LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteIt does delve into the curriculum reforms and the heightened emphasis on academic achievements that he instituted.Originally Posted by shek
When I get the book back from my son-in-law, I'll be able to give you a more detailed summation.
Inchon was a brillant risk that paid off hugely. The tide had finally been stemmed at the Pusan Perimeter and the North Koreans were overextended, so any successful landing north of the NK main body would have resulted in a rout of the North Koreans. The use of Inchon due to its difficulties in supporting an amphibious landing was a smart risk due to the suprise it offered (why land there?).
I'm curious how much the book you are reading talks about MacArthur's time as the Superintendent at West Point. I know that he implemented numerous reforms there that had a positive impact.
It does delve into the curriculum reforms and the heightened emphasis on academic achievements that he instituted.
When I get the book back from my son-in-law, I'll be able to give you a more detailed summation.
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin
As a small aside to you of a military background, my (military layman that I am) bone of contention with the man has always been his “Bug Out from Corrigidor”.
Was he in your opinion correct in following a direct order from his Commander in Chief?
Or should he have turned a deaf ear to it?
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin
He follows orders from the CinC when it suits him. MacArthur even fooled himself into thinking that only he could organize a rescue force for Corrigidor and blamed his 2IC for surrendering instead of accepting the responsibility for the defeat himself.
He certainly did not follow Truman's order to shut the hell up and openly defied his CinC in that regard, even challenging the authority of the Joint Chiefs.
His most famous quote is most telling "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away." He never had any intention of blazing out in glory (which I admit is also quite stupid) but also meant that risks to his personal safety is not high on his mind.
Chimo
I guess that I do have a somewhat romantized view of military conduct. Or maybe suffer from what Americans would call a John Paul Jones Syndrome: “Surrender, Hell I’ve just begun to fight!”
Like I said romantized not pragmatic.
It’s just the picture of a commanding officer abandoning his command to rot in four years in a Japanese POW camp, or maybe, OoE, him blaming his 2IC for not doing something he didn’t stomach doing himself: …blazing out in glory…, is somewhat repugnant.
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin
I would never surrender to the enemy, not even if my CO ordered me to. And certainly NOT to the Japanese.
Surrender is not in my character.
At that time, America needed a hero. MacArthur was that hero. FDR could not afford to have him die on Corrigedor. He needed a live hero, not a dead martyr.
If you were completely out of ammo,provisions,were wearing what was once a fine uniform and the enemy is bombarding you to hell and back, well.........
As Gen George Thomas said, "we are all cowards in the face of immediate death."
"Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell
Hindsight is 20/20. However, after the Bantan Death March, very few Americans asked for mercy from the Japanese and certainly gave none.
Chimo
My best advice to everybody interested (except Amled), is to read William Manchester's American Ceasar. I myself am a big fan of Manchester's style of writing and he pulls no punches where the General's flaws are concerned, but neither does he castigate him at length when other factors affected things.
There are a few VERY annoying factual errors (for example, Manchester mentions the name of an IJN aircraft carrier that I don't believe even existed, though it's fairly obvious which carrier he meant) but all in all, it's an excellent read.
Surrender to japs. I would rather die. Germans on the other hand were alot nicer to the POWs
Not that the Japanese were very interested in surrendering sir. They took the phrase "fight to the death" literally.
As for the rest, surrendering to the Japanese isn't the best idea if survival is in one's long term interests. Nor the North Koreans.
Or any Asian culture?
The Germans were nicer if you were white and non-jewish. If you were a slav, jew or anything else undersirable than well god help you, for the Germans certainly wont.
Here in Pakistan, WWII veterens tell stories about being captured by the Germans. If you had light skin, light colour hair and eyes (as Pathans, Balochis and some Northern Punjabis do) you were safe. If you were Sindhi, or South Indian well.........
But it seems Japanese were a lot kinder to the Indians they captured. Maybe it is racial after all.
"Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell
Read the Burma Campaigns and the fall of Singapore.
Chimo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: