Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 8/31/2001 7:39:26 AM EDT
I've heard from the Liberal Press for years about 'Dugout Doug' MacArthur being a physical coward and abandoning his men at Bataan and Corregidor, and about how some of the men made up a little ditty concerning 'Dugout Doug.' How much of this is true? And how much of it is based upon enlisted men's natural and healthy (to a point) dislike of their commanding officers? And how much of it is from the liberal media types that simply did not like MacArthur from the get-go? I've read that Patton called MacArthur 'one of the bravest men I ever knew' and described their first meeting on a battlefield in WWI as his basis for that belief. Yet, MacArthur turned his back on his own men? In his own defense, the reason MacArthur gave for visiting his men trapped on the Battan Pennisula only [u]once[/u] during their retreat was that he had previously told them on a visit that President Roosevelt had assured him that help was on the way (which FDR [u]had[/u] told him). When he was finally informed that no help was ever going to come, he said he was unable to face his men with that lie in his mouth. So he resolved not to go and give them false hope, despite FDR's entreaties. My father served under MacArthur in the South Pacific and was in the Philippines invasion, and later, as an Officer in the US Occupation forces, with him in Japan. The only two times I ever saw my father cry were in 1962, when his father died, and in 1964 when General MacArthur died. That says a lot, if you knew my father. From MacArthur's Farewell Speech at West Point: "In my dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful mutter of the battlefield. "But in the evening of my memory always I come back to West Point. Always there echoes and re-echoes: Duty, Honor, Country. "Today marks my final roll call with you. But I want you to know that when I cross the river, my last conscious thoughts will be of the corps, and the corps, and the corps. "I bid you farewell." Are these the words of a weasel? What do you think? Eric The(Respectful)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 7:46:24 AM EDT
Yopu know what he did to American service men lawfully protesting and petitioning their government, don't you?
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 7:48:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 7:57:06 AM EDT
Its difficult to "pass judgment" on anyone based on a isolated incident or two. I do know that MacArthus SAID many things that I wholeheartedly agree with. From his own words, he seems to be a staunch patriot, and unswervign Christian. His Christianity is enuf reason for many to hate him. My study of US WWII history has not yet included the Pacific campaign sufficiently to know all the historical facts about the man. But ALWAYS keep in mind WHO is reporting the history, and what they might MISREPRESENT to get the general populace to think ill of MacArthur. I do know this - the Leftists / Marxists / Communists HATE MacArhtur with a white hot hatred. And thats enuf reason for me to have great respect for the man. ANY enemy of theirs is a friend of mine.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:00:21 AM EDT
MacArthur was ordered off of Corregidor by FDR. As far as the "Dugout Doug" stuff is concerned, generals are supposed to operate behind the front lines. Leading from the front looks good in movies and comic books, but a general's job is to direct and allocate resources, not lead bayonet charges. Corregidor is where the communications facilities were located so that's where MacArthur was located. MacArthur was a prima donna of the first order but a coward, no.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:06:14 AM EDT
I mean, come on people...use your heads.... These pacifist Letists, who want the U.S. to surrender to anyone carrying a flintlock, criticize MacArthur as being "Dugout Doug" but yet they voted in a draft dodger we might call "Bugout Bill???" They are pulling your chain. They are playin' y'all like a fiddle. They are criticising MacArthur in EXACTLY the way they KNOW you will find unforgiveable, when they voted into the Presidency a draft dodger. We're smarter than to believe that, people.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:11:13 AM EDT
Garandman, tell it to the bonus marchers.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:12:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:18:22 AM EDT
Post from Hielo -
You know what he did to American service men lawfully protesting and petitioning their government, don't you?
View Quote
Yeah, I knew about the Bonus Army march BEFORE I read U.C., but that book sorta' put it in more human terms, shall we say. However, MacArthur was following the orders of his superiors, which, as he found out much later, in Korea, must be obeyed! He didn't kill anyone with this tactic! It was a failure of everyone, including the Bonus marchers, not to have settled this matter in another manner! Were the Courts not open? Was Congress in recess? Or was there simply no legal right that the Bonus marchers were pressing, to have their bonuses paid ten years early. There was surely no political pressure to pay the bonuses early. No groundswell of public support for the Bonus marchers. Everyone was suffering, and that was sufficient for most folks. And Garand Shooter, I suppose that everyone in Congress who unanimously voted a Medal of Honor for Douglas MacArthur in April, 1942, was also traitors for supporting a man who butchered his fellow soldiers at the Bonus Army encampment. Such unrelieved horror cannot simply be ignored or condoned! Eric The(MaybeTheyWereJustGoingAlongToGetAlong?)Hu­n[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:24:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:27:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By hielo: Garandman, tell it to the bonus marchers.
