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

Originally Posted by Albert1981

The problem with the Truman administration and their European friends is that they never understood MacArthur. MacArthur worked and lived in the Far East for a good portion of his life. He understood the Oriental mindset better than any other American commander. He personified America to Asia for much of the first half of the 20th century. MacArthur knew that Orientals respected a winner (militarily) and he was one throughout his glorious military career.

Stop right there.

In our society it is not the role of the administration to "understand the theater commander."

It is the role of the theater commander to understand and execute the policy of the civilian government.

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Stop right there.

In our society it is not the role of the administration to "understand the theater commander."

It is the role of the theater commander to understand and execute the policy of the civilian government.

But AR, he understood the 'oriental mindset', and you know how inscrutable those orientals are.

Apparently he could also get money from Jews, make coloured folk brave, keep irishmen sober & was a dab hand at Phrenology.)

Of course, as someone awkwardly pointed out, if he understood the 'orientsal mindset' so well than he wouldn't have gotten his arse whipped by Homma & Lin Biao.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

But AR, he understood the 'oriental mindset', and you know how inscrutable those orientals are.

Apparently he could also get money from Jews, make coloured folk brave, keep irishmen sober & was a dab hand at Phrenology.)

Of course, as someone awkwardly pointed out, if he understood the 'orientsal mindset' so well than he wouldn't have gotten his arse whipped by Homma & Lin Biao.

Not to mention his ability to levitate.

Thanks for pulling me back from the precipice. I just go fangs out real quick when I start hearing folks advocating the primacy of the military over the civilian in our government. Anyone advocating otherwise does not understand our Constitution or what the Founders meant.

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Thanks for pulling me back from the precipice. I just go fangs out real quick when I start hearing folks advocating the primacy of the military over the civilian in our government. Anyone advocating otherwise does not understand our Constitution or what the Founders meant.

I was sharing some real good scotch with my RSM last night and we've got to be yapping. He's working as a systems lead these days for a computer firm working for Canada Post. He had an observation that you can tell who was military and who was not.

You assign the difficult tasks to the military guys. They will b_itch, moan, throw temper tantrums about how stupid things are and how dumb the upper management is ... to the point that the civies are almost afraid of assigning them tasks ... but we always get the job done.

Funny thing was his supervisor was a USAF Colonel who somehow concentrated all the former military (mostly Canadian Forces) in his little department.

One story goes that the Full Bird always read all the emails sent to him instead of passing them through up the ladder. The language is often not the most appropriate as one other manager found out.

I have studied Doug MacArthur's career for over two years and I can assert, with lots of back up references, that MacArthur was a liar, bordering on a coward, a consumate self-promoter; a person who awarded himself decorations he was not entitled to and, worst of all, a waster of US, Allied and civillian lives. His surviving relatives or estate can try to sue me for these statements and I'd love to have a day in any court proving my assertions. The closest he ever got to the muzzle of a Japanese weapon was 300 ft down in a cave and nearly 300 miles away. He churned out multiple press releases almost every day telling the world how great he was. He was an utter disaster as a military commander. I have great respect for the US military and have many good mates in US services, but in the case of MacArthur he was, I assert, a disgrace to the uniform he wore, and a man who was, quite possibly, mentally deranged. There are many sources, books and individuals who knew him who will back up what I say. Start by reading a startling book by Mr Jack Gallaway titled: 'The Odd Couple: Blamey and MacArthur At War'. Mr Gallaway has spent far more time than I researching docuemnts, interviewing witnesses and he, in fact, met 'Big Mac'
When he 'escaped' the Phillipines (ran away) he stated his three aircraft were harrassed and attacked by Japanese aircraft. I had the opportunity to interview the navagator of the aircraft Big Mac was on and he swore to me the flight to Australia was completely uneventful and safe.
He conned Australia's Prime Minister, John Curtin and our senior war cabinet ministers and expressly excluded the Commander-In-Chief of the Australian Forces, General Sir Thomas Blamey, from the regular War Council meetings in which he directed the Pacific campaign, while publicly complimenting him. He loathed Blamey and allowed many Australian troops and servicemen and women to do the fighting and dieing in PNG, and elsewhere, while his troops drank their way around northern Australian pubs and hotels. He lied to Curtin by saying the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the US President, had insisted that Blamey go to PNG to 'get things moving more quickly'. What he didn't tell Curtin is the fact that he, MacArthur, insisted that this should happen. The concept of sending a nation's Commander-In-Chief into a war zone was unheard of. Blamey, did, in fact go to PNG many times, placing himself in harm's way. MacArthur made, literally, one 'day-trip' to PNG, to a rear area.
Big Mac had no intention of allowing 'allied' (read Australian) troops to take any part (or take any credit) for the island hopping to win the Pacific campaign. MacArthur's insane egotism even extended to doing his best to exclude the US Navy from claiming any of the glory for their gallant fighting and ultimate sacrifices.
Read your history, buddy, it's all there in documentary form. MacArthur didn't have a clue about jungle fighting or the plight of US or Australian troops, many of whom laid down their lives directly due to General Douglas MacArthur's total lack of experience. Blamey might have been a deeply flawed, insensitive prig at times but I can tell you with absolute certaintity that Blamey cared about the fate of his troops.
I know I will get an avalanche of criticism for my statements and I'm ready to listen to any firm evidence that may prove me wrong.
Regards to all.
Bill Halliwell
Geilston Bay, Tasmania, Australia
ex-RAAF

Bill,

If you read this thread, you're preaching to the choir. Welcome to the board.

