This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Two questions: did judges receive orders to serve on courts martial? (It's suggested by MacArthur's quote, but I've never heard that before; admittedly, not really familiar with pre-UCMJ & non- Catherine Bell military law ;p). 2d, is it appropriate to mention Mitchell was convicted of disobedience for, in effect, not shutting up when told to, esp given Mac's behavior? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hawk, if you've got plans in progress, ignore this. ;D I would nevertheless either delete MacArthur's postwar "unescorted raid" claim as hindsight, or add the prewar plan was to use them unescorted, per AAF doctrine, & MacArthur could hardly not have known. (IIRC without it handy, Manchester mentions it, & Blair {a bit elliptically} confirms that was the plan.) Also, I wouldn't leave off mention of the phone call MacArthur got around 05.30 local from Marshall telling him expressly, "Execute Rainbow Five" (Manchester again). Also, the "one prewar plan" seems awkward, beside which virtually every iteration of Orange presumed withdrawal. What would you say to " Prewar planning presumed..."? (Of course, that opens another can of worms: MacArthur's theory of aggressive defense, whence his "hold at the beach" attempt, whence a worse outcome...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:18 & 09:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 13:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere!
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"Vice Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi who was nominally subordinate to General Yamashita" Any thoughts on mentioning the...unfriendly (what's "at each other's throats" in one word? Klingon? ;p) relations between IJA & IJN? I make no claim to believe Yamashita got anything resembling a fair trial, & this might clarify the issue without expressly blaming MacArthur (which I'd do, given the option ;D). Have a look in Coox & Hayashi's Kōgun, & Peattie & Evans' Kaigun; may also be in Edgerton Warriors of the Rising Sun. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
In re Engineer Spl Bdes, I make it "3 each" from Dexter, but it's not explicit; is there a source that clarifies? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering where things stand expansion wise. Hawkeye7 has done more work on this article in a few weeks than I could have done in three years. I've been wanting to add in the Perret references but there is one glaring conflict with the Oscar Booz debacle.
Did PLA actually cross the Yalu before Zhou issued the first warnings? As I recall, the warnings went thru India & were ignored, first, but it's been awhile, & I'm not sufficiently confident of my recall to say. Put another way, was it before or after MacArthur's boast? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
To explain the rv: since none of the others had their given names attached, using Marshall's is inappropriate, IMO; also, in situations I've seen where a JO must be dabbed from a SO, rank is often used (in effect, it becomes the given name). If you strongly, Hawk, I'll listen to a better solution if you've got one. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that Doug bashing has returned with the pious Eisenhower refusing payment from Quezon. MacArthur and the other mentioned officers who received payment from Quezon had a contractual agreement for those payments. MacArthur's being 46 cents for every $100 spent on the Philippine defense budget. This was part of the arrangement approved by FDR allowing MacArthur to serve as Field Marshal. Eisenhower had no contractual agreement with Quezon and was not entitled to any payment. Quezon's offer was a courtesy which Eisenhower declined. Unless the entire ordeal can be explained completely the edition of Eisenhower "refusing payment" only serves to make MacArthur sound callous and money grabbing. -- Brad ( talk) 23:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Cgersten ( talk · contribs) keeps injecting his own version. Has been reverted but then reverted again. I lost track. Whatever work Hawkeye7 did earlier has been altered. So much for a stable article. -- Brad ( talk) 20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The sentence now in the article, "The revelation tarnished MacArthur's reputation", is not sufficient. This is an encyclopedia, telling history. History is a story—a retelling of what happened and why, for the benefit of current and future generations. The short sentence leaves the reader wondering what about $500k was not good for Mac's rep. Why did people not take kindly to the news? What did they say? Binksternet ( talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
[1]Truman considered MacArthur stupid. He called him a "dumb son of a bitch", but said that wasn't the reason he fired him. Insubordination was the reason and Truman said he slept fine after he fired him.-- MrWellread ( talk) 19:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I think you should. It makes the history more complete. Just a little more of what Truman said (slightly edited) It's not against the law for generals to be a dumb son of a---. If it was, 3/4 of them them would be in jail. He sent Averell Harriman to "clear him up on anything he didn't understand." He said Herriman was trustworthy, but you "couldn't depend on a word MacArthur said" and when Herriman got back, he warned Truman about that. Truman said there was no one around who could keep DM in line, that the whole staff was a bunch of ass kissers and that the General "wouldn't let anyone near him who didn't kiss his ass." It's great hearing this right from the people involved and I think MacArthur's comments deserve to be heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWellread ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"This place" is not specific enough. The US? Washington D.C.? Did he really use that term? "This place" sounds so trite and uninformed. It's a city...or a country.-- MrWellread ( talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I apologize if my tone was harsh. That was not my intention.-- MrWellread ( talk) 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Why does Binksternet keep removing this undisputed fact? "MacArthur was criticized for not having spent a night in Korea and for directing the war from Tokyo." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
cgersten says: Historians Stanley Weintraub and David Halberstam each criticized MacArthur for not having spent a night in Korea, and for directing the war from Tokyo. <ref> Halberstam, David. The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War, ISBN 1401300529. p.498.</ref><ref>http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/qa/19638.html retrieved 3/23/2010</ref> The part of the Weintraub interview about Korea doesn't exactly sound like criticism but a statement of fact even though his facts are wrong. Also included is the infamous but incorrect "Mac A did nothing after Pearl Harbor and lost all his planes" which is another error. -- Brad ( talk) 01:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
MacArthur got nickname Dugout Doug because he only visited his troops on Bataan once!
'As far as "Dugout Doug" is concerned, it is true that the General visited his troops on Bataan only once during his three-and-one-half months on Corregidor.' http://www.usafa.edu/isme/JSCOPE97/Lutz97.htm User:cgersten|cgersten]] ( talk) tuco_bad 15:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
A recent article in the Economist [ [1]] suggested MacArthur was the father of modern Japanese whaling. Our Whaling in Japan article suggests something similar. Anyone think this should be included in the Occupation of Japan section? Weepy.Moyer ( talk) 19:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The term "hagiography" has come to refer to the works of contemporary biographers and historians whom critics perceive to be uncritical and even "reverential".
The MacArthur page has plenty of good information...we know of his heroics under fire, his medals, his awards, taking care of the Japanese surrender, that he graduated top of his class....etc, etc. But a true biography will show the darker side as well. The losses, the mistakes, the way a person really was. We know Patton slapped a soldier. Wasn't pretty or heroic, but it is part of the character of the man. I think that is what is missing from the DM page. He appears to be a noble statue in this section.-- MrWellread ( talk) 01:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I did. Read the Truman stuff. And I didn't see the mistress stuff, maybe I missed it? And people do get divorced...that is not always indicitive of bad character. But when I read:
While there Douglas attended the West Texas Military Academy,[7] where he was an excellent student, winning the gold medal for the "highest standing in scholarship and deportment." He was also the school tennis champion, played quarterback on the undefeated school football team, and shortstop on its baseball team. He was also valedictorian, with a final year average of 97.33.[8] In May 1896, his father was promoted to lieutenant colonel and in January he was reassigned to the Department of Dakota at St Paul, Minnesota and the family moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[7] MacArthur's father and grandfather unsuccessfully sought to secure Douglas a presidential appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point, first from President Grover Cleveland and then from President William McKinley.[9] After these two rejections,[10] he passed a competitive examination for a congressional appointment from Congressman Theobald Otjen,[7] scoring 93.3 on the test, sixteen points higher than his nearest competitor.[9] He later wrote: "It was a lesson I never forgot. Preparedness is the key to success and victory."[7]
Wow!!!!!!I want to see his picture right next to Jesus on Christmas after reading this. And I am only showing one little paragraph. The glow goes on and on. The bad stuff is basically a cursory it happened, then he won the war. Would you be so kind about Nixon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWellread ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) -- MrWellread ( talk) 06:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Here, this took me two minutes to research: There is no question that MacArthur was a brilliant general, but the man has his own pitfalls and negatives. Most of the survivors of Bataan and Corregidor remembered him as the commander who deserted them (MacArthur escaped to Australia in the dead of night by submarine while his men fought to the death against the Japanese onslaught in the Phillipines, with little food and ammunition). His troops weren't even aware that he left the country. The Bataan Death March was the culmination of their horrible ordeal in captivity. During the heat of battle, MacArthur mostly stayed in his underground bunker beneath the tunnels of Corregidor while his men above were fighting fierce battles. For this, he was nicknamed by his men "Dugout Doug". He would only come out after dark when there was a lull in the fighting.
Admiral Chester Nimitz, the Supreme Naval Commander of the Pacific found MacArthur as a vain person, very difficult to deal and work with. Too many times, MacArthur tried to subordinate the navy to his direct command instead of coordinating with his counterpart (Nimitz) during the Pacific Island-hopping campaigns. He also found MacArthur as too obsessed with publicity, with a fleet of photographers always in tow wherever he went. For this, he was the most photographed military commander (the other most photographed military commander being Adolf Hitler).
As the Proconsul of Japan after the Japanese surrender, MacArthur made too many concessions that let many Japanese guilty of war crimes off the hook (in fact, very few Japanese were hanged for war crimes in comparison with those of the Germans at Nuremberg). Those who evaded prosecution included Emperor Hirohito and the entire members of the Imperial Family who were viewed as the ones who were mainly responsible for starting the war. With MacArthur declaring that Japan was a totally bankrupt nation after the surrender, the Japanese weren't required to pay any war reparations to Asian countries devastated by Japan during the war. This is in stark comparison with Germany, who was required to pay so many billions of dollars as compensation to Europe and Russia after the war. -- MrWellread ( talk) 07:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I did find the tiny print about his mistress. This was from History.com : U.S. General Douglas MacArthur was, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, the best of generals and the worst of generals. At his best, in both World War II (q.v) and the Korean War, he showed a mastery of the operational art unmatched by any other American general in the twentieth century. At his worst, he showed appalling lapses of strategic judgment and a disturbing lack of propriety in his relationship with the national command authority.
MacArthur was destined to be a military leader. His father was a general officer before him, and family connections eased his way to high rank. During World War I, he earned a dazzling array of combat decorations. After the war, he became the youngest superintendent ever at West Point, and from 1930 to 1935 he was the longest-serving chief of staff of the army up to that time. Returning to the Philippines, where his father had been military governor and where he himself had already served three tours of duty, he spent his first period of retirement developing a Filipino national army.
The best and the worst were yet to come. In July 1941, as relations with Japan reached a crisis point, President Franklin D. Roosevelt recalled MacArthur to active duty as commander of U.S. Army Forces in the Far East. On December 8, 1941 (December 7 in Oahu), nine hours after the Pearl Harbor attack, a Japanese air raid destroyed most of his air force in the Philippines.
Though MacArthur was not wholly to blame for this debacle, he had badly misjudged Japanese capabilities and intentions, and he remained a remarkably passive commander on the fateful day. Yet, unlike the commanders at Pearl Harbor, he was not cashiered. The reason is not far to seek: in the subsequent resistance to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, MacArthur's image had taken on heroic dimensions in the American public eye.
In truth MacArthur had mishandled the defense against the invasion as well, opting to meet Japanese amphibious assaults at the beaches, despite the grave qualitative deficiencies of the new Filipino army and despite the destruction of his air force. The result was yet another fiasco. MacArthur ordered a fallback to Bataan just in time, but supplies allocated forward were lost, thus diminishing the chances of a prolonged defense.
Roosevelt in March 1942 ordered the evacuation of MacArthur to Australia. Given command of Allied forces in the Southwest Pacific, the general stumbled in the initial operations to halt the Japanese advance in New Guinea, where he had little understanding of the difficult conditions that his soldiers faced. But he then hit his stride with a brilliant campaign in 1943 and 1944 that propelled his forces along the New Guinea coast and onto islands to the north.
MacArthur's success put him in a position to redeem his celebrated pledge of 1942 to return to the Philippines, though first he had to outmaneuver planners who wanted to bypass Luzon. For a long time MacArthur had complained about being starved of resources by Washington, but by the time that he reached the Philippines he commanded a force larger than the United States had committed to any operation in Europe before the invasion of France. Rather than simply contain strongholds of Japanese resistance on Luzon and other islands, he used his large force to carry out a bloody reconquest of the whole archipelago.
If the United States had gone on to invade Japan itself, MacArthur would have commanded the largest, and probably the bloodiest, American operation of World War II (see Operation Downfall). But the dropping of the atomic bombs made such an invasion unnecessary, and MacArthur, as the supreme commander of the Allied occupation of Japan, became a man of peace and reform among the Japanese. No American has had so much unmediated power over so many people as MacArthur did in Japan from 1945 to 1951, and for the most part he used that power beneficently, with positive effects that survive to this day.
Though the Japanese had long regarded the Korean peninsula as crucial to their security, MacArthur was not sensitive to the threat that loomed there. His occupation army in Japan was utterly unprepared for combat. When the Korean War broke out in June 1950, MacArthur was once again taken by surprise, and the forces under his command were once again outmatched.
This time it did not take long for MacArthur to bring about a reversal of strategic fortunes. His audacious operation at Inchon in September 1950 led to the near decimation of the North Korean army. Inchon, because of high tides and the configuration of its harbor, was among the worst places in the world for an amphibious assault. But precisely for that reason, the North Koreans were stunned by what hit them there.
MacArthur's success inflated his already swollen ego and encouraged a dangerous euphoria in Washington. There was now little question that MacArthur should drive into North Korea and reunite the peninsula under UN auspices. When President Harry Truman broached the issue of potential Chinese Communist intervention, MacArthur flatly dismissed the possibility. Once again, as in 1941, he badly misjudged the intentions and capabilities of an Asian adversary. When the Chinese did intervene, the result was the worst debacle in American military history.
MacArthur then lost his poise. Although General Matthew Ridgway was able to stabilize the military situation in Korea in early 1951, MacArthur insisted that there was no good strategic alternative to taking the war directly to China. After several months of vacillation in Washington, General Omar Bradley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered the prudent judgment that a wider war with China would be "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy."
Meanwhile, MacArthur had lost all sense of propriety in his dealings with the Truman administration. Among his many acts of insubordination, MacArthur undertook military operations that went beyond those authorized; he made pronouncements to foreign leaders that undercut the foreign policy of his own government; and he openly appealed to domestic critics of his commander in chief, over Truman's head. It is no wonder that the president finally summoned up the political courage to fire MacArthur in April 1951.
MacArthur received a hero's welcome upon his return to the United States, where he had not set foot since 1937. In those fourteen years, he had become a Pacific Rim visionary, and in 1951 he was able to cause some embarrassment to the efforts of the Truman administration to sustain the Europe-first orientation of American policy and strategy. But MacArthur's meteoric career was over, at long last.
Why is it that the information is there, in so many places, but not in an article about DM on Wikipedia? Could it be that the writers of the article are so enamoured with him that they lose the sense of balance?--
MrWellread (
talk)
17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Smithsonian Magazine recently had an article about Matthew Ridgway. One of the subjects being he assumed command after Mac A was relieved by Truman and touched briefly on that affair. Naturally, letters to the editor in response of that piece were complete Mac A bashers. It's the popular thing to do you know! So people can opine that Mac A abandoned his troops and fled to Australia like a coward all the while ignoring the fact that the President of the United States ordered him to evacuate. Soldiers follow orders even if they're wearing a purple silk tie while doing so. -- Brad ( talk) 04:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Section: Escape to Australia
Marshall felt it would more proper for >>> Marshall felt it would be more proper for —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.242.115.64 (
talk •
contribs)
04:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The Unit 731 article, Japanese WWII War Crimes article, and other related articles (such as those about specific war criminals) note that MacArthur made the decision to grant immunity to many Japanese war criminals from Unit 731. There are ample references in those articles establishing that these war criminals brutally killed tens of thousands of people including American POWs (in addition to Soviet POWs and Chinese POWs/citizens). Given that MacArthur was the one that made the decision to grant immunity to these people and that he was in oversaw the war crimes tribunals, these actions are certainly of import and need to be included in the article with more than just a vague passing remark as it stands now. If the number of Japanese war criminals convicted under his command is of note, then the ones he let go and why is also of note. The war crimes of this Japanese unit are well known in Japan and China, and as such the lack of judicial resolution is of note to international relations between these countries as well. 76.88.173.2 ( talk) 04:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This is obviously an excellent article, but it seems it should be compressed a bit. I suggest we look at the section entitled Philippines Campaign (1941–42). Maybe it can be merged into the article entitled Philippines Campaign (1941–1942). One cannot understand Douglas MacArthur without having an appreciation for the critical role that the Philippines played in the development of his world view. Nevertheless, this topic might be better covered elsewhere. Respectfully, DiverDave ( talk) 06:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This link is used to back up the claim of Arthur and Douglas / Teddy and Teddy and the father/son comparisons. The trouble with the reference is that it does not mention the MacA's at all. Something more solid that specifically makes the comparison is needed here. Otherwise I see this as OR. -- Brad ( talk) 19:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I expanded the FAQ based on the FAQ at Barack Obama. I roughed it in so that it applies to this article. I'm sure that it can be fine tuned as things develop further. It now covers more in detail than just NPOV. -- Brad ( talk) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a biography; it's a three-volume panegyric in the worst Victorian manner.
And it is worst of all on the most significant detail: MacArthur was indeed fired for not obeying Truman's direct orders; the account here is apologetic. Has any editor of this trash read any accounts of the Korean War by people who weren't running MacArthur for President? Neither the contemporary accounts (where is Acheson's Present at the Creation?) nor reliable secondary sources seem to have been consulted at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
"The war would go on until ended by the Armistice Agreement in July 1953."
As I understand it technically no peace treaty was signed and the war between the Koreas still ongoing. More precise language could be used. Lambanog ( talk) 16:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I felt that a lot of issues had been addressed but no one came back to comment on them. Here were the main complaints:
Overlinking and shoddy references I killed the overlinking and Diver Dave went and replaced some of them but it's still better than it was. The online references were attacked for not having publishers or a reliable source. Most of these have been corrected but could be investigated again. -- Brad ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It was brought up that some material is cited with Mac A's autobiography. I think this is fine for citing things in his personal life but it probably should be removed for any other material. -- Brad ( talk) 03:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This was worked over but may not be there yet. -- Brad ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The article was chopped quite a bit and is around 77kb of readable prose and 12,000 words. Still long but not as long as it was. Maybe more could be chopped. -- Brad ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Some NPOV was remedied but I feel there are still areas where wording is a bit on the bright side in a pro-Mac A manner. -- Brad ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This was contested as biased but it's unclear exactly how or what else should be done to fix it besides telling Hawkeye7 that he shouldn't be editing this article. Not good enough reason. -- Brad ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Truman was first and foremost a politician, and politically firing MacArthur was not something he wanted to do. Something that is not being explored is that MacArthur was not acting as a US commander but a UN commander. which is probably why he thought he could get the Chinese to surrender to him. anyway unless you have sources all is moot right? 67.176.160.47 ( talk) 05:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This article has undergone quite a bit of scrutiny and a little condensation over the past couple of weeks. IMO, it should be fairly close to FA quality by now. At 75 kB (12492 words) of readable prose, it is clearly well within the guidelines for length at this point. However there are still a couple of issues remaining.
This fact, while interesting, does not belong in this article. So MacArthur's books were destroyed. Big deal. This sentence trivializes the loss of life and livelihood that occurred in the Battle of Manila.Most of MacArthur's 8,000-volume military library, which included books inherited from his father, was lost. Nonetheless, he continued his habit of reading military history and biography until his death.
I created Douglas MacArthur in World War II as a main article and roughed in a lead section. The WWII section from this article was about 41k and the main article is now at 54k with all of the extras. So there is a "main article" dealing with Mac A in WWII and the section in this article can be cut down to a sort of sub-article. This way there is no need to chop out information and completely lose it as it would be kept in the main article. I think there are more main articles in store here to deal with the "Between the wars" area and possibly the "Junior officer" through "WWI" areas. -- Brad ( talk) 21:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
General MacArthur died in April 1964. The article states that President John F. Kennedy authorized a state funeral. Actually it was President Lyndon B.Johnson. President John F. Kennedy was assinated in November 1963.
L. Ron Hubbard just passed a whirlwind FAC with little controversy except the size of the article which was reduced while under review. This article is about the same size. Hubbard is as controversial as Mac A. Maybe the real key to getting this article past FAC is to announce you're in a hurry to pass it so it can go on the main page by a certain date. At least that's the message I saw; that or announce you're going on holiday and need to pass the article soon. Brad ( talk) 22:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia write up on Fuminaro Konoe, Prime Minister of Japan prior to Tojo, reports that Bonner Fellers was assigned, via a project by the code name OPERATION BLACKLIST, the duty of lining up evidence that exonerated Hirohito and other members of the imperial family. This is also reported in the Wikipedia write up on Bonner Fellers:
"After the beginning of the American occupation, Konoe served in the cabinet of Prince Naruhiko Higashikuni, the first post-war government. ... (he) refused to collaborate with Bonner Fellers in "Operation Blacklist" to exonerate Hirohito and the imperial family of criminal responsibility..."