View Quote
Ditto
View Quote
Is this a reference to the "bataan Death March?"" Didn't we ALREADY cover the fact that he was ORDERED to Australia by the CIC, under heavy protest?? Enlighten me. As I said, I haven't studied the entire issue. But back to my point - Don't you find it STRANGE that the doves who voted ina draft dodger into the Presidency are criticising a General for being "too soft" on the enemy??? I just fear we are being used as their little duped pawns when we repeat their criticisms. They know the ONE way they could smear MacArthur for all of history is to spread the idea that he abandoned American soldiers, ESPECIALLY in teh minds of staunch patriots as ourselves. Remember, these Leftists (NOT a reference to your "bonus marchers") are NOT above twisting history and reporting OUTRIGHT lies to achieve their ends. My point is generic. Tell me more specifically about the "bonus marchers." I heard LOTS of criticisms of MacArthur. THIS is a new one to me.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:30:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:35:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:40:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:42:16 AM EDT
He Vas Just Following ze Orders....
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:45:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:46:33 AM EDT
OK, I had heard of the "bonus marchers" but that's about all. To me, people wanting compensation TEN YEARS before it is due, and marching to Washington to get it, brought down a little rain on their own heads. Maybe MaCArthur screwed up REAL bad here. Or maybe things are NOT what tehy appear, and the Leftists are playing us like a fiddle using the ONE thing they KNOW will cause us to bad mouth MacArthur. I don't know. Military service presents a REAL dilemma. "Following orders" is no excuse. But how many MORE people get killed when soldiers don't follow orders?? And should generals get to decide which order by the CIC is really an important one, and which one is unpleasant enuf not to do it??? The chain of command is CENTRAL to miltary effectiveness. Before I accept at face value this criticism of MacArthurs handling of the "bonus marchers" I think I should walk a mile in his shoes, to know the REAL story of what was going on there. Put bluntly, I generally read all history books skeptically. And I DEFINITELY want to know the source of who STARTED this criticism, and what their agenda might be (NOTE: This is a dig at those who USE history to achieve political power, NOT you guys) Taken as a whole, MacArthur was a great American. Even if he did EVERYTHING he was accused of here, looking at the big picture, I WILL NOT give the Marxists whay they want - and that is ANY criticism of a patriotic American.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:49:48 AM EDT
Post from Garand Shooter -
As far as the Medal Of Honor goes, it is awarded for specific deeds, not for the overall person or past deeds. Look back at the photos and lots of MOH recepients are not wearing good conduct medals when the award was given.
View Quote
It was awarded for MacArthur's specific deed of his defense of the Philippines! Just as Gen. Jonathan Wainwright's Medal of Honor was awarded.
Eric, contrary to your post, there were casulties, 2 infants in Anacostia died as a result of the tear gas MacArthur used as he was buring them out.
View Quote
Thankfully you didn't lay the two protestors shot dead by the DC police at MacArthur's feet. I suppose I should amend my post to reflect that Gen. MacArthur did not [u]personally[/u] kill anyone! But, nevetheless, your considered view is that General MacArthur was a traitor? Eric The(Wow!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:58:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2001 9:01:32 AM EDT by garandman]
Discounting my own (somewhat uninformed) opinion, I see two schools of thought here. A pro-MacArhtur side, promoted by those who served under MacArthur, ...and an anti-MacArthur side, promoted by those who read Unintended Consequwences, and some history books of unknown political persuasion. OK, that's a bit simplistic, and yet quite revealing. But a good debate overall. I'll probably bow out now, as I've already blurted out everything I know on the subject. [BD] Keep it coming, but keep it civil. Too many good discussion are lost to petty bickerings.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 9:04:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 9:19:13 AM EDT
From first-person historical accounts I've read, MacArthur hated the Marine Corps, and that's enough to draw my ire. [;D] The fact that he operated as though he was the Commander in Chief, and even called himself the Supreme Commander leads me to believe that his egotism knew no bounds. From what I've read though, he left the Phillipines because he was ordered to do so, and expected forces there to remain under his command, fighting as guerillas if necessary. After his departure, General Wainwright ordered the surrender of US forces to the Japanese. The fact that MacA never made any attempt to reinforce or resupply the Phillipines kind of rankles, but as I said in my post in the thread that originated this one, those were some bleak days. The 1st MarDiv was barely holding onto Guadalcanal and the Nips owned pretty much all the rest of Asia, including the sea lanes. The overreaction to and abuse of the Bonus marchers also puts a pall on the legend of MacA, Ike and Patton, in my opinion.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 9:20:23 AM EDT
Post from Forest -
Nazi's said the same thing - they were just as guilty and put in prison or hanged.
