As far as the "casualty myth" goes, one must consider the fact that McArthur's forces faced far more IJ ground forces than did the US forces in the Central Pacific. There were 500,000 men on the PI - figure 200,000 in New Guinea and 150,000 in the Bismarcks - most ended up in history's biggest POW camp. Should the US have taken Luzon? If not, there would have been 400,000 IJ troops cut off and hungry - not to mention US POWs - and if we were going to hit Japan, Manila Bay was needed.
You got it correct 100%. The comparisons between SWPA and Central Pacific campaigns need to be compared with the size of the islands. Nimitz was wasting lives in stupid campaigns on heavily defended SMALL islands. MacArthur was saving lives by avoiding heavy concentrations of Japanese soldiers and he was able to take out LARGER islands also. Peleliu and Iwo Jima were Nimitz 100% also. MacArthur had nothing to do with Peleliu and Iwo Jima. Nimitz' Peleliu and Iwo Jima also turned out to be complete waste of lives and time and energy!!! The only positive thing we got from Iwo Jima was literally a cool flag-raising photo on top of a mountain! Just imagine what those 450,000 Japanese troops would do to Americans and Filipinos trapped there after the destruction of Tokyo and other cities happened while banning MacArthur from even doing airstrikes in the whole Philippine islands. There would have been 1,000 Manila Massacres all over the Philippines as revenge for Tokyo/Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
@@nogoodnameleft I think that the two advances worked in concert in this environment where shipping was everything. It drove the Japanese nuts. The place where MacArthur should have been in command was Okinawa. The airbases were all on the north-northwest portion of the island. The Japanese allowed the US to land and cut the island in half. MacArthur suggested just digging in along a good line in the middle and let the Japanese attack. They would have - they always did when they could. And the Japanese would have been clobbered - very like the almost unknown Japanese attack on American lines at Torokina on Bougainville in March 44.
@@Ebergerud I agree. MacArthur would have done the Okinawa battle incredibly well. He would have ignored Iwo Jima and Peleliu. He did tiny island landings (Central Pacific style but not stupid meatgrinders like Nimitz' style) too at Wakde (40 KIA Americans), Biak (438 KIA), and Morotai (30 KIA) and they were all perfectly done. You know that Nimitz would have insisted on invading Halmahera which was a heavily fortified island just a few miles south of Morotai because Nimitz had no idea what he was doing when it came to amphibious landings or actual strategy. MacArthur's Western New Guinea Campaign led to incredibly low death numbers for the Allies and it is strange how this campaign called the RENO PLAN and his previous Operation Cartwhell are always ignored by "historians". It is a shame how nobody ever bothers to read Admiral William Halsey or Admiral Daniel Barbey's autobiographies where they praise MacArthur and respect him so much. They also don't bother reading General George Kenney and General Courtney Whitney's fantastic WWII/Japan Occupation/Korean War biographies about MacArthur. The men who served with MacArthur loved him.
@@nogoodnameleft MacArthur was a splendid general all in all. He was a very bad subordinate, but if he trusted you, was an excellent superior. He and Halsey had very good relations throughout the war and in the July 1944 "showdown" between MacArthur and Nimitz in front of FDR in Hawaii, Nimitz not so secretly agreed with him. The problem was that his superiors didn't know how to stop him - his self confidence was unlimited and he was expert at argument. But if Truman and the JCS did not want American and allied forces to go north of the 38th Parallel in 1950 they should have had a defined war aim and enforced it. Instead, they let things slide. MacArthur should have realized that the US was not ready for another major land war in 1950 - but he didn't - and the Yalu push was "cruising for a bruising" and the allies got bruised. Gettysburg was the price the South paid for RE Lee. The Yalu debacle was the price the US paid for MacArthur. But when MacArthur said there's "no substitute for victory" he knew his countrymen. And if things go sideways in Korea, MacArthur will look like a prophet. As it was he told JFK to stay away from Vietnam - because MacArthur didn't see a road to victory. Interesting man no doubt and a very good operational leader - and physically brave beyond others of his age and rank.