So in the section on War Crime Tribunals, where there is a paragraph discussing McArthur's decision early-on to exonerate Hirohito and family members of war crimes, it may be that the Editors would want to actually name at least one of the devices which MacArthur apparently order to implement his strategy to do so as this is yet another part of the reexamination now underway about the role of the Imperial Family in the War, and MacArthur's actions pursuant thereof. Charley sf ( talk) 23:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Two questions: did judges receive orders to serve on courts martial? (It's suggested by MacArthur's quote, but I've never heard that before; admittedly, not really familiar with pre-UCMJ & non- Catherine Bell military law ;p). 2d, is it appropriate to mention Mitchell was convicted of disobedience for, in effect, not shutting up when told to, esp given Mac's behavior? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hawk, if you've got plans in progress, ignore this. ;D I would nevertheless either delete MacArthur's postwar "unescorted raid" claim as hindsight, or add the prewar plan was to use them unescorted, per AAF doctrine, & MacArthur could hardly not have known. (IIRC without it handy, Manchester mentions it, & Blair {a bit elliptically} confirms that was the plan.) Also, I wouldn't leave off mention of the phone call MacArthur got around 05.30 local from Marshall telling him expressly, "Execute Rainbow Five" (Manchester again). Also, the "one prewar plan" seems awkward, beside which virtually every iteration of Orange presumed withdrawal. What would you say to " Prewar planning presumed..."? (Of course, that opens another can of worms: MacArthur's theory of aggressive defense, whence his "hold at the beach" attempt, whence a worse outcome...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:18 & 09:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 13:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere!
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"Vice Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi who was nominally subordinate to General Yamashita" Any thoughts on mentioning the...unfriendly (what's "at each other's throats" in one word? Klingon? ;p) relations between IJA & IJN? I make no claim to believe Yamashita got anything resembling a fair trial, & this might clarify the issue without expressly blaming MacArthur (which I'd do, given the option ;D). Have a look in Coox & Hayashi's Kōgun, & Peattie & Evans' Kaigun; may also be in Edgerton Warriors of the Rising Sun. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
In re Engineer Spl Bdes, I make it "3 each" from Dexter, but it's not explicit; is there a source that clarifies? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering where things stand expansion wise. Hawkeye7 has done more work on this article in a few weeks than I could have done in three years. I've been wanting to add in the Perret references but there is one glaring conflict with the Oscar Booz debacle.
Did PLA actually cross the Yalu before Zhou issued the first warnings? As I recall, the warnings went thru India & were ignored, first, but it's been awhile, & I'm not sufficiently confident of my recall to say. Put another way, was it before or after MacArthur's boast? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
To explain the rv: since none of the others had their given names attached, using Marshall's is inappropriate, IMO; also, in situations I've seen where a JO must be dabbed from a SO, rank is often used (in effect, it becomes the given name). If you strongly, Hawk, I'll listen to a better solution if you've got one. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that Doug bashing has returned with the pious Eisenhower refusing payment from Quezon. MacArthur and the other mentioned officers who received payment from Quezon had a contractual agreement for those payments. MacArthur's being 46 cents for every $100 spent on the Philippine defense budget. This was part of the arrangement approved by FDR allowing MacArthur to serve as Field Marshal. Eisenhower had no contractual agreement with Quezon and was not entitled to any payment. Quezon's offer was a courtesy which Eisenhower declined. Unless the entire ordeal can be explained completely the edition of Eisenhower "refusing payment" only serves to make MacArthur sound callous and money grabbing. -- Brad ( talk) 23:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Cgersten ( talk · contribs) keeps injecting his own version. Has been reverted but then reverted again. I lost track. Whatever work Hawkeye7 did earlier has been altered. So much for a stable article. -- Brad ( talk) 20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The sentence now in the article, "The revelation tarnished MacArthur's reputation", is not sufficient. This is an encyclopedia, telling history. History is a story—a retelling of what happened and why, for the benefit of current and future generations. The short sentence leaves the reader wondering what about $500k was not good for Mac's rep. Why did people not take kindly to the news? What did they say? Binksternet ( talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
[1]Truman considered MacArthur stupid. He called him a "dumb son of a bitch", but said that wasn't the reason he fired him. Insubordination was the reason and Truman said he slept fine after he fired him.-- MrWellread ( talk) 19:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I think you should. It makes the history more complete. Just a little more of what Truman said (slightly edited) It's not against the law for generals to be a dumb son of a---. If it was, 3/4 of them them would be in jail. He sent Averell Harriman to "clear him up on anything he didn't understand." He said Herriman was trustworthy, but you "couldn't depend on a word MacArthur said" and when Herriman got back, he warned Truman about that. Truman said there was no one around who could keep DM in line, that the whole staff was a bunch of ass kissers and that the General "wouldn't let anyone near him who didn't kiss his ass." It's great hearing this right from the people involved and I think MacArthur's comments deserve to be heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWellread ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"This place" is not specific enough. The US? Washington D.C.? Did he really use that term? "This place" sounds so trite and uninformed. It's a city...or a country.-- MrWellread ( talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I apologize if my tone was harsh. That was not my intention.-- MrWellread ( talk) 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Why does Binksternet keep removing this undisputed fact? "MacArthur was criticized for not having spent a night in Korea and for directing the war from Tokyo." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
cgersten says: Historians Stanley Weintraub and David Halberstam each criticized MacArthur for not having spent a night in Korea, and for directing the war from Tokyo. <ref> Halberstam, David. The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War, ISBN 1401300529. p.498.</ref><ref>http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/qa/19638.html retrieved 3/23/2010</ref> The part of the Weintraub interview about Korea doesn't exactly sound like criticism but a statement of fact even though his facts are wrong. Also included is the infamous but incorrect "Mac A did nothing after Pearl Harbor and lost all his planes" which is another error. -- Brad ( talk) 01:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
MacArthur got nickname Dugout Doug because he only visited his troops on Bataan once!