View Quote
Whoa! The dreaded 'MORAL EQUIVALENCY' B.S. is out and about! So [u]who[/u] were the Nazis 'just as guilty' as? Gen. MacArthur? So when has MacArthur's treatment of the Bonus Army marchers [u]ever[/u] been compared to the Nazis' attempted destruction of an entire race? Or with their brutality over conquered nations? And yet you have the audacity to compare the statement that [u]I[/u](not MacArthur) just made concerning MacArthur's obeying orders as something the Nazis would say! So there is some moral equivalency between two infants dying accidentally of asphyxiation (Bonus Army) with maybe six million Jews being purposefully murdered (the Holocaust)?
...peaceful protests...
View Quote
Even the passage cited by Garand Shooter indicates that the protestors were getting out of hand.
How the Hell can you say its the fault of the peaceful Protesters?
View Quote
When asked to disburse, they didn't. The order to disburse was either legal, or it wasn't. If it was not legal, the Court's were as open to such complaints then, as they are now. Whether the protestors could have won in Court is another matter entirely.
They were doing a peacful march to petition their elected representatives to speed up payment of the bonus.
View Quote
They came, they spoke their piece, Congress voted, and the measure lost. What more did they want?
The whole point of the march was to put political pressure on Congress and the White House.
View Quote
And they [u]failed[/u]. Congress adjourned. Peaceful petition process over.
Heck the incident could have been solved by giving each vetran a 'bond' payable in 1945 for the full Bonus. Make these bonds transferable and the vetrans would have something they could sell in the private market for immediate cash, or save for the full amount in 1945.
View Quote
Well, I think that's what was suggested in U.C., but it's too bad that we didn't have you and John Ross' smarts back in 1932. Eric The(NoMoralEquivalencyHere)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 9:52:19 AM EDT
MacArthur was physically brave. he was famous in WWI for exposing himself to fire in the trenches, and did so again during the allied invasion of the Phillipines. He was playing the hand he was dealt in the Japanese invasion of the Phillipines in 1941/42. He had no reinforcement on the way because the US couldn't get him any and the US fleet was on the bottom in Pearl Harbor. He was ordered by FDR to be evacuated. Guadalcanal was out of his command. There were two major commands in the Pacific, one under Nimitz and one under MacArthur. MacArthur was farther south, in New Guinea and the Admiralties. He was, in the closing days of the war, given overall command for the invasion of Japan, and eventually acted as proconsol in postwar Japan. As a general he was often very, very good and once in a while pretty bad.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 10:07:31 AM EDT
Post from Garand Shooter -
To specificly disobey a lawful order is bad enough, but to ignore a lawful order and carry out operations against US CITIZENS when ordered not too, then call a press confrence and state that the president ordered you to do so is enough to brand him a traitor, IMHO.
View Quote
Did President Hoover ever refer to MacArthur's actions as treason? Did Eisenhower or Patton ever refer to MacArthur's actions as treason? I know that Herbert Hoover remained friends with MacArthur long, long after this episode. He was a guest in MacArthur's residence in Tokyo on many occasions. I simply don't ever recall his referring to MacArthur's actions that day in Anacostia in 1932 as treasonous. But YOU do! So I suppose that Hoover also betrayed the Constitution, and that Eisenhower and Patton should be besmirched as unindicted co-conspirators with MacArthur in his treason, by failing to bring charges against him? Eric The(TheVictorsAlwaysWriteTheHistory)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 10:16:19 AM EDT
OK - I read garand shooters article, so that makes me like an expert on this subject now. [:D] First off, let me note that the article originates from UMass. Having lived in New England for most of my life to date, I can ASSURE you UMass in NO hotbed of conseratism. But lets assume, for sake of argument that the article is 100% accurate, and without bias. Sever points stood out to me. 1. EVEN the Umass history dept. was FORCED to admit that the whole event was whipped into a frienzy by Communists (which is EXACTLY as I suspected, if you read my posts to this point) 2. These were people coming to collect compensation that wasn't due them until TWELVE YEARS later. This is unreasonable on its face. People, listen....YES, they were due the money, but the ONLY way they would have gotten it early is to RAISE TAXES on the rest of an already finacially depressed nation. That would have worsened the recession FOR EVERYONE. And as a CPA, I can tell you the gov't bond idea is competely without merit. Issaunce of a gov't bond would have taken probably two years to effect. These people brought rain down on their own heads. 