Thread: Why do Aussies and Kiwis hold grudges about Douglas MacArthur?

Originally Posted by clackers

We do of course know each other, WABbers ... in fact, if you're out there, S-2, I went to the great Black Crowes gig with him ...

Now, to save me a phone call, Bigfella (or Albert1981, for that matter, since you've read American Caesar as well), what does William Manchester have to say about Big Mac accepting half a million dollars from the Filipino President after he had rejoined the US Army? That's a vast sum of money in 1942.

Clackers,

I can't find a reference to the issue in Manchester, though I can only read him in small doses. The transactions (Sutherland & possibly Brereton got smaller amounts) were uncovered by Carol Petillo during PhD research. Given that she published a Mac Biog in 1981 & Manchester published in 1978 it is very possible he was unaware of the information. It is, however, a little embarassing that he missed it & a lowly PhD candidate picked it up. Oops!

Thanks, Bigfella ... those lowly PhD candidates do good stuff!

Interesting transcripts of a PBS docco on the man:

The American Experience | MacArthur | Enhanced Transcript Part I

The American Experience | MacArthur | Enhanced Transcript Part II

[QUOTE=clackers;501185]

Thanks, Bigfella ... those lowly PhD candidates do good stuff!

I wish.

Interesting transcripts of a PBS docco on the man:

The American Experience | MacArthur | Enhanced Transcript Part I

The American Experience | MacArthur | Enhanced Transcript Part II

Interesting indeed. Some high powered contributors including Ms Petillo.

In an earlier thread I wrote:

"I am not aware that New Zealand troops served under MacArthur at any time during the Pacific War and I am not aware of any feelings toward MacArthur positive or negative in the shaky isles."

NZ troops did fight in a few island campaigns in the Solomons & New Guinea where they MAY have been under MacArthur's command, though there is also mention of them being 'semi-independent'.

However, losses were light, so I have no information that invalidates the second part of the statement. In fact, the Kiwis were relieved by US troops so that they could join other NZ troops in Italy. Typical bloody Kiwis, Australia is nearly invaded & they are off liberating wine cellars.)

Originally Posted by JAD_333

He ranks among the best.

I simply cannot agree. As BF said, Mac got ******slaped by a WW1 style army that took Zhukov less than 3 weeks to beat - twice and the 2nd time from Moscow.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

In an earlier thread I wrote:

"I am not aware that New Zealand troops served under MacArthur at any time during the Pacific War and I am not aware of any feelings toward MacArthur positive or negative in the shaky isles."

NZ troops did fight in a few island campaigns in the Solomons & New Guinea where they MAY have been under MacArthur's command, though there is also mention of them being 'semi-independent'.

However, losses were light, so I have no information that invalidates the second part of the statement. In fact, the Kiwis were relieved by US troops so that they could join other NZ troops in Italy. Typical bloody Kiwis, Australia is nearly invaded & they are off liberating wine cellars.)

And stealing pianos. Some of my headmasters best stories were of playing the piano on the back of a truck driving through Italy.

As for Kiwis saving Australia, apart from the Navy & Airforce the 3rd NZ Division saw some action but IIRC were under the US Navy's command (Nimitz) rather than MacArthur's?
It was disbanded to make up numbers in the middle-east mid '44 and to get farm workers back to NZ also, seeing as how the Yanks were such healthy eaters.

[QUOTE=Parihaka;501191]

And stealing pianos. Some of my headmasters best stories were of playing the piano on the back of a truck driving through Italy.

Drunken piano-playing kiwis. Those poor paras at Monte Cassion never stood a chance.)

As for Kiwis saving Australia, apart from the Navy & Airforce the 3rd NZ Division saw some action but IIRC were under the US Navy's command (Nimitz) rather than MacArthur's? It was disbanded to make up numbers in the middle-east mid '44 and to get farm workers back to NZ also, seeing as how the Yanks were such healthy eaters.

Yep, the 3rd was the one that did the island campaigns. Not clear whose command they fell under, but I can't imagine they held much by way of grudges toward their US commander whoever it was.

You are right about our American cousins & their appetites. We had to create an entire bloody 'Land Army' of otherwise genteel & cultured Australian lasses just to keep the bastards fed!

Then they had the gall to steal the few women who weren't working on farms or in factories.

Talk about being caught betwixt frying pan & fire.)