Some of his comments are contradict that said by James Zobel from the MacArthur Memorial. The plans for the European Campaign came from the Pentagon. MacArthur and his staff made their own plans not the Pentagon. That made it a lot easier on Marshall. Marshall flew to Goodenough Island to tell MacArthur that they planned to shut him down and for him to hurry to the Philippines. Apparently, he did not want to put that in writing. This is the only time anyone from the Chief's of Staff visited the Southwest Pacific Theater. Taking the Philippines kept 1,000,000 people from staving. It also shut the oil flow from Indonesia. We could not go invade Japan with 350,000 troops in our rear. Contrary to other comments it was necessary.
@@johnnotrealname8168 The podcasts from The MacArthur Memorial explains this on several episodes. The War Plans Division of the Army runs the war in Europe. MacArthur made the plans for the Southwest Pacific. Marshall wanted MacArthur in control in the Pacific to keep the Navy from running over the Army. SeeMarshall and MacArthur - Part II - WWII and Korea .
So much of the debate about McArthur is influenced by what happened during the Korean War and afterwards. McArthur’s concentration was always Asia, while the Administration was much more so on Europe , where NATO was then just being created. Certainly Stalin’s encouragement of the invasion of South Korea had to do with that. All the focus on McArthur’s personality tends to divert our attention from the world wide strategic situation in the spring of 1951 when the US was having to make choices of where to put our money,: toward defeating the Chinese or toward preventing some further move by Stalin in Europe.
@@davidharner5865 Awww, what's the matter? Your idols, aka the REMFs named Nimitz, Ike, Marshall, and Ernest King, were the greatest examples of mediocrity that you have nothing actually meaningful to say about them so you denigrate a true American hero who risked his life in combat on the frontlines (like Japanese bombers on Corregidor and kamikazes at Leyte Gulf and Lingayen Gulf) in WWI, WWII, and Korea? Nimitz was in Pearl Harbor sitting on his ass for most of the Pacific War (like 99.9% of the time) and Ike was hiding in Paris with his British female driver soldier girlfriend doing who knows what during the Battle of the Bulge. All four of those REMFs I mentioned never served a single day in combat during their whole lives!!! They were all desk warmers, unlike MacArthur.
As for the Allanbrooker comment. has it ever occurred to Mr. Boreman that he was making a dig at EISENHOWER? He was never impressed with Eisenhower as a commander. I am happy that he complimented Admiral King. Right man at the right place at the right time. He and Nimitz certainly made a great team.
The admiration and the love of Filipinos to our liberator the General Douglas Macarthur will never diminished with the recent revelation of him. The Japanese imperial army are the bad guys.
even so we have to assess him as a human being with his flaws and mistakes, he is not a god. He made mistakes in his military decision (ph defense) and moral ones (getting a 16 year old filipino girlfriend).
As a filipino we have to assess him as a human being with his flaws and mistakes, he is not a God. He made mistakes in his military decisions (ph defense) and moral ones (getting a 16 year old filipino girlfriend).
Trying to retake the Philippines in 1944 was a major mistake, and was strategically unnecessary. The Philippines were invaded only because MacArthur had promised to return, and he was going to do so regardless of the lack of strategic necessity and of the cost in American and Filipino lives. The Navy was progressing across the Central Pacific directly towards Japan. Taking the Marianas, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa would have been sufficient to win the war. In fact, that is what did win the war, as from the Marianas Japan could be bombed. The Japanese forces in the Philippines could have been bypassed and isolated in the same way that countless others were across the Pacific. The invasion of the Philippines, and the associated landings on Peleliu, cost thousands of American lives. Even worse, the invasion was a disaster for the people of the Philippines. As the US Army attacked Manila the Japanese forces there went on a rampage against Filipino civilians. The physical infrastructure, including most of the old Spanish colonial architecture, was destroyed, as were government records. This and the loss of lives made the task of recovery and reconstruction much more difficult. And even with the taking of Manila, Japanese forces continued to fight on in the interior until after the official surrender. It took a visit by a member of the Imperial Family to the Philippines, accompanied by American officials, to persuade the general commanding Japanese forces to surrender. He would have done the same even if there had been no invasion. Japanese forces in Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, and Taiwan all surrendered in that way after the government had surrendered and the American occupation had begun. But MacArthur had to have his photo op.