3. This was no "army." This was a civilian MOB. They fought with police. They threw rocks at peoples cars. How would you like it if 25,000 vagrants camped outside your houise for four months??? heck, I'd want them gunned down. Walk a mile in the shoes of the RESIDENT, hard working tax paying CITIZENS who lived in D.C., and then tell me who should be criticised here. (Hint: The vagrant unruly mob.) 4. These people brought women and children into what they KNEW would be a volatile situation. That is the tactics of the politically driven anarchist, NOT the action of a citizen with a legitimate complaint. If any women or children died, that is on the heads of the "bonus mob." 5. Were these American citizens? Yes. Well, maybe. No guaranteee they ALL were. But they were also communist dupes who allowed themselvesd to be used to stir up trouble. NO WAY they had a legitimate case asking for their money 12 years early. Why don't you march into your bosses office right now and give that a try, and see if he doesn't use "taactics" MORE severe than MacArthur used. MacArthur went after these commies and their dupes, and they hate him for it. The Commies got what they wanted 70 years ago, and now they are getting it again, with SOME of us parroting their lines about "repressive gov't" and MacArthur bashing. More class struggle. 6. The ONLY possible bone of contention with MacArhturs actions was the crossing of the Anacosita. By his own statements, macArthur regarded the "orders" not too as of doubtful authenticity. [sarcasm] Gee, I think that represents the ONLY time in history that things got a little confusing during batle conditions. [/sarcasm] To me, this is a CLEAR case of revisionist history, re-told to the liking of the Marxist sympathizers, whose primary goal is to say "See, America aint so great after all. See how they treat their own citizens?" When all the while, it was the Marxists who stirred up the trouble in the first place.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 10:20:17 AM EDT
I didn't know that being a "Commie" or a member of any political party other then Demopublican was grounds for being killed in this country. Maybe I am wrong...
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 11:06:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hielo: I didn't know that being a "Commie" or a member of any political party other then Demopublican was grounds for being killed in this country. Maybe I am wrong...
View Quote
I believe some would call it "unintended Consequences." Heck, more people have died at British soccer games and The WHo concerts than died in this so-called "blight on U.S. history." When a Marxist, Marxist sympathizer or dupe intentionally puts themselves in a dangerous situation, a situation of their OWN making for the purpose of creating political unrest, and then gets a bloody lip, I say "He deserved it." If he gets killed, I shed no tears for him. Frankly, for my $$$$, MacArthur showed IMMENSE restraint. The deaths were caused by the police, and by IDIOTS who brought babies into a battle zone. Was it an unfortunate situation?? No doubt. But to attack the memory of a Great Patriot like Douglas MacArthur is beyond the pale. All I can say is, the Commies are smiling EVERY time they hear it.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 11:22:12 AM EDT
I agree with garandman... He was a good, strong, brave ,egomaniac of a man who believed wholeheartedly in the "Way of the Gun". However, his biggest failing was his overwhelming concentric view of himself as the leader of the free world and he could not accept(or understand) the democratic process. MacArthur was born too late, he would have been a big hit in the 1700-1800s... but for all his failings there was a special aura about the man that will live on in history.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 11:24:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2001 11:28:12 AM EDT by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: It was awarded for MacArthur's specific deed of his defense of the Philippines! Just as Gen. Jonathan Wainwright's Medal of Honor was awarded Eric The(Wow!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
I'm sorry, but I don't see his defense of the Phillipines as worthy of a Medal of Honor. It was strictly political, as America needed a hero at the time. They also made sure to get his family out, while leaving the families of other U.S. servicemen to fend for themselves. As I recall, Wainwright was one of the officers who felt abandoned by MacArthur. Garandman, those who support MacArthur served with him later in the war and in Korea. I don't think you will find much support for him from the one's he left behind in the Phillipines. You also posted this:
I do know this - the Leftists / Marxists / Communists HATE MacArhtur with a white hot hatred.
View Quote
So, does my disdain for MacArthur make me a Leftist/Marxist/Communist and does it mean that I voted for 'bugout Bill'?
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 11:29:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 11:34:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG: So, does my disdain for MacArthur make me a Leftist/Marxist/Communist and does it mean that I voted for 'bugout Bill'?
View Quote
I doubt it. You would know better than I would. A man IS known by the company he keeps. But since you hang out with me here at AR15.com, you MUST be pretty cool. [:D]
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 1:48:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hielo -
I didn't know that being a "Commie" or a member of any political party other then Demopublican was grounds for being killed in this country.
View Quote
Gen. MacArthur killed no one in Anacostia! I doubt that we know the politics of the two infants that were killed by asphyxiation. Posted by Forest -
Congress taking one vote on an issue doesn't stop it.
