VDH offers some on the "revolt of the generals." And he didn't even mention MacArthur.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I was tempted to write a "Routers" piece about the Truman-MacArthur embroglio (I've never done one about Korea), but I was afraid that I'd just be actually channeling the media of the time. I don't have quick access to a library to see how it was reported.

Does anyone know how the media did handle it? Was it pro-MacArthur or pro-Truman? Or a healthy mix?

It was almost completly pro Doug out Doug. There were a few "honest brokers"...but Doug out had recieved near "diety" status for his WWII exploits and ruling Japan well...he had a great PR machine...and his views in Korea were firmly in the American mainstream which didnt (and doesnt) really understand "incomplete wars"...most Americans remembered (at the time) the surrender on THe Big MO and couldnt understand "not fighting" with everything one had.

The Bridges at Toko Ri has some interesting dialouge on the subject.

Robert

Public opinion ran very much against Truman at first until numerous other generals spoke out during the hearings. At that point it became pretty clear that MacArthur was not only insubordinate, but pretty much crazy and responsible for widening the war. Public opinion then turned against him and in favor of Truman's removal of him.

MacArthur is way overrated for some things and way underrated for others. His occupation of Japan was masterful. His landing at Inchon was in many ways obvious (a 2nd Lt. could have told you that the NKs had overstretched their supply lines and could be easily cut in half at various points up the peninsula). And his charge up to the northern border even after it became obvious that the Chinese were retaliating was incredibly stupid--he put his own forces in exactly the same position that the NKs had been in shortly before, with overstretched supply lines. His failure to fortify the Philippines _after_ Pearl Harbor, however, is totally inexplicable. The guy should have been shot for that.

Posted by Jeff Shaw at February 27, 2007 07:51 PM

excellent comments...particulary concerning Doug out's "inferior" defense of the Philippines in the early days of WWII. His performance there was derlict in duty in many ways.

His comments after Corregidor fell about Wainwright were reprehensible.

Nicely done.

Robert

The guy should have been shot for that.

Be careful, Jeff. Rand may feel the urge to put up another post.

One of my uncle's was an aircraft mechanic at the end of WWII on Okinawa and MacArthur was almost universally loathed by the people who served under him. There is a tale that he tells that the nurses were left to suffer as Japanese POW's because Mrs. MacArthur demanded that her furniture be taken on the PT boats instead.

Don't know if it is true but he and his fellows that I met as a kid really hated him.

vets of Korea and the Pacific hated MacArthur.

He was popular with the chuckleheads in the hinterlands.

Not only was the immediate defense of the Philippines botched, the preparations for war were unrealistic and slipshod. The way the Army was allowed to slide in post-war Japan (training and discipline) led directly to the atrociously poor performance of many units in the first months of the Korean conflict. MacArthur had some strengths, but by far the biggest thing he had going for him was a great PR machine.

His failure to fortify the Philippines _after_ Pearl Harbor, however, is totally inexplicable.

That was Mac's decision? My understanding has been that the Philippines were written off by powers above.

How could that have been MacArthur's call? What troops had he at his beck and call?

MacArthur was the Philippines commander in December 1941. He had several hours warning that Pearl Harbor had occured, but did nothing to prepare his command for the probable Japanese attack. 13 hours after Pearl Harbor, his aircraft squadrons were still sitting in nice, neat clusters near the runways and were obliterated by the first Japanese attack.

You're right that the Army had long expected the Philippines to fall early in any conflict with the Japanese, which is why MacArthur didn't have more assets to fortify the Philippines. But he was didn't do much with what he had, either.

Gavin

Yep while at the same time those glorious ba$tards the Wake Island Marines fought off the initial Japanese invasion of that Island and sunk the first Japanese ships by Americans in the war.

Now THAT story is one that really needs to be remade today. I rate that story as one of the most incredible tales in U.S. military history.

Even Oler and I agree on that one.

Posted by Gavin Mendeck at February 28, 2007 06:41 AM..

The US Army of the pre WWII era was mainly a constabulary force. The only really effective fighting force, where almost all what passed for real weapons were the forces under Dug out Dougs command.

Doug made several major mistakes...his planes being caught on the ground as he and his air commander dithered about what to do in terms of a preventive raid on Formosa....

The next was not thinking that the Japanese were going to invade when it was as plain as day that they were moving in that direction. By the time he executed the fallback to the Bataan Penn he did so so rapidly that he had to burn his supplies in Manilla...thus the forces that fell back on Bataan were immediatly short rationed.

It was just one bungle after another. WITH THE FORCES HE HAD.

His forces performed well at the tactical level. The Japanese did poorly at Wake, they did poorly against US forces on the Bataan PEnn...on a one on one basis...but our forces were hampered by Doug being very slow to grasp what was happening.

it is untrue that US nurses were left so his furniture could be moved...

But he made the same mistakes in the early WWI effort that he made in Korea.

He did well when he had unlimited supplires...

Robert