Absolutely yes, orders meant nothing to MacArthur. The President of the United States ordered MacArthur NOT to besiege the Bonus Army’s shanty town that contained the WW1 combat veterans wife’s and children. He not only ignored President Hoover’s order and sent tanks and troops to crush their encampment, but did it on two separate occasions. And many of these men there to petition for their unlawfully denied bonus promised to them by the United States War Department for combat service during WW1 in France were men who MacArthur had commanded in battle against the German Army back in 1917-18. MacArthur was a complete prick
@@parrot849 Your facts are all wrong. Five-Star General Douglas MacArthur' own subordinates (Even Dwight David Eisenhower I think.) agreed that MacArthur did not receive orders (Some say it was because he refused to receive them and others say the higher-ups refused to give them to him. The order in any case was not to cross a river he was ordered to shut down the camp by this point and the march itself was illegal as the bonus was only to be given in 1945 not 1932. In the end no-one died! Not one American died!
@@johnnotrealname8168 You my friend are completely wrong in every respect, recheck your sources of information, if for nothing else but for your own enlightenment.
I am going to have to dispute the New Guinea failure for the simple reason the Japanese overland route was doomed from the start. Even hypohystericalhistory, who thinks Five-Star General Douglas MacArthur was a burden and hampered Australian military efforts. He says none of the experienced Australian Generals were worried unlike MacArthur. So I do not get how here MacArthur is in error for the near-capture of Port Moresby. Edit: Where is he getting his casualty numbers from? Now you might be thinking that I am going to suggest lower numbers but no William Raymond Manchester puts the Edit2: "casualty figures for MacArthur" at "90,437 from Australia to V-J Day" so how exactly is the total only 100,000 casualties (The total for all services' casualties. He may be referencing only the dead?)? Also such casualties are low they are as Manchester puts it " fewer than those in the Battle of the Bulge" which he puts at "106,502". If you want another perspective, the total number of American dead in the Volcano and Ryūkyū Islands campaign (1945) is 27,113 but the Philippines campaign (1945) incurred only 20,712 American dead. Not amazing sure but better no doubt.
Douglas MaArthur may have had his own human and professional lows, but he nonetheless stood far higher than any other military commander and statesman, including critics who know nothing but try to dishonor and disrespect a great soldier and a great American..
Most importantly MacArthur was never a REMF like Ike, Marshall, Nimitz, and King (most of the MacArthur haters seem to be huge fans of those 4 men. I don't actually want to criticize those 4 great men BUT I mean their fans all call MacArthur a "coward" while they say nothing about those 4 generals/admirals serving zero seconds in combat their whole careers altogether unlike MacArthur's incredible combat experience in WWI, WWII, and Korea [MacArthur bravely flew to and landed at Suwon Airfield on 6/29/1950 to do personal reconnaissance despite Truman and the JCS telling him to send some captains and colonels to do it instead! MacArthur almost got attacked by North Korean fighters at Suwon and he shockingly drove 30 miles north to the Han River at Seoul and he witnessed North Korean soldiers who were just 1 or 2 miles away from where he stood bombing and shelling South Korean troops and attacking Seoul buildings! This reconnaissance mission truly helped push Truman to immediately greenlight ground combat operations in Korea.]). Nimitz was in Pearl Harbor 99% of the time during WWII while MacArthur almost died in aerial bombings of Corregidor for 3 months and MacArthur exposed himself to kamikazes, torpedoes, and aerial bombs while stationed on light cruisers in Leyte Gulf and Lingayen Gulf!!! Any of the hundreds of kamikazes at Lingayen Gulf that ended up killing British Lieutenant General Herbert Lumsden and U.S. Rear Admiral Theodore Chandler in January 1945 could have killed or seriously wounded MacArthur!!! I do not understand the "Dugout Doug" nickname. One of the most inaccurate nicknames in human history.
Macarthur resigned in1937, in 1941 Roosevelt reinstated him to lead, I' m sure there are plenty of officer in the military. But choose him instead. 1945 occupation of japan, he was choosen to lead. I' m sure there is plenty of politician in the US, but they choose him instead. In 1950 korean war, Truman choose him to lead, again plenty of officer's out there. And he did his job well.1951 he was fired from his job, so what his 71 years old then, a grandpa. Didn' t he serve long enough?