View Quote
Congress, I repeat, was in adjournment! Since when do we allow the wishes of 20,000 citizens, veterans even, to overwhelm the expressed will of the representatives of MILLIONS of Americans. The Bonus Army should have 'adjourned' and come back for a replay when Congress reconvened. Eric The(MacArthur[u]Was[/u]APrimaDonna,AGalliantOne,However!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 4:53:10 PM EDT
BTW, MacArthur won six (yes, SIX) silver stars in WWI, along with the Distinguished Service Medal. The Medal of Honor he was awarded in WWII was completely political, though. He also saw action in Vera Cruz during the Mexico unpleasantness.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 5:05:55 PM EDT
Was MacArthur a coward? I don`t know. But after reading John Toland`s book,"But not in Shame", I believe him to be an egomanical,derelect incompetent. He did not consider the Pearl Harbor attack an act of war. He would not allow the AAF commander, Bereton, to launch an airstrike against the japanese on Taiwan. As a result most of the B-17s were destroyed on the ground.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 5:17:44 PM EDT
Ok this is some thing that I don't know jack about so I will not say anything, but I will ask what some of the things he said that are so bad are? One guy I know thinks he is a commie and if he has even one left wing bone in him then he must be a coward cuz thats the single bigest thing about the left. Is it true that he was communist? or so other form of leftist?
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 5:37:31 PM EDT
Ole Dugout Doug saved Australians from a Jap invasion. As far as I am concerned, and I reckon I speak for all Australians, he made a big difference in the Pacific Theatre. Here you will find streets bearing his name along with many US states and cities, in recogntion of the US assistance we rerceived. Aside form being a little pissed off at you Yanks for shagg'n our Sheilas, I cannot complain. Just got back from MacKay in Queenland, and seen a memorial to a B17 crew which crashed killing many, as they were on route back to New Guinea after some much needed RnR. The prop from the B17 holds a plaque with all ther names.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:34:19 PM EDT
Post from 1feral1 -
Ole Dugout Doug saved Australians from a Jap invasion. As far as I am concerned, and I reckon I speak for all Australians, he made a big difference in the Pacific Theatre. Here you will find streets bearing his name along with many US states and cities, in recogntion of the US assistance we received.
View Quote
Thank you, Mate, for your support of our Gen. MacArthur. I suppose that only those whose lives hung in the balance care to respect the memory of so great a soldier as MacArthur. My father spent a great deal of time in Australia, recouperating from the fight in New Guinea. He always told me of the great respect that he had for the 'Aussies.' I still have a V-letter that he wrote my grandparents, amazed that the Australians 'were just like us.' I don't know what he expected, but he was surely pleased with what he found. Eric The(Aboriginal)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:38:43 PM EDT
Post from LARRYG -
I'm sorry, but I don't see his defense of the Philippines as worthy of a Medal of Honor. It was strictly political, as America needed a hero at the time.
View Quote
Well then, the vote for his Medal of Honor would have been 434 - 1 in favor of the honor, had you been there voting. But you still don't think that MacArthur was a hero? Have you ever read of Tokyo Rose's gleeful commentaries on MacArthur's predicament in Bataan during her radio broadcasts? She made the comment in February, 1942, that MacArthur would be in a Japanese prison camp within the month. US Naval officers gave odds of 5 to 1 against MacArthur being able to slip past the swiftly increasing Japanese naval blockade of the Philippines. To answer your question from another thread, here is a great site that gives credence to my assertion in that other thread that MacArthur preferred to fight the Japanese as a Filipino soldier than agree to leave the island. The site's address is: [url]http://www.homeofheroes.com/brotherhood/generals.html[/url] To quote from that site: "Meanwhile, General MacArthur had received word from Washington that he should hold out against the Japanese as long as possible, then capitulation was permissible. [b]MacArthur was livid.[/b] He had no intention of surrendering to the Japanese, had resolved himself to die in the defense of the Philippines. On February 22, General MacArthur said goodbye to Philippine President Manuel Quezon. As the popular President reluctantly boarded the submarine [i]Swordfish[/i] to be evacuated to Australia, he removed his signet ring and placed it on MacArthur's finger. [b]'When they find your body,' he told his old friend, 'I want them to know that you fought for my country.'[/b] Remaining on the island with the General was his wife and 3-year old son. In the hold of the [i]Swordfish[/i] were their personal effects with instructions for them to be held until claimed by the MacArthur's legal heirs. "Even as the [i]Swordfish[/i] slipped out of Manila Bay to preserve the Philippine Presidency, President Roosevelt was pondering the impact on the National morale should the [b]most decorated hero of World War One[/b] be killed or captured by the Japanese. The following day the Commander In Chief ordered General MacArthur to escape to the southern island of Mindanao, then from there to find asylum in Australia. As a United States Army officer, it was an order he could not refuse. As a patriot who loved the Philippine Islands, it was also an order that went against everything in which he believed. [b]Finally the 62-year old, 4-star general decided to resign. He would leave Corregidor, but not as a retreating general going to Australia. Instead, as a civilian, he would make the brief boat ride from "The Rock" to Bataan and enlist as a volunteer in its defense.[/b]" Pretty heavy, huh? And insofar as only [b]his[/b] family being able to leave, just how many American families do you believe were staying in the Philippines with their servicemen husbands and fathers? Not many, I would suppose, it was, after all the regular army we're talking about and their families would have been stateside anyway! [u]If it were up to you[/u], and you had been ordered by the President to leave the island, would you have left your family there to be captured by the Japanese? Please read the article, it will amaze you! Eric The('IShallReturn'ReallyAggravatedTheLeftists­)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:56:09 PM EDT
McArthur's criminality included convincing the US Government to reinforce the Phillippines instead of evacuating it as war with Japan loomed. They were scheduled to get their own independance in 1946 anyway, it is not like the US was loosing anything. It extended to being in part responsible for the destruction of the Army Air Corps in the Phillippines on the ground in spite of getting half a days warning provided by the attack on Pearl Harbor. He interfered with the operations of the Air Corps even though he knew little and cared less about aviation untill after he got his ass kicked.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 9:18:46 PM EDT
Post from ArmdLbrl -
McArthur's [u]criminality[/u] included convincing the US Government to reinforce the Phillippines instead of evacuating it as war with Japan loomed. They were scheduled to get their own independance in 1946 anyway, it is not like the US was loosing anything.
