The Legacy of Admiral Nimitz in Today's Japan 

Every time Craig Symonds gives a presentation, he hits it out of the park. This was great.

I have the immense pleasure of knowing one of Admiral Nimitz's bodyguards during the last two years of the war. His accounts of Adm. Nimitz are congruent with those presented here. He characterized him as a calm, decisive leader whom he never heard raise his voice or use a curse word. He was considerate of his bodyguards and was respectful of them. He told several stories where Nimitz would be considerate of them. He was in the room with Macarthur and Nimitz during a meeting to discuss strategy. He never mentioned any animosity between the two. He related a story where he accompanied the Admiral on a hike in Guam. The bodyguard was tall and he felt like he needed to relocate his sidearm (.45) from his waist to more of a cross body fashion so that he could access it more easily if needed. A Marine reported him for this and the Admiral squashed the complaint and told them to get lost. When the Admiral left for the signing of the peace treaty, this bodyguard accompanied him to the airfield. After saluting him and starting up the gangplank, the Admiral turned around came back down and shook his and thanked him for his service. This man added "I would have taken a bullet for him in a heartbeat".

That he included “Henry’ in his meeting with McArhur and Halsey. and even spoke to him so familiarly, seems totally consistent with the Admiral’s character. What a decent man he was!

All I knew about Admiral Nimitz was his name, and his role in the War in the Pacific. After watching this presentation, I now know that he was also a very decent human being. Thank you for this bit of context that is typically left out of the history books. Very well done!

Thank you for this wonderful video. In my declining years I have learned more about Adm Nimitz, and have become an admirer. It seems to me that he is one of the most underappreciated leaders of WWII.

The Japanese mindset then, like the dilemma we face today with Islamic extremists, made it extremely difficult to defeat an enemy that is so willing to needlessly sacrifice himself that made it so difficult to defeat the Japanese. It defies all logic. Living to fight another day was not in the Japanese lexicon. It is a tribute to Nimitz who for so long tolerated the giant ego and egocentric behavior of MacArthur for the greater good. Truman's legacy was firing MacArthur before the General could engage us in another world war and sacrifice the lives of so many American soldiers and others in Korea who had already sacrificed so much. Excellent presentation. Thank you.

Thank you for being a care giver to our history. The museum is a treasure in the hill country. Thanks to all that make it possible

I think that the entire issue of Nimitz vs. MacArthur could be summarized with one simple question: Who would YOU prefer to work for? A modest, soft-spoken but highly skilled leader or for a megalomaniac?

All I can say is thank god we had him

The museum is far and away one of the very best gems in Texas worth visiting with the entire family. Fantastic exhibits that will strain your mind and move your heart, many authentic and to full scale, and many interactive and fully engaging. I would not want to spoil the surprises for you by detailing them. Plan on spending up to several hours to enjoy this museum. Many things to also include in your trip are: Fredericksburg with its German vibe and fun (tourist/non-tourist) shopping and dining; the Texas Hill Country vistas and its beautiful wildlife and natural features, and Enchanted Rock with its state park.

those of us who served in generations after Admiral Nimitz revere him and admire his example. I served in Japan 1995-1998 and I saw the positive aspects of Nimitz leadership even then.

Dr. Symonds' question, having studied both MacArthur and Nimitz, leads me to express that Admiral Nimitz was an essential element in the Pacific and Gen MacArthur was in over his depth. I am still amazed that the General did not face dereliction charges for his mishandling of the Air Corps in the Philippines following the head's up of Pearl Harbor. Having read the 'Graybook' in its entirety I am certainly a fanboy of the great man. Many thanks to the Museum of the Pacific War for these seminars.

Anything that put Dougout Doug in the corner so the adults could fight Japan was a stroke of pure genius.

I grew up in the Philippines, and MacArthur was a legend who could do no wrong. I studied history and political science in college and combined with years of listening to old friends of my father as they sat around and played balut, I have a completely different picture of the general now. As a military commander he was at best acceptable, and at worst incompetent. As a person he was an absolutely self absorbed, narcissistic son of a bitch. He was also a pedophile, which shocked me. He is not fit to serve as an example to cadets in our military academy, and cannot be included in the pantheon of intelligent and capable leaders that won the war for us eighty years ago. I can confidently state that THANK GOD he wasn’t given overall command of the Pacific theater, and thank god Nimitz had most of the responsibility for the Pacific War. Splitting the command was a courageous decision, and I believe saved us all. Thank you, Dr. Symonds for your brilliant writing and lectures, so very informative and intelligently presented.