G'day Officer of Engineers,
Your're right, I didn't read the rest of the comments, I just read that one statement and got so incensed at the thought that after all these years the iconic myth of MacArthur still lives in the minds of those who can't be bothered to pick up a book and read.
I am a military documentary film maker nowadays and I am working on a project about Sir Thomas Blamey. He was a deeply flawed person who made several bad judgement calls, even as Victoriam Police Commissioner between the wars, but he DID care about his troops and he DID have battle command experience and wanted to do more but he was such an outstanding Staff Officer he was forbidden, on many occasions, to take part in any situation that placed his life at risk. That didn't deter him. Although, he didn't officialy lead an army group in battle though he constantly went to all the fronts he was assigned to and on a couple of occasions had to be physically removed because the field commanders would not take the responsibility for his safety. Could you do me a favour and spread the word that I am working on a docco and mini-series, with my mate the director, Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper) on Blamey's life, warts and all. However the more I read of him the more I like him. If anyone on this site can help me with anecdotes, stories, yarns or facts about Blamey, especially photos! could they please write to me at PO Box 162 Lindisfarne, Tasmania 7015, Australia
Or at halliwellmedia@bigpond.com
Cheers,
Bill

Originally Posted by raafbloke

MacArthur was a liar, bordering on a coward, a consumate self-promoter; worst of all, a waster of US, Allied and civillian lives.

MacArthur was many of the things you've listed, in spades. In fact, 'self-promoter' is a rather kind and gentle way of putting it.

But I do take issue with your assertion that he was a coward or bordering on such. Can you back it up? From what I've read he had a tendency to recklessly expose himself to enemy fire. Hardly a coward.

Also, you claim he was a waster of Allied and civlian lives. Again, can you back that up? Again, from what I've read, he was, compared to the vast majority of commanders, parsimonious with the lives of his men.

I will say that there's no question in my mind that Aussies and Kiwis hold grudges against him. He treated them and their soldiers with contempt.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

MacArthur was many of the things you've listed, in spades. In fact, 'self-promoter' is a rather kind and gentle way of putting it.

But I do take issue with your assertion that he was a coward or bordering on such. Can you back it up? From what I've read he had a tendency to recklessly expose himself to enemy fire. Hardly a coward.

RAAFbloke is incorrect here, Tophatter.

MacArthur was reckless in the frontline during WWI, and as Ronald Spector described his press-inspired famous/infamous landing at Leyte, it occurred as mortar and small arms fire was still happening. A large LCM was burning nearby. MacArthur smoked his pipe and was the only one of his group crossing the beach without a helmet, walking "as if the nearest *** snipers were on Saturn instead of in the palm tops a few hundred yards away" (Eagle Against the Sun, p428)

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Also, you claim he was a waster of Allied and civlian lives. Again, can you back that up? Again, from what I've read, he was, compared to the vast majority of commanders, parsimonious with the lives of his men.

RAAFbloke is on sounder ground here, Tophatter.

Without local knowledge of the conditions, MacArthur was fond of really dumb frontal infantry assaults against fixed fortifications in Papua New Guinea, expecting both US and Australian commanders to do them without tank, aircraft or naval support.

MacArthur's rivals in the Central Pacific, the combination of Nimitz/Turner/Holland Smith would never have done this.

In the Phillippines, MacArthur chose not to hop around points of resistance. Personal revenge for his failure in 1941 was on the line, so instead of, say, isolating Manila the way Rabaul had been, 100,000 civilians died in bitter street-to-street fighting trying to take it.

Of all Allied cities, only Warsaw in the '44 uprising was more damaged.

"Of all Allied cities, only Warsaw in the '44 uprising was more damaged."

The Russians might argue with you about a city or two. Offhand, I'd think Smolensk in 1941 and Stalingrad in 1942 equalled or exceeded Warsaw and Manila.

I would have thought you could throw Leningrad into that list too, S-2, but the source is Spector on p524 ... I've seen it said in another book too ... I've no idea what their definitions are!

Originally Posted by clackers

Without local knowledge of the conditions, MacArthur was fond of really dumb frontal infantry assaults against fixed fortifications in Papua New Guinea, expecting both US and Australian commanders to do them without tank, aircraft or naval support.

Agreed, his conduct of the New Guinea campaign was extremely sub-par

MacArthur's rivals in the Central Pacific, the combination of Nimitz/Turner/Holland Smith would never have done this.

I have to disagree here, when they sent Marines in against island after island, each time charging straight into the teeth of fanatical Japanese defenders.

Many of those assaults were wholly unneeded (Peleliu comes immediately to mind).

Granted these islands were small and finesse was not exactly available, but that's precisely why they should been bypassed and left to wither on the vine like the others.

In the Phillippines, MacArthur chose not to hop around points of resistance. Personal revenge for his failure in 1941 was on the line, so instead of, say, isolating Manila the way Rabaul had been, 100,000 civilians died in bitter street-to-street fighting trying to take it.

Without checking your stats, I do agree: The whole of the Phillippines was more about revenge for him than a truly legitimate military target.

I'd have to pull out some references to back up my doubts about MacArthur (always) being wasteful with the lives of his troops.