View Quote
Gee, we were only speaking of treason before, now the poor guy's a criminal! Even assuming that MacArthur single-handedly convinced the US Government to reinforce the Philippines (which it didn't, by the way), it was the US that sent MacArthur to the Philippines to prepare them for that day in 1946 when the islands were to receive their independence. How was he the one solely responsible for that? Even after independence, the US was keeping its naval bases and airfields in the Philippines in any event! Should the US then have given up its bases at Subic Bay, Civite, Clark AFB, etc., without any thought when the Japanese ships appeared on the horizon? Go to this site for a good read on MacArthur's preparations for the Japanese attack to see if he failed to do something the esteemed General ArmdLbrl would have done! [url]http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_9.html[/url] More particularly, the part about the air fields- "The [Japanese] plan was to strike at dawn on December 8 with a force of 84 fighters and 107 bombers, but a heavy fog blanketed the fields on Taiwan that morning, and the first aircraft did not leave until 10:15 am. The Japanese aircraft appeared over Luzon shortly after noon. The delay in attacking proved fortuitous for Japan. [b]Since MacArthur had been informed at 3:30 am that a state of war existed, his planes were in the air at dawn seeking the enemy, and a number of false alerts kept them busy for most of the morning. When the Japanese planes arrived, many of the American fighters were in the process of landing for refueling, others were grounded at airfields because of dust, and the bombers were on the ground. The Japanese therefore encountered little resistance and proceeded to wreak havoc on the American aircraft and installations.[/b] The airfields on Luzon were virtually put out of action, and the naval base at Cavite was destroyed. By the end of the day half of the American bomber force and a third of the fighters had been destroyed. Possessing mastery of the air, the Japanese continued their destructive attacks during the succeeding days. The 16 remaining American bombers were withdrawn on December 11 to Mindanao, and then to Australia, without having been able to mount a single effective strike. By December 15, American fighters had been reduced to a handful, and these were now husbanded for reconnaissance purposes." -by Vincent J. Esposito, Colonel, United States Army; Head, Department of Military Art United States Military Academy. I doubt that any Army officer could have better resisted Japanese agression in the Philippines than Gen. MacArthur did in Dec. '41 through March, '42. But yet you say his conduct was criminal. Eric The(Whatever!)Hun[>]:)] | Main WWII Article | World War II Home Page |
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 11:52:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: ...Heck, more people have died at British soccer games and The WHo concerts than died in this so-called "blight on U.S. history."
View Quote
Uh, there's a difference. In your examples, the government was not the ones doing the killing. Also, did you even have a point with that? Please don't try to distract us with irrelevant comparisons. More people died in auto accidents thatn were killed at Waco. So I guess by your 'logic' Waco was not a big deal.
When a Marxist, Marxist sympathizer or dupe intentionally puts themselves in a dangerous situation, a situation of their OWN making for the purpose of creating political unrest, and then gets a bloody lip, I say "He deserved it." If he gets killed, I shed no tears for him.
View Quote
Just how do you define "sympathiser or dupe", because they were there? Or do you have some sign in sheets we all missed? If you view the 2nd amendment as narrowly as you do the 1st amendment, why don't you just turn in your guns now? After all, in your world, putting up a fight, getting in the government's face, is just not a real option when they've told you what to do, like it or not. And in the unlikely event you do resist, if your nose gets bloodied or you get kileed somehow, would you want any of us to shed a tear?