[QUOTE=Bigfella;501195]

Originally Posted by Parihaka

You are right about our American cousins & their appetites. We had to create an entire bloody 'Land Army' of otherwise genteel & cultured Australian lasses just to keep the bastards fed!

Then they had the gall to steal the few women who weren't working on farms or in factories.

Talk about being caught betwixt frying pan & fire.)

Sounds like the British servicemens view on the American troops in the UK during WW2. "Over-sexed, over-paid and bloody well over here"!

"...if you're out there, S-2, I went to the great Black Crowes gig with him ..."

Slag away at Big Mac (even if he's a Wisconsin boy). You've earned the right with with Crowe coolness.

I'm easily swayed by those who are about to rock.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I simply cannot agree. As BF said, Mac got ******slaped by a WW1 style army that took Zhukov less than 3 weeks to beat - twice and the 2nd time from Moscow.

Keep in mind that US marines were a WWI army too. The geographical terrain just simply necessitated that. MacArthur was not fighting on the plains as Zhukov was. In fact, he was engaged in jungle warfare and island hopping warfare, which is simply not suited for manuever or mechanized warfare. Besides, his Phillipines Army was not mechanized but infantry and foot based.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

In fact, he was engaged in jungle warfare and island hopping warfare, which is simply not suited for manuever or mechanized warfare. Besides, his Phillipines Army was not mechanized but infantry and foot based.

Actually, Hitesh, this is where Burma showed that you can fight a combined arms campaign in the jungles ... and under the brilliant leadership of Bill Slim.

In particular, the Chindits and Merrill’s Marauders showed just how to fight a maneuver war in that terrain.

Originally Posted by S-2

I'm easily swayed by those who are about to rock.

Ah, if you're a Wisconsinian native, you've also got Richard Bong to be proud of, S-2 ...

Either way, I've noticed how open-minded you are in your posts and that you have this grace while you get your points across, even when you disagree with someone. I shake my head as to exactly how you achieve that!

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Keep in mind that US marines were a WWI army too. The geographical terrain just simply necessitated that. MacArthur was not fighting on the plains as Zhukov was. In fact, he was engaged in jungle warfare and island hopping warfare, which is simply not suited for manuever or mechanized warfare. Besides, his Phillipines Army was not mechanized but infantry and foot based.

Blademaster,

The Central Luzon Plain may not have been the Russian (or Mongolian) steppe, but I don't think it classifies as jungle either.

Further, Japanese victories on land throughout the Asia/Pacific in 1941/42 were built on the sort of rapid movement & concentration of force that any military commander from Napoleon to Bedford Forrest to Manstein would have understood & respected. Generals such as Yamashita took well trained & often experienced troops who were little better armed than WW1 troops and defeated larger forces of lesser quality. One of those forces was MacArthur's.

When the situation was reversed in Korea and Mac faced a much larger Chinese army, again little more than a big WW1 army, he was actually outmaneuvered.

All of the great generals mentioned had their bad moments, but none had as many or as bad as Mac did. Had he been sacked after the Philippines debacle he might be seen as little better than Percival in Malaya. Even after that the disasters of Papua in 1942/3 & Korea in 1950 would look bad on any General's CV.

In addition, MacArthur's committment to bypassing enemy forces came later than is often thought. He was very keen to re-take Rabaul in 1942. Agaionst 100,000 well dug in Japanese soldiers such an operation would have been a nightmare. it was only when the Navy finally persuaded him that there were suitable anchorages elsewhere that he abandoned this fooish plan. Finally there are his 'vanity operations' clearing Japanese out of the Philippines in 1945. He had sensibly avoided such unnecessary bloodshed in New Guinea, so he knew better. Add these all together and you have some big time mistakes.

The balance to these is his conduct of combined arms campaigns in New Guinea, the Philippines & later Inchon. These were outstanding achievements by any measure and can certainly rank with the achievements of other great Captains. My problem with MacArthur boosters is that this is all they want to focus on. They either deny MacArthur's errors or blame them on others. He was undoubtedly a talented commander, but he just did too much wrong too often to put in the company of the other great commanders of his day, let alone of history.

With even odds I think he would have been towelled up by a number of leading Russian & German commanders, Patton & Slim. I suspect he would have struggled against Montgomery & perhaps one or two of the better Japanese Generals.

When judging MacArthur I find his...handling of the "Bonus Army" (never understood that name) almost as telling as his acts during WWII and the Korea war.