They were scared of him, politically. FDR sent him to Philippines in 1935 and avoided having to face MacArthur for election in 1936, 1940, and 1944. Truman avoided having to face MacArthur in the 1948 election. He was 72 years old by 1952, way too old for almost all voters back then. Also, he was the only one to pick back then. He was an Asian expert his whole career. If you want to get angry at MacArthur due to you obviously not liking Mac you should truly be angry at FDR and Truman for always giving him huge power in faraway places.
@@johnnotrealname8168 Douglas MacArthur officially retired from the US Army on 31 December 1937 as a Major General. In those days, even if you had been a service Chief (Chief of Staff or Chief of Naval Operations) (MacArthur being one of the youngest Chiefs ever) there was only one slot for a 4 Star and that was as a service Chief. Additionally, for a few others occupying other special billet positions as 3 Star (Lieutenant General or Vice Admiral) were also considered only a special temporary assignment. If the Chiefs didn't retire at the end of their tenure they were reassigned and reverted to his permanent rank of Major General or Rear Admiral (Upper Half). By the Law in effect in those days in order for a General or Admiral to retire as 4 Star Congress had to approve the retirement at that rank. Otherwise they reverted to Major General or Rear Admiral (upper half) as 3 and 4 star ranks were considered billet position specific and were considered temporary. Most Generals retired after they had served as a service chief or in one of the 3 star billets. Since MacArthur was not in a 4 Star billet when he retired congress had to approve his retirement as a 4 Star after he retired. MacArthur was Chief of Staff from November 1930 until October 1935. There after he was assigned as Senior Military Advisor to the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines as a Major General USA. Additionally, President Manuel Quezon asked MacArthur to Command and create a new Philippine Army when none had previously existed. Quezon (at MacArthur's suggestion) named MacArthur Field Marshall of the Philippine Army in August 1936. This position and salary was approved by President Roosevelt in 1936. Starting from scratch MacArthur began to build the Philippine Army with the assistance of US Army stationed in the Philippines serving as officers and NCO Advisor/trainers. Along with this new Army MacArthur also began to build an Air Force and a small patrol boat type Navy while having to live with horrific US Congressional budget constraints and under the Restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1925 that strictly prohibited the improvement of and expansion of Defense facilities of Far East Military Bases. Essentially, MacArthur had to operate with both arms and one leg tied behind his back. So when MacArthur was blamed for the "loss" of the Philippines it was and is patently false accusation. No one, not even Eisenhower as great a staff officer and organizer as he was, would have faired any better under the circumstances MacArthur had to deal with. And as far as the so-called "loss" goes....it had many fathers... including the US Congress.
@@johnpitchlynn9341 You are going to have to explain the denial of his wishes to expand Philippine defences and the budget cuts. According to the guy in the video he was given everything he needed.
Everyone will agree MacArthur did not work well with others. This never “evolved.” He is perhaps in the same class as Montgomery. If you can’t work well with others you don’t belong in the US Army or any Army, or organization for that matter.
He was both brilliant and delusional he fouled up the Phillipines in 41 by relying on a ill trained and equipped Phillipines army and delaying and not preparing for war plan orange. His new guinea campaign was greatly successful. Casualties were about 10 to 1 in allies favor. Inchon was brilliant followed up by ignoring intelligence on Chinese intervention.
I am pretty sure the American military was bad so how could the Filipino's be better? As for China, he tried to get approval to at least slow it but he was never allowed to.
MacArthur: The most over-rated Prima Donna this country ever produced... Ironically, the high point of his career was during the Korean War with the "MARINE" landing at Inchon... AND the lowest point in his career, with his handling of the Korean War otherwise - culminating with his firing by Truman.... (also note that MacArthur was in charge of the U.S. Army attack on WWI Veterans camped out in front of Hoover's White House during the Depression).