...Frankly, for my $$$$, MacArthur showed IMMENSE restraint. The deaths were caused by the police, and by IDIOTS who brought babies into a battle zone.
View Quote
Do you suppose they had trouble finding a child-care center?
... But to attack the memory of a Great Patriot like Douglas MacArthur is beyond the pale. All I can say is, the Commies are smiling EVERY time they hear it.
View Quote
Hate to pop your bubble, but it's not just commies, and I think those who served under him sorta beat them to the punch, anyway.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 3:50:53 AM EDT
Thanks Eric, its just too bad he is not alive to fight back to some of the comments made here by people who maybe were born after his death. No matter who anyone is, there can always be faults in that person. No one is/was perfect.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 5:00:23 AM EDT
I think that he was a mediocre general, who is much overated. Most of the really big battles in the Pacific were lead by the Navy and Admiral Nimitz. MacArthur's Phillipine strategy was a complete failure. A simple look at logistics should have told him that his strategy was bound to fail. The Phillipines is nothing but thousands of miles of beaches, but MacArthur was determined to "hold the beaches." His retreat plan was inept at best. He had left most of his supplies at the beaches, which were quickly captured by the Japanese. Its quite possible that a better general would have been able to save the majority of the American troops lost in the Phillipines, but MacArthur's inept strategy allowed them to be captured by the Japanese. MacArthur had a few victories attributed to him, however. Most of his early victories in the war were the result of two things. First, the Japanese had overstretched their supply lines (with a front that stretched over 12,000 miles. Second, the American troops who fought under his command were a hell of a tough group. Any victories attributed to MacArthur later in the war were more the result of massive overwhelming force. That said I don't think that he was a coward. I just don't think that he was very good. As for that incident in Washington D.C., I don't blame him for doing what he did. Those people had built themselves a shanty town in the middle of the capital. They should have been run off. Its not like the march had just started. It had been going on for a month or more. The conditions were unsanitary and unhealthy. Plus I suspect that most of the marchers were socialists, so no big loss IMHO. -SS
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 5:25:59 AM EDT
Garandman touches upon a subject I've wondered about. Who is righting these stories? It is the same press that tells us the cause of violent crime is the gun. So why do we call BullShit to every article on the topic of guns and yet take as gospel their writing negative things on someone as MacArthur? Is it because we have a personal view that is affecting our judgement? I view everything "they" write with skepticism. If I don't know much about the topic how can I know their not lying blindly to me? They do so on one topic I'm familiar with, firearms. I guess I'm just getting cynical beyond my years. What MacArthur did in D.C. with the Bonus marchers was not the best way to do things and in all likelihood, less than honorable. But as Garandman points out, take a calm look at who is writing the stories and judge from there.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 5:50:47 AM EDT
Post from Southern Shark -
MacArthur's Phillipine strategy was a complete failure. A simple look at logistics should have told him that his strategy was bound to fail. The Phillipines is nothing but thousands of miles of beaches, but MacArthur was determined to "hold the beaches." His retreat plan was inept at best. He had left most of his supplies at the beaches, which were quickly captured by the Japanese. Its quite possible that a better general would have been able to save the majority of the American troops lost in the Phillipines, but MacArthur's inept strategy allowed them to be captured by the Japanese.
