant.
                                Sorry, Son but you've just stepped into a minefield. Rommel was a tactical commander. Mac was nowhere near the front long enough. Patton taught the Germans a thing or two about maneuver warfare. Mac couldn't even outmaneuver a WWI army. Zhukov wrote the master thesis on Deep Battle. Mac could not even cut a LOC after Inchon. Montgomery was a master of logistics. Mac never accumulated enough for force for any decisive blow. Yamamoto was an Admiral who understood carriers. Mac was a bellycrawler.

                                Not even close. Rommel, Zhukov, Montgomery, and Patton each would have Mac as a snack, not even a full meal.
                                Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 30 May 08,, 17:43.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X