You MacArthur haters are hilarious and so jealous. MacArthur was the greatest U.S. military servicemember in history. Those "Marines" mocked MacArthur and said that Inchon was impossible. Those "WWI veterans" attacked DC Police first and the Police shot at them and MacArthur solved the problem without having to kill any protestors. The Army didn't do any shooting or killing. MacArthur also lost less U.S. troops from June 1942 to the end of the war than Ike/Patton/Bradley lost the Battle of Bulge (also the disastrous Battle of Hurtgen Forest). You know who were truly overrated generals/admirals? The overrated REMF generals and admirals named Nimitz, King, Marshall, and Ike who altogether served ZERO seconds in combat during their combined careers. They sat in desks their whole careers while MacArthur was getting shot at on the frontlines in the Philippines in 1903, France in WWI, Mexico in 1914, etc. And that is BEFORE World War II when he was supposed to be retired at 62 years old! Even in WWII MacArthur exposed himself to enemy fire at the very frontlines numerous times at Corregidor 1941-42, New Guinea, Leyte Gulf/Lingayen Gulf 1944-45 (yes, MacArthur was supervising the landings in two cruisers, USS Nashville and Boise, during the dangerous kamikaze attacks at Leyte Gulf and Lingayen Gulf and the Japanese Navy battle at Leyte Gulf. The USS Nashville, right after MacArthur left it for Leyte Island, was hit by a kamikaze and 100+ men died and 200+ were wounded), and also on Leyte/Luzon islands. In Luzon he repeatedly went to the frontlines despite his commanders and staff telling him not to and the Japanese even shot at him over and over again. And he NEVER wore a helmet. Eisenhower was doing who knows what with his female British "driver" in Paris during the whole Battle of the Bulge, btw. How the hell is MacArthur called "Dugout Doug"? That is the most inaccurate nickname in history.
Because he exposed himself to enemy fire on Corregidor numerous times. The Japanese almost killed him in December 1941. One bomb landed only 10 feet from MacArthur. And his retreat to Bataan was masterfully done. MacArthur's forces fought far longer than the Dutch and British. MacArthur's forces fought until May 1942 while Singapore surrendered in February 1942 and the Dutch East Indies surrendered in March 1942. MacArthur deserved the MoH numerous times in his career from WWI to the Korean War also. He also made sure to say that he does not accept the MoH as his own MoH. He only accepts it with the understanding that that really means all of the USAFFE soldiers are also honored with that MoH.
@@nogoodnameleft Because he exposed himself to fire he is worthy of the Medal of Honor? What about the thousands of American & Philippine troops he abandoned; after screwing up the activation of Rainbow-5? Letting his air forces be destroyed on the ground etc.? Resulting mountains of ammo, food, medical supplies that were abandoned in place because of his mismanagement of the theater in the first few weeks of the war? Then it’s topped off with him shagging ass in the middle of the night, leaving the men he led to disaster to suffer & die with the Japanese hospitality. Yeah, that ‘honorable’. Piss off.
@@scottyfromthe80s Look at the jealous Mac hater whining. Mac had more bravery and courage in his pinky finger than you and your precious cowardly REMFs named Ike, George Marshall, Nimitz, and Ernest King. You wanted Mac to be executed in Tokyo because you are heartless. The Japanese in 1942 said on radio that they will behead MacArthur in front of Hirohito if they capture him. Clark Field was General BRERETON'S fault, not Mac's. MacArthur told Brereton to move the planes because Luzon's numerous future B-17 airfields were not finished yet so they can't disperse the planes on Luzon but Brereton refused to follow Mac's orders. Mac had no power as an Army GROUND FORCES General to directly order a USAAF airman, even a private, to move a plane a single inch. The USAAF airmen at Clark and General Brereton were drinking and partying all night long on the night of 12/7/41. The USAAF radio operators and USAAF colonels on the visual lookout throughout Luzon (no radar was available) for Japanese planes "failed" to send the warnings to Clark. The reason was they were all drunk and hungover!!! You should actually research why Mac was ordered to retreat to Australia: AUSTRALIAN PM John Curtin. Curtin threatened Churchill and FDR with surrendering to Japan unless either all Australian troops are sent home from North Africa or he gets MacArthur to become leader of all Allied forces in the SW Pacific. Guess what happened. You should blame Curtin but I am guessing you are a Curtin fan so you pretend that this didn't happen. Curtin later appointed MacArthur to be the de facto Australian Minister of Defense also. Blame that all on Curtin, not MacArthur. FDR and Marshall refused to send weapons and men to the Philippines until July 1941. They abandoned the Philippines, not MacArthur. MacArthur had only one radar station in the whole Philippines, antiarcraft ammo that didn't work, and field artillery with no fire control equipment. MacArthur's double retrograde maneuvers to evacuate almost all his men to Bataan was epic and a success and without that well executed double retreat Bataan would have never been possible. Mac's troops in central Luzon had no field artillery and only 100 M3 Stuart tanks and 50 SPM half track 75mm tank destroyers to work with also. He did the same well-executed retreats to set up the Pusan Perimeter and Hungnam Evacuation during Korea also. He never was given enough weapons and men in Korea and in WWII until October 1944 yet he did a great job always. He didn't have unlimited supplies and men like Ike, Patton, and Nimitz always did.