I was familiar with quite a bit of the info. here. However, you've presented a not insignificant number of important smaller details I did not know. Thank you for that. God bless the memory of Adm. Nimitz. In late 1941, FDR saw/knew things about Nimitz the rest of us couldn't see.

It is unlikely that King would have acquiesced to having MacArthur as the sole theater commander in the Pacific. And having been an Assistant Secretary of the Navy the President would probably not have subordinated the Navy to the Army in a theater where naval power would be more important.

Nimitz and Grant IMHO are the two best flag officers this great country ever produced. I only wish that after the war and once Nimitz had become CNO he would have revisited the DSM for Joe Rochefort. Rochefort was simply done dirty by King and the Redman brothers and Rochefort deserved much much better for the critical role he played in the Battle of Midway.

I really appreciated your video and a great summation of two distinct US military commanders. Thank you.

Outstanding presentation! Another masterpiece of research and analysis by Mr. Symonds.

I LOVE the video at 1:43: In a professional military, a subordinate doesn't just walk anywhere relative to someone who is senior. In the U.S. Army, the junior person walks to the left of the senior, harkening to the phalanx where the senior commander who fought in the front right corner of the formation. Hoplite shields, held with the left arm and sword in the right, protected everyone in the phalanx except the front right person, which is why the king/commander/centurion positioned himself there. MacArthur, for whatever reason, possibly because he was on a ship, didn't focus on where he was relative to Nimitz, or thought because it was Navy, they wouldn't "get" that. Nimitz professionally but physically moves MacArthur to the right to the position of honor as the senior officer. I really love that clip.

Thank you. I much appreciate this excellent presentation.

It's bad enough when you have to fight a hostile enemy, but really bad when the hostile enemy is supposed to be on your side.

I visited the IJN ship Mikasa, famous for Tsushima Strait, in 2023. There were exhibits on Nimitz's role in saving this historic ship.

Actually Nimitz spent a large part of his early life ahd education in Kerrville although his family ties were strong in Fredrksburg. Several teachers in his hight school learned that he would have to leave before he had finished high school so they worked overtime to tutor him in math and science.

Excellent presentation, thank you.

There are far too many superb Pacific War historians for me to be able to pick a favorite. But Dr. Symonds is, in my view, something like the dean of them all. For that reason, he holds a pre-eminent position among them. Coincidentally, I have never seen a presentation of his that was not most severely excellent.

Answer to question 2: Since reading about the holodomor in 'Red Famine' by Anne Applebaum, I would think that a widespread siege would have been far less compassionate, than a relatively quick resolution to the conflict.

Thank you for this wonderful information!

Ian Toll’s trilogy on the Pacific War went into detail on the people and their decisions. I appreciate Nimitz much more.

Very well done! Thank you.

Yes!

Great author, great lecturer!

Excellent! Thank you.

I'm putting you in charge of this operation. Your country has confidence in you to succeed. These are the objectives. Go win this for America.

Excellent. 👍

In general, having a divided command structure is frowned upon. However, in the Pacific it certainly seemed to work better than anyone could have possibly foreseen (even MacArthur)

FWIW, my grandfather was under Nimitz's command before WW2 in subs out of San Diego.

The scope of the Pacific Theater and multi service cooperation pretty much assured a multiple command. The smart move would have been to look at how much water and how many enemy occupied islands would fall more to the Naval branch than that of the Army.

Wish we had Fleet Admiral Chester W Nimitz Today

The museum is amazing, a must see if near the area. Especially the Japanese mini sub display

I love your museum, (I am a proud member). Roosevelt made the right decision.

720p in 2021?? Surely you can afford at least a 1080p camera or a 4k camera by now.

Well done. Thank you.

Great video thank you!

I think Halsey's flagship wad the USS New Jersey.

Yes but because Admiral Nimitz had a calm demeanor which was asset.

A warrior and a gentleman.

McArthur was a crackpot. Nimitz is the kinda man for any job.

Excellent

As for who was best put in command between Nimitz and MacArthur, one need only look at a map to realize with much more ocean than land, a war in the area would be a largely navel venture and that by a navy's proper use, land war could be minimized. Concerning the bomb, without it there would likely have been no surrender and a protracted campaign which would have killed both military and civilians one hundred fold, either by direct conflict, or more likely starvation. Even after Covid, few of us understand how big a role supply chains make in keeping us alive.

Yes.

Anything that limited dugout Doug's maniac command was a good idea!

The Pacific is the main beneficiary of the US Navy's dedicated men and women, starting with Dewey but confirmed by Nimitz. US provided security and freedom has led to one of the most amazing improvements in living standards ever

MacArthur has an all time comb over.