'As far as "Dugout Doug" is concerned, it is true that the General visited his troops on Bataan only once during his three-and-one-half months on Corregidor.' http://www.usafa.edu/isme/JSCOPE97/Lutz97.htm User:cgersten|cgersten]] ( talk) tuco_bad 15:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
A recent article in the Economist [ [1]] suggested MacArthur was the father of modern Japanese whaling. Our Whaling in Japan article suggests something similar. Anyone think this should be included in the Occupation of Japan section? Weepy.Moyer ( talk) 19:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The term "hagiography" has come to refer to the works of contemporary biographers and historians whom critics perceive to be uncritical and even "reverential".
The MacArthur page has plenty of good information...we know of his heroics under fire, his medals, his awards, taking care of the Japanese surrender, that he graduated top of his class....etc, etc. But a true biography will show the darker side as well. The losses, the mistakes, the way a person really was. We know Patton slapped a soldier. Wasn't pretty or heroic, but it is part of the character of the man. I think that is what is missing from the DM page. He appears to be a noble statue in this section.-- MrWellread ( talk) 01:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I did. Read the Truman stuff. And I didn't see the mistress stuff, maybe I missed it? And people do get divorced...that is not always indicitive of bad character. But when I read:
While there Douglas attended the West Texas Military Academy,[7] where he was an excellent student, winning the gold medal for the "highest standing in scholarship and deportment." He was also the school tennis champion, played quarterback on the undefeated school football team, and shortstop on its baseball team. He was also valedictorian, with a final year average of 97.33.[8] In May 1896, his father was promoted to lieutenant colonel and in January he was reassigned to the Department of Dakota at St Paul, Minnesota and the family moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[7] MacArthur's father and grandfather unsuccessfully sought to secure Douglas a presidential appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point, first from President Grover Cleveland and then from President William McKinley.[9] After these two rejections,[10] he passed a competitive examination for a congressional appointment from Congressman Theobald Otjen,[7] scoring 93.3 on the test, sixteen points higher than his nearest competitor.[9] He later wrote: "It was a lesson I never forgot. Preparedness is the key to success and victory."[7]
Wow!!!!!!I want to see his picture right next to Jesus on Christmas after reading this. And I am only showing one little paragraph. The glow goes on and on. The bad stuff is basically a cursory it happened, then he won the war. Would you be so kind about Nixon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWellread ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) -- MrWellread ( talk) 06:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Here, this took me two minutes to research: There is no question that MacArthur was a brilliant general, but the man has his own pitfalls and negatives. Most of the survivors of Bataan and Corregidor remembered him as the commander who deserted them (MacArthur escaped to Australia in the dead of night by submarine while his men fought to the death against the Japanese onslaught in the Phillipines, with little food and ammunition). His troops weren't even aware that he left the country. The Bataan Death March was the culmination of their horrible ordeal in captivity. During the heat of battle, MacArthur mostly stayed in his underground bunker beneath the tunnels of Corregidor while his men above were fighting fierce battles. For this, he was nicknamed by his men "Dugout Doug". He would only come out after dark when there was a lull in the fighting.
Admiral Chester Nimitz, the Supreme Naval Commander of the Pacific found MacArthur as a vain person, very difficult to deal and work with. Too many times, MacArthur tried to subordinate the navy to his direct command instead of coordinating with his counterpart (Nimitz) during the Pacific Island-hopping campaigns. He also found MacArthur as too obsessed with publicity, with a fleet of photographers always in tow wherever he went. For this, he was the most photographed military commander (the other most photographed military commander being Adolf Hitler).
As the Proconsul of Japan after the Japanese surrender, MacArthur made too many concessions that let many Japanese guilty of war crimes off the hook (in fact, very few Japanese were hanged for war crimes in comparison with those of the Germans at Nuremberg). Those who evaded prosecution included Emperor Hirohito and the entire members of the Imperial Family who were viewed as the ones who were mainly responsible for starting the war. With MacArthur declaring that Japan was a totally bankrupt nation after the surrender, the Japanese weren't required to pay any war reparations to Asian countries devastated by Japan during the war. This is in stark comparison with Germany, who was required to pay so many billions of dollars as compensation to Europe and Russia after the war. -- MrWellread ( talk) 07:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I did find the tiny print about his mistress. This was from History.com : U.S. General Douglas MacArthur was, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, the best of generals and the worst of generals. At his best, in both World War II (q.v) and the Korean War, he showed a mastery of the operational art unmatched by any other American general in the twentieth century. At his worst, he showed appalling lapses of strategic judgment and a disturbing lack of propriety in his relationship with the national command authority.