Commanding officer awards can be for leadership and results in a larger context than a single combat performance which is the context of enlisted awards.
McArthur competes with Patton as the most overrated US general of WW2. And with Clark, Stilwell and Fredendall for the title as the worst American general of WW2.
I have always felt MacArthur was vastly overrated. His mistakes in the Philippines and New Guinea are pretty definitive of his shortcomings. The final debacles in Korea should define and seal his legacy. Believing in yourself is one thing. Believing your own press releases is another. His errors cost a lot of American lives.
The overrated REMF generals and admirals named Nimitz, King, Marshall, and Ike who altogether served ZERO seconds in combat during their combined careers. They sat in desks their whole careers while MacArthur was getting shot at on the frontlines in the Philippines in 1903, France in WWI, Mexico in 1914, etc. And that is BEFORE World War II when he was supposed to be retired at 62 years old! Even in WWII MacArthur exposed himself to enemy fire at the very frontlines numerous times at Corregidor 1941-42, New Guinea, Leyte Gulf/Lingayen Gulf 1944-45 (yes, MacArthur was supervising the landings in two cruisers, USS Nashville and Boise, during the dangerous kamikaze attacks at Leyte Gulf and Lingayen Gulf and the Japanese Navy battle at Leyte Gulf. The USS Nashville, right after MacArthur left it for Leyte Island, was hit by a kamikaze and 100+ men died and 200+ were wounded), and also on Leyte/Luzon islands. In Luzon he repeatedly went to the frontlines despite his commanders and staff telling him not to and the Japanese even shot at him over and over again. And he NEVER wore a helmet. Eisenhower was doing who knows what with his female British "driver" in Paris during the whole Battle of the Bulge, btw. MacArthur was the greatest U.S. military servicemember in history. Nimitz and Ike would have been happy if they could have net casualty figures like MacArthur did. They would have loved to have low U.S. casualties and high enemy casualties like MacArthur did. If the SWPA was "worthless" then why did the Japanese lose 450,000 dead troops in Philippines and 250,000 dead troops in New Guinea/New Britain? Meanwhile Nimitz didn't kill that many Japanese troops while losing a helluva lot more troops than MacArthur and he was doing stupid meatgrinder battles over worthless small islands like Peleliu and Iwo Jima. Nimitz was always going to land on Peleliu whether it was Formosa or the Philippines. history.army.mil/books/70-7_21.htm
Admiral Kimmel and General Short were fired for the same reason General MacArthur got the Medal of Honor. It's pathetic. He fled the Corregidor or his pockets filled with the Philippines Treasury.
MacArthur’s victories happened after the U.S. economy - much larger than the Japanese economy - was fully mobilized for war. It is a lot easier to win wars when you have a massive superiority in equipment over your enemy.