Re: could Japan have been compelled to surrender without using the Atomic bomb? Perhaps, but it would have meant continued suffering of Allied POW’s, as well as additional combat fatalities of sailors and airmen. Honestly, which other country in WW2 would have hesitated using a weapon that might achieve quick victory? None of them. And surely not our enemies!

McArthur was a jerk throughout his career until he was fired by Truman. Today's military would not put up with a McArthur temperament.

Amphibious Ops are always commanded by the Task Force Cmdr. until land forces ashore are consolidated and a HQ is establish for these forces.

I realize I’m coming to this comments section many months after the question of “divided command, and is it a good idea” is asked, but I just wanted to add that if you go back into antiquity to the late republic (BC) ? period the Roman army, as a regular governmental policy, they put the legions under the control of two equal-authority commanders. Those two officers would alternate calendar days, or periods of days under one then the other’s leadership. Apparently this was successful for quite a period of time. ( 2:17 )

Hind sight has jaded me. Anything to mute McArther influence was necessary. Nimitz was the right man in the right place at the right time.

Since the bulk of the heavy lifting in the Pacific (at least in the first years) would be by the navy, and you could not put Nimitz over McArthur, It was a good compromise. No one new what to expect in the beginning. No one new how to prepare troops for combat with the Japanese, who had many combat experienced commanders and troops. I think a lot of the feelings for McArthur are a bit tainted by how things ended in Korea. Neither commander made a major blunder, and the only issue they could not resolve with each other was whether to invade the Philippines or Formosa and now that we know how the Japanese occupation went I think we can all agree that millions more civilians would have died there without the invasion. So that too turned out right. Both of those men lead a desperate fight that at the beginning was against an undefeated enemy who seemed to win everywhere, regardless of odds. Give them both their due.

I suspect that the number of Japanese casualties from a prolonged conventional campain would end up being at least as large and horifying as the number produced by dropping the nuclear bombs. I guess this should be a consideration in any argument for or against.

Interesting video

In retrospect I see it as a very good idea as these places were very far from each other.

Here's what I KNOW. FDR more than once put politics ahead of the war. This was one of those times. Nimitz HAD to be there for the success of the Pacific war. ANY halfway decent senior general could have filled MacArthur's role. However, that would mean that he would return to Washington. FDR considered Douglas to be a formidable rival for President if out of uniform. Thus he got the command in Australia. Out of the running for PotUS.

Thoughts about dividing command... considering the sheer size of the the theatre, i think it was a good idea. And Nimitz was the perfect candidate to do that with MacArthur. MacArthur thought far too highly of himself, not that he was utterly inept - i don't believe he was, but the Army did have better people, and with Nimitz being a more low-key, less grandstanding type of guy, he was a great fit, they worked out fine together. Credit to Nimitz for that. As for strangling Japan into surrender... that would have been the worst scenario. They'd've held out for far, far longer than the Allies would imagine, all the deaths, starvation, ungh... it was either atom bombs, or a fall landing and invasion, and an invasion would have been unimaginably costly to both sides.

If we had blockaded Japan it seems probable that Japan would have sensed our reluctance, which was part of their strategy to make happen and use. Given the state of Japanese food resources a blockade that lasted through the winter might well have been tantamount to genocide.

Of course.

By 1945 Douglas MacArthur was 65 years old. It's apparent he combed his hair over his bald spot. I wonder if he colored his hair to keep it so uniformly dark? Appearance was everything to Dougy. Him doing so wouldn't surprise me in the least and is probably one of the least annoying things he did.

Rank seniority has nothing to do with position authority. I remember being promoted to 1SG over some more senior Master Sergeants. Their seniority in GRADE meant nothing. The 1SG is in charge. Period. This is important to the issue in this video. Macarthur may have been senior in GRADE, but not in rank and position. He should have known that given his time of service.

For decades I have called Eisenhower a political general....... .....a political general of such high quality, talent and brilliance that Eisenhower was a divine gift by God to the allies in Europe. Political generals are an unavoidable requirement for victory, and the ones that do it well are beyond measurable value.

In 1945 the USAAF was compelled to use B-29’s dropping naval mines in all Japanese home waters.

RE: "Split Command" -- This was a necessary compromise, and Roosevelt, the ultimate politician, was well aware of it. MacArthur had the PR people and the blind support of the media; but he was not especially competent as a military commander -- which he'd already demonstrated i n the 1942 Phillippines, and would do so again in 1952. He couldn't be shunted aside as he should have been, so he was given a sideline command dressed up as the major effort to re-take the Philippines.

Two brains are better than one

18:35 No, the Atom bombs were necessary. The bombs were almost miraculous in their destructive power. This had an effect on the Japanese mind- they were a people who fully believed in miracles, like the two Tai-fun that destroyed Kublai Kahn's fleets. Twice.

