Thread: Viewpoints on Douglas MacArthur

Originally Posted by TopHatter

I completely agree that MacArthur was responsible for the PI debacle.
He was also ultimately responsible for his air power being destroyed on the ground.
However, I have to say, for example, that the entire USAAF contingent on the PI was not exactly screaming bloody murder for their aircraft to be dispersed.

Actually, the Army Air Force was aware of the vulnerablility of Clarke and other airfields, but got no answer to their requests for improvements. Likewise, the RAF pointed out this problem.

Seven hours before the Japanese attack, General Brereton requested permission to launch an air attack on Japanese forces in Formosa. MacArthur said no and informed him that "our role is defensive". After additional pleading from Brereton, MacArthur finally changed his mind, but too late, and the aircraft were destroyed on the ground.

Later, MacArthur again claimed he did not launch his aircraft because his primary role was defensive. But this contradicts the war orders he was given in November to "conduct air raids against Japanese forces and installations within tactical operating radius of available bases". That is why 34 B-17s (half the total US fleet at the time) were in the Philippines in the first place.

Furthermore, if MacArthur did believe his role should be defensive, why were no air patrols launched? Why were the B-17s not moved to less forward and vulnerable bases?

In perspective, MacArthur's sins were on a level with Kimmel's, the commander at Pearl Harbor. Unlike Kimmel however, MacArthur had advanced warning and his post, the Philippines, was an expected target of Japanese attack. Kimmel was removed from command after investigations into what went wrong at Pearl. The Philippines debacle was never investigated.

Also, it is rather hard to train an army when there is no money, equipment, weapons or ammunition available.
MacArthur tried to obtain these things and was denied time and time again.
He did get some good assets, such as the B-17s, but what about AA guns to defend their airfield? Why was there not slit trenches and air-raid shelters dug at the airfields? Yes, MacArthur could have and should have ordered it. But did the air corps need to have their hand held to do such things? Was initiative that lacking?

It is true that US doctrine had long declared the Philippines indefensible and no resources were allocated for defending them. This attitude changed in early 1941, due to a new-found (and misplaced) confidence in long range bombers such as the B-17. This was why MacArthur was given the task of making the Philippines defensible- so the islands could be used as a forward base for long range bombing. MacArthur gave assurances to everyone that he could repell an attack. If he felt he did not have resources adequate for the job, it was his responsibility to say so.

I'm not trying to be an apologist for a man that has been dead for many decades, but I do think that most people don't really have all the facts.
Once again, I recommend American Ceasar to anyone wanting to get another opinion. It's hardly biased in MacArthur's favor either, which is one of the prime reasons I recommend it.

As you can tell, MacArthur is not exactly my favorite WWII general. Roosevelt kept MacArthur in highly visible, but not critical, posts for political reasons. Roosevelt felt he could enlist more war support from the Hoover branch of the Republican party by employing one of their heros.

Great post by the way Broken, this is a very stimulating thread.

Thanks, your posts are good as well. I have been reading quite a few books lately on US strategy in WWII, but I will check into American Ceasar. You might take a look at the book I recommended above, Commander in Chief. Good sketches of all the top US military commanders, including Marshall, King, Eisenhower, Arnold, Vandegrift, Nimitz, Stilwell, Lamay and MacArthur. I have some small gripes here and there, but overall it is very insightful and a fast read.