You can say that the "U.S. Economy won" narrative much moreso for the European theater than the Pacific theater. MacArthur was already winning mammoth victories prior to October 1944 with shoe-string budgets, few soldiers/sailors, and that extremely tiny 7th Amphibious Navy run by Daniel Barbey when the large armada finally happened (this large armada for MacArthur only started in October 1944 for Leyte). Operation Cartwheel (Solomons, Bismarck Archipelago, Admiralty Islands and New Britain) and the Reno Plan (Hollandia to Aitape to Morotai) were ingenius and Inchon-level strategy from MacArthur and both operations were run with such a low budget and with a bunch of LSTs re-converted into rocket ships and hospital ships, completely against Navy regulations. Meanwhile Ike and Patton got bogged down in the middle of Italy and couldn't even take Rome until D-Day in France happened. Ike and Patton weren't able to do anything in Italy in terms of rapidly ending the war until D-Day, which is why nobody talks about North Africa or Italy nowadays, which were good but not great campaigns for the Americans. Admiral Barbey and Admiral Halsey both praised MacArthur and gave him credit for Cartwheel and Reno. Formosa would have been a disaster and Nimitz strangely wanted to only invade southern Formosa and present-day Xiamen while leaving northern Formosa to the Japanese. The casualties in Formosa would have been 3 times the U.S. fatalities as Okinawa due to all the Formosans were Japanese citizens since 1895. And once firebombing started in March 1945 and there was no liberation of Manila the fully healthy 450,000 Japanese troops stationed in the Philippines would have done 1,000 Manila massacres as revenge for Tokyo and other cities being nuked and firebombed. I am saying this would happen if Nimitz' bizarre Formosa plan happened. Also, Peleliu was Nimitz' baby, not MacArthur. Nimitz planned to invade Peleliu in the event of Formosa or Philippines. history.army.mil/books/70-7_21.htm
America and MacArthur’s victories were the result of America’s ability to project overwhelming military power across a vast ocean against well trained well supplied well entrenched enemy. No other country in the history of the world has been able to do that…and we did it in both theaters.
erm Milne Bay ? ....somebody should tap this gentleman on the shoulder and tell him that the first victory on land against Japan was 95% Australian...... and that the American effort at Buna and Gona was a failure with Australians again doing the heavy lifting. MacArthur never "Took" Buna or Gona ...Australian troops did. Also 70'000 Australians were given a sideline of operations in Borneo , (thereby saving American lives because of the experience in jungle fighting ) MacArthur wanted it to be ALL American ,,,this guy has one degree vision
Cheap shots and unnecessary inuindo directed at the greatest Military commander and tactical genius this country has produced. To say that in 1941 he was virtually unknown is absurd. The The man fought in the Mexican American war, Organized the Rainbow division that fought in WWl. He attained permanent rank of General in the First World War. Came back as Superintndent of West Point. Chaired the US Olympic committee and brought us home a pile of medals. It was he who saved the interwar army by his use of the army to build the camps and organize the CCC. Twice appointed Army Chief of Staff, a cabinet level position at that time. This was all well before 1941. Hardly a “virtually unknown”. This is a cheap shot at a great man.
Whatever dude. MacArthur was a straight G. Just a superior General heart and mind . To the men who tried to sabotage the General , may God have mercy on your souls.
Great presentation of a great general. But MacArthur while I believe the greatest military leader in American history was not infallable nor were any others. What you failed to mention was that the enormous amount of rice, canned meat etc, held in Cabanatuan was the subject of a tug o war. mac Arthur attempted to seize this for his military but Quezon refused to release this as the civilian population needed food.
A missed point that elevated MacArthur, was the fact that with less men and resources in 1941--he held out the longest. The French fell quickly in Indochina, which was inevitable due to the fall of the Motherland. The Dutch had the same problem in the East Indies, but the way they held out on the West End of New Guinea points out that their commanders gave in too soon. The English were very reinforced in Singapore (over 100,000 strong) and capitulated much quicker than MacArthur. In the Far East--he was the last man standing.
... AFTER having been told/warned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, he still managed to allow his aircraft to be caught on the ground and decimated the same way. ... As for "him" holding out on the West End of New Guinea ... Please share your sources Michael12.
@@jaimelaureano6649 Please read carefully. I said the Dutch held out on the Western end of New Guinea. His Aircraft got destroyed due to overzealous reaction by lower level commanders. The Japanese sent a small but somewhat menacing group of planes toward the Philippines. Once the Americans engaged they turned back toward Formosa. The Americans chased them until low on fuel and returned for that reason. While refueling the real attack hit. He did order most of the B-17s moved to Mindinao previously. That bolstered the Philipino resistance which fought and harassed the Japanese throughout the war.
MacArthur might be that rare general who can be both considered one of the best US generals and one of the worst at the same time depending at which point in WW2 and Korea we're talking about
One of my grandfathers served in the Pacific, the other in Burma. Both of them absolutely despised Macarthur as nothing more than a self promoter at best and a coward with a god complex at worst.