Key phrase: "According to Layton" in what purportedly are his memoirs. Let us remember that "And I Was There": Pearl Harbor and Midway - Breaking the Secrets was actually written by Captain Roger Pineau, USNR (Ret.) and John Costello and edited by Bruce Lee. I've read this book. I've read other books by John Costello, and a number of books edited by Bruce Lee. Quite frankly, while I have great respect for Edwin T. Layton as an intelligence officer, I've little trust in some of his own statements (in the form of testimony and in his USNI oral history) as relate to Pearl Harbor. Let's not forget that Bruce Lee wanted a book that would sell "within the limits of national security." I'm skeptical of much of what Lieutenant Commander, Commander, Captain and Rear Admiral Layton is credited with having stated (in 7 of the 8 government investigations into Pearl Harbor), in his oral history, and in what is purportedly "his" book. Andy McKane, P.O. Box 166, Maunaloa, Hawaii 96770.

They simply had to get along.The president demanded it.

I am hard pressed to criticize Franklin Roosevelt. I think he understood that politically he could not sack or even disrespect MacArthur. He would just ignore him. And that's what he wanted Marshall, King and Nimitz to do. Give him is less than critical fiefdom and forget about him. So, yes. Divided command was okay for Roosevelt. Just don't make a habit of it.

Blockade would never have resulted in surrender.

I always thought the divided command concept was a perfect fit for the gigantic pacific theatre. The Japanese had to adjust to a two prong assault and they just didn't have the resources to cope !

I think it was the right decision!

In regards to Nimitz hope for Japanese surrender by blockade action by 1945 what was left to blockade? Very few ships remained capable of transporting anything and any remaining would have little fuel. Thousands of POWS were being held in Japan under miserable conditions. Aircrews on bombing missions being shot down or bailing out were usually killed by civilian population. Japanese culture at the time was vehemently opposed to any kind of surrender. Reluctance to use the Atomic bomb would ensure as the condition of infrastructure became non existent the assured deaths of all POWS and Japanese population from starvation. The use of atomic weapons forced the issue of surrender to end the war in a relatively short span of time saving millions of lives both Allied and Japanese.

Theater wad big enough

Promote Nimitz ... drop Dugout Doug into Davey Jones' in-basket.

Big theater, Multiple axsis of advance; good reasons

Nightmare. Perfect description.

Japan would have surrendered AFTER their army on the continent was defeated by the Russian's and a threat of them joining the invasion of Japan. The Japanese knew that to have the Russians come in meant the end of Japan. Unlike just the US/UK trying to invade

Dugout Doug lost the Philippines, even with warning, should have stayed in those poor captive islands. That would have saved many thousands of our Marines, Soldiers and Sailors in World War 2; and even more so in Korea. Read about the still unsung Marine General Major General Oliver P. Smith, who ignored orders to continue his advance and saved most of our Marines in Chosin.

Yes. Mccarthur blew it by not having his " Tails up." In the Phillippines.

When it comes to MacArthur, yes.

Based on island hopping. The Pacific needed Navy mobility. MacAurther was a narcissist.

Neither the invasion nor the blockade seems to me to have been more “humane” than the atomic bombs. I recall the forced and uncoditional terms imposed by the Allies on Germany, when they refused to negotiate with the revolutionary government of Germany and continued the starvation blockade of the German people until the German delegate signed the Versailles Treaty. Paradoxically the Japanese came away with a more honorable peace in 1945 than the Germans did in 1919. What sort of place would Japan have been in 1950 when Communism had triumphed in China.

No. Japan’s belief in the deity of Hirohito and the manipulation by the militarists had the population keyed up for a fight to the finish - even tho they had been decimated by both blockade and bombing.

generals and admirals are appounted presidents are elected

You Know Somthing That Japan. Got Advanced Technology From Germany including there NUCLEAR Research and We Had 2 Bombs and 3rd One. The next 3 months

Nimitz wasnt an egotist like McArthur

Nimitz was simply a very nice man. MacArthur was simply a jerk.

No!

Nimitz is overrated to say the least. Of course, the navy have a big rule in defeating Japan but you can't defeat a nation like Japan relying entirely on the navy, you need to put ground troops on the ground.

Divided command? Nope. MacArthur should have fired just like Kimmel was and either give the whole Pacific over to Nimitz or choose someone else to lead Army operations in the Pacific subordinate to Nimitz.

Would Japan surrender without an invasion. No. They would just live like animals for as long as it took. The peasants would die like flies and the remains of the military, and aristocracy would go without desert for awhile.