View Quote
Where did you obtain this crapola? I need to see the names of the authors who write this sorta armchair quarterback b.s. about anyone, much less one of the greatest American Generals in our history. [b]I suppose the Inchon Landing in the Korean War was just a fluke???[/b] [u]Everyone[/u] advised him that it would fail! I guess YOU would have advised him against it as well, had you been there! Lord, but MacArthur seems to have learned on the job! Go to this site and see if MacArthur properly executed his defense of the Philippines - [url]http://www.homeofheroes.com/brotherhood/generals.html[/url] Now explain to us in detail how this 'better general' would have handled the desparate situation he found himself in under these conditions, any better than MacArthur? But wait, we would have to guess that anything you or this 'better general' proposed would have worked in the real world, and I suppose we'll never know that now, will we?[:D] By the way, did I mention that MacArthur received the Congressional Medal of Honor by a unanimous vote of Congress for his defense of the Philippines? Eric The(I'mSureIDid!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 6:01:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2001 6:07:55 AM EDT by SouthernShark]
General MacArthur devised a strategy whereby he would defend the Phillipines at the beaches. A BETTER General would have fallen back BEFORE the Japanese attacked, established a defensive position inside the interior of the island with a food and supplies. MacArthur's pride prevented him from doing this. Hence his forces were left without food and without supplies when they were forced to retreat into the Phillipine interior. Many Americans who did retreat into the interior actually survived until American forces liberated them. It was a hard existence but they did survive. Had all of MacArthurs troops had supplies and a fortified position the Japanese might never have rooted them out (or not as quickly anyway). Most of MacArthurs troops in the Phillipines either died from starvation or surrendered. Is this the idea of an ARMCHAIR general? Well only if you consider Dwight D. Eisenhower to be an armchair general, since that was his suggestion (he was also in the Phillipines and unfortunately underneath MacArthur). MacArthur ignored Eisenhower's pleas to fall back and establish a position inside of the Phillipines. Rather MacArthur insisted on fighting a "conventional" style fight against that Japanese at the beach head (and without air support). As for InChon, General Chesty Puller of the Marine Corps had something to do with that as well. -SS
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 6:31:04 AM EDT
For a [u]different[/u] version of MacArthur's defensive strategy, you need to go to: [url]http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_9.html[/url] I think that should clear up matters for you. And no, I don't think Dwight D. Eisenhower was much of an ARMCHAIR GENERAL! I think he was, in the words of Gen. MacArthur, 'the best clerk I ever had.' Ever heard of some poor, poor, I mean really poor planning in a little operation called - 'Market-Garden' I think we can begin to understand a little something about Ike! Eric The(HeStudiedTheatricsUnderMacArthur)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 9:37:42 AM EDT
Once the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor the troops in the Phillipines were doomed. It was simply a matter of time. Prewar war plan orange called for the US to fight a delaying action in the Phillipines while the Navy made their way there with reinforcements. There would be a climactic naval battle involving battleships, the nips would lose, and the reinforcments would land and save the day. Well, the climactic naval battle happened, but it was at Pearl Harbor, and the US lost. There was no way US troops could get anywhere near the Phillipines when the Japanese navy had complete control of the seas. Without reinforcements it was simply a matter of time. The US would lose air control, be pushed back, and eventually defeated. The Bataan defense could have perhaps been extended by another month or two at best if everything had gone right. There was no way to pull out a win. (Incidentally, the defense of the Phillipines lasted about as long as envisioned in war plan orange.) MacArthur left the Phillipines in part because he thought he was going to be commanding the rescue party. Well, there wasn't one, and resources were being sucked away to the European theater anyway. There was one major gaffe: Wainwright was given overall command of troops in the Phillipines. When he was captured at Corrigidor the Japanese demanded the surrender of all forces under is command in the Phillipine islands, including some that had not even been engaged yet. They would have refused his surrender and slaughtered everyone on the island if he had refused. The blame for this situation falls squarely on FDR, who appointed him to overall command. without this the defense of the Phillipines could have been extended by a couple months, perhaps into late 1942. MacArthur's counteroffensive in 1943-45 was by most accounts extremely good. Nimitz and company got more press because they also had more casualties.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 9:43:16 AM EDT
McAuthur was the man, Trumann was the wuss. Because of Truman we dont own all of China. We should of took all of China when we had the chance. Who said we have to end with 50 states, 54 would be better. GG
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 9:52:58 AM EDT
Originally posted by Southern Shark -
MacArthur ignored Eisenhower's pleas to fall back and establish a position inside of the Phillipines. Rather MacArthur insisted on fighting a "conventional" style fight against that Japanese at the beach head (and without air support).
View Quote
Where was Eisenhower when he was giving MacArthur all this brilliant advice? He [u]had[/u] served as MacArthur's senior assistant from 1935 through 1939, but by early 1940, Ike was back stateside and serving at Fort Ord, then at Fort Lewis, and finally at Fort Sam Houston, where he was stationed when Gen. George Marshall summoned him to D.C. as a staff officer, on December 14, 1941. So when, praytell, was he giving ANY advice to MacArthur in the Philippines???? And if he were in DC at the time, how good could that advice be, anyway? Eric The(Studious)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 3:07:21 PM EDT
Post from GunGuru -
We should of took all of China when we had the chance. Who said we have to end with 50 states, 54 would be better.
View Quote
Now here's a guy whose ideas I really like! I think we should give the next four statehoods to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia (and the Northwest Territories), then the 55th state would be either Taiwan or Israel! Post from Macgredo -
Once the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor the troops in the Philippines were doomed. It was simply a matter of time.
View Quote
Now here's someone who knows their history! You know that the only reason that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because Adm. Yamamoto [u]insisted[/u] that it be attacked! The others in the Imperial command wanted to attack everything [u]except[/u] Pearl Harbor! They thought that attacking Pearl Harbor would force the US to declare war, whereas attacking the Philippines, et al., would not! Wonder what would have happened, had the others prevailed? Eric The(AnotherGreat'WhatIf'InHistory)Hun[>]:)]
Top Top