MacArthur was destined to be a military leader. His father was a general officer before him, and family connections eased his way to high rank. During World War I, he earned a dazzling array of combat decorations. After the war, he became the youngest superintendent ever at West Point, and from 1930 to 1935 he was the longest-serving chief of staff of the army up to that time. Returning to the Philippines, where his father had been military governor and where he himself had already served three tours of duty, he spent his first period of retirement developing a Filipino national army.
The best and the worst were yet to come. In July 1941, as relations with Japan reached a crisis point, President Franklin D. Roosevelt recalled MacArthur to active duty as commander of U.S. Army Forces in the Far East. On December 8, 1941 (December 7 in Oahu), nine hours after the Pearl Harbor attack, a Japanese air raid destroyed most of his air force in the Philippines.
Though MacArthur was not wholly to blame for this debacle, he had badly misjudged Japanese capabilities and intentions, and he remained a remarkably passive commander on the fateful day. Yet, unlike the commanders at Pearl Harbor, he was not cashiered. The reason is not far to seek: in the subsequent resistance to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, MacArthur's image had taken on heroic dimensions in the American public eye.
In truth MacArthur had mishandled the defense against the invasion as well, opting to meet Japanese amphibious assaults at the beaches, despite the grave qualitative deficiencies of the new Filipino army and despite the destruction of his air force. The result was yet another fiasco. MacArthur ordered a fallback to Bataan just in time, but supplies allocated forward were lost, thus diminishing the chances of a prolonged defense.
Roosevelt in March 1942 ordered the evacuation of MacArthur to Australia. Given command of Allied forces in the Southwest Pacific, the general stumbled in the initial operations to halt the Japanese advance in New Guinea, where he had little understanding of the difficult conditions that his soldiers faced. But he then hit his stride with a brilliant campaign in 1943 and 1944 that propelled his forces along the New Guinea coast and onto islands to the north.
MacArthur's success put him in a position to redeem his celebrated pledge of 1942 to return to the Philippines, though first he had to outmaneuver planners who wanted to bypass Luzon. For a long time MacArthur had complained about being starved of resources by Washington, but by the time that he reached the Philippines he commanded a force larger than the United States had committed to any operation in Europe before the invasion of France. Rather than simply contain strongholds of Japanese resistance on Luzon and other islands, he used his large force to carry out a bloody reconquest of the whole archipelago.
If the United States had gone on to invade Japan itself, MacArthur would have commanded the largest, and probably the bloodiest, American operation of World War II (see Operation Downfall). But the dropping of the atomic bombs made such an invasion unnecessary, and MacArthur, as the supreme commander of the Allied occupation of Japan, became a man of peace and reform among the Japanese. No American has had so much unmediated power over so many people as MacArthur did in Japan from 1945 to 1951, and for the most part he used that power beneficently, with positive effects that survive to this day.
Though the Japanese had long regarded the Korean peninsula as crucial to their security, MacArthur was not sensitive to the threat that loomed there. His occupation army in Japan was utterly unprepared for combat. When the Korean War broke out in June 1950, MacArthur was once again taken by surprise, and the forces under his command were once again outmatched.
This time it did not take long for MacArthur to bring about a reversal of strategic fortunes. His audacious operation at Inchon in September 1950 led to the near decimation of the North Korean army. Inchon, because of high tides and the configuration of its harbor, was among the worst places in the world for an amphibious assault. But precisely for that reason, the North Koreans were stunned by what hit them there.
MacArthur's success inflated his already swollen ego and encouraged a dangerous euphoria in Washington. There was now little question that MacArthur should drive into North Korea and reunite the peninsula under UN auspices. When President Harry Truman broached the issue of potential Chinese Communist intervention, MacArthur flatly dismissed the possibility. Once again, as in 1941, he badly misjudged the intentions and capabilities of an Asian adversary. When the Chinese did intervene, the result was the worst debacle in American military history.
MacArthur then lost his poise. Although General Matthew Ridgway was able to stabilize the military situation in Korea in early 1951, MacArthur insisted that there was no good strategic alternative to taking the war directly to China. After several months of vacillation in Washington, General Omar Bradley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered the prudent judgment that a wider war with China would be "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy."
Meanwhile, MacArthur had lost all sense of propriety in his dealings with the Truman administration. Among his many acts of insubordination, MacArthur undertook military operations that went beyond those authorized; he made pronouncements to foreign leaders that undercut the foreign policy of his own government; and he openly appealed to domestic critics of his commander in chief, over Truman's head. It is no wonder that the president finally summoned up the political courage to fire MacArthur in April 1951.
MacArthur received a hero's welcome upon his return to the United States, where he had not set foot since 1937. In those fourteen years, he had become a Pacific Rim visionary, and in 1951 he was able to cause some embarrassment to the efforts of the Truman administration to sustain the Europe-first orientation of American policy and strategy. But MacArthur's meteoric career was over, at long last.