MacArthur was the MAN! It is sad to say it seems there's no one like him anymore. Probably the only one foreigner who loved Philippines more was Art Bell...
McArthur was a man that had an ego beyond belief. Every loss was somebody else's fault, every victory was his doing, just ask him.... when he was in the Philippines, he wanted to be king of the Philippines, and the Philippines was the center of everything.... then he is in Japan, totally forgets about the Philippines.... he was asleep on the Korean situation.... he underestimated the Chinese.... his blunders in Korea, set up the biggest mistakes in Vietnam... McArthur set up the beginning of the idea that Americans can be beat by holding on....
He did have a giant ego but who would want a general who had an inferiority complex? Okay he loved The Philippines and the Filipinos in no small part because of his father invading it. He definitely did not want to be a King, he was American that is the stupidest claim you could ever make. When he was made Lord of Japan or whatever, THE PHILIPPINES WAS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY!!! He could not do anything in a Military capacity. Early on in Korea he was successful but yes he made major blunders there, especially about the Chinese intervening. Vietnam? MacArthur advised Presidents against the War in Vietnam. The guy, though referred to as Dugout Doug, was brave as @#$% he would go to the front lines and be visible to the troops. He gave a @#$% about his people. The officer who surrendered to the Japanese in The Philippines, he was ordered by his Commander in Chief to get out, he treated with so much respect, he was at the official surrender ceremony for Japan even receiving a pen used by MacArthur. You need to read up more about the guy because your views are ignorant.
@kellyarthur9736 You mean what was George Marshall doing on 12/7/41? He claimed that he was "riding his horse" when he was really "coincidentally" meeting the Soviet ambassador to the USA. For what? Nobody will ever know since he said to a Congressional committee that he was riding his horse for 7 hours by himself and nobody ever asked him about it ever again. Marshall went AWOL for 7 hours after Pearl Harbor happened. What was he actually doing? The USAAF Brereton was the idiot on 12/8/41 in the Philippines. He launched his fighters and B-17s into the air extremely early, which was good and all, but they had only a quarter or half tank of gas to begin with instead of fully stocked with fuel. So what happened was they all ran out of gas and he told them all to go eat lunch and take a break and that was when the Japanese bombed and destroyed everything on the ground. That "35 B-17s will surely defeat the Japanese" narrative has to be the stupidest narrative of all time. Those early model B-17s were not at all like the legendary heavily armed B-17s of 1943-45. Those B-17s had no chin turret, no ball turret, and no tail gun! The best fighter available was the P-40 and P-40s couldn't even reach halfway to Formosa so the B-17s would be on their own for 3/4 of the whole flight. So according to this theory, 35 unescorted early model crappy B-17s with no recon at all were supposed to fight 500-1000 Japanese planes all over southern China and Formosa??? There was no air reconnaissance done by Brereton or MacArthur because there was no war before 12/8 in the Philippines!!! Imagine if MacArthur ordered some aerial reconnaissance in late November or so and his planes were all shot down by the Japanese for illegally trespassing Japanese airspace. You would be blaming MacArthur for starting America's involvement in WWII wouldn't you??? Also, if those 35 B-17s were actually able to take off and go on that idiotic suicide mission you would be blaming MacArthur for losing all 35 B-17s and the deaths of 300+ American airmen!!! Because that stupid suicide mission didn't happen 18 B-17s out of the 35 that were stationed in Mindanao were able to escape easily and keep fighting in the months ahead.
The Philippines campaign is the big blot on his WWII record. It's the Pacific analog to the Italian campaign: a big, bloody mess that had absolutely no strategic impact on the war's outcome.
Yeah, but it sure burnished his "I shall return" cred. There was NO WAY he was going to bypass it. That would have destroyed the drama in which he played a starring role. The other way of looking at it is that US prestige, not just his, was on the line. I question whether FDR would have gone for by-passing the place. But you raise a very interesting point
the philippines straddles the strategic sea lanes.when japan lost the philippines, the supplies not to mention men and materiel captured. to us filipinos, douglas macarthur will be forever remembered in the best light.
By DDay there were 20+ division in Norther Italy. Think about what would happen if those 20+ division were in Normandy. That is why the Italian campaign happened and it worked. Those division never again entered battle.