Why is it that the information is there, in so many places, but not in an article about DM on Wikipedia? Could it be that the writers of the article are so enamoured with him that they lose the sense of balance?--
MrWellread (
talk)
17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Smithsonian Magazine recently had an article about Matthew Ridgway. One of the subjects being he assumed command after Mac A was relieved by Truman and touched briefly on that affair. Naturally, letters to the editor in response of that piece were complete Mac A bashers. It's the popular thing to do you know! So people can opine that Mac A abandoned his troops and fled to Australia like a coward all the while ignoring the fact that the President of the United States ordered him to evacuate. Soldiers follow orders even if they're wearing a purple silk tie while doing so. -- Brad ( talk) 04:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Section: Escape to Australia
Marshall felt it would more proper for >>> Marshall felt it would be more proper for —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.242.115.64 (
talk •
contribs)
04:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The Unit 731 article, Japanese WWII War Crimes article, and other related articles (such as those about specific war criminals) note that MacArthur made the decision to grant immunity to many Japanese war criminals from Unit 731. There are ample references in those articles establishing that these war criminals brutally killed tens of thousands of people including American POWs (in addition to Soviet POWs and Chinese POWs/citizens). Given that MacArthur was the one that made the decision to grant immunity to these people and that he was in oversaw the war crimes tribunals, these actions are certainly of import and need to be included in the article with more than just a vague passing remark as it stands now. If the number of Japanese war criminals convicted under his command is of note, then the ones he let go and why is also of note. The war crimes of this Japanese unit are well known in Japan and China, and as such the lack of judicial resolution is of note to international relations between these countries as well. 76.88.173.2 ( talk) 04:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This is obviously an excellent article, but it seems it should be compressed a bit. I suggest we look at the section entitled Philippines Campaign (1941–42). Maybe it can be merged into the article entitled Philippines Campaign (1941–1942). One cannot understand Douglas MacArthur without having an appreciation for the critical role that the Philippines played in the development of his world view. Nevertheless, this topic might be better covered elsewhere. Respectfully, DiverDave ( talk) 06:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This link is used to back up the claim of Arthur and Douglas / Teddy and Teddy and the father/son comparisons. The trouble with the reference is that it does not mention the MacA's at all. Something more solid that specifically makes the comparison is needed here. Otherwise I see this as OR. -- Brad ( talk) 19:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I expanded the FAQ based on the FAQ at Barack Obama. I roughed it in so that it applies to this article. I'm sure that it can be fine tuned as things develop further. It now covers more in detail than just NPOV. -- Brad ( talk) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a biography; it's a three-volume panegyric in the worst Victorian manner.
And it is worst of all on the most significant detail: MacArthur was indeed fired for not obeying Truman's direct orders; the account here is apologetic. Has any editor of this trash read any accounts of the Korean War by people who weren't running MacArthur for President? Neither the contemporary accounts (where is Acheson's Present at the Creation?) nor reliable secondary sources seem to have been consulted at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
"The war would go on until ended by the Armistice Agreement in July 1953."
As I understand it technically no peace treaty was signed and the war between the Koreas still ongoing. More precise language could be used. Lambanog ( talk) 16:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I felt that a lot of issues had been addressed but no one came back to comment on them. Here were the main complaints:
Overlinking and shoddy references I killed the overlinking and Diver Dave went and replaced some of them but it's still better than it was. The online references were attacked for not having publishers or a reliable source. Most of these have been corrected but could be investigated again. -- Brad ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It was brought up that some material is cited with Mac A's autobiography. I think this is fine for citing things in his personal life but it probably should be removed for any other material. -- Brad ( talk) 03:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This was worked over but may not be there yet. -- Brad ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The article was chopped quite a bit and is around 77kb of readable prose and 12,000 words. Still long but not as long as it was. Maybe more could be chopped. -- Brad ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Some NPOV was remedied but I feel there are still areas where wording is a bit on the bright side in a pro-Mac A manner. -- Brad ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This was contested as biased but it's unclear exactly how or what else should be done to fix it besides telling Hawkeye7 that he shouldn't be editing this article. Not good enough reason. -- Brad ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Truman was first and foremost a politician, and politically firing MacArthur was not something he wanted to do. Something that is not being explored is that MacArthur was not acting as a US commander but a UN commander. which is probably why he thought he could get the Chinese to surrender to him. anyway unless you have sources all is moot right? 67.176.160.47 ( talk) 05:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This article has undergone quite a bit of scrutiny and a little condensation over the past couple of weeks. IMO, it should be fairly close to FA quality by now. At 75 kB (12492 words) of readable prose, it is clearly well within the guidelines for length at this point. However there are still a couple of issues remaining.
This fact, while interesting, does not belong in this article. So MacArthur's books were destroyed. Big deal. This sentence trivializes the loss of life and livelihood that occurred in the Battle of Manila.Most of MacArthur's 8,000-volume military library, which included books inherited from his father, was lost. Nonetheless, he continued his habit of reading military history and biography until his death.
I created Douglas MacArthur in World War II as a main article and roughed in a lead section. The WWII section from this article was about 41k and the main article is now at 54k with all of the extras. So there is a "main article" dealing with Mac A in WWII and the section in this article can be cut down to a sort of sub-article. This way there is no need to chop out information and completely lose it as it would be kept in the main article. I think there are more main articles in store here to deal with the "Between the wars" area and possibly the "Junior officer" through "WWI" areas. -- Brad ( talk) 21:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
General MacArthur died in April 1964. The article states that President John F. Kennedy authorized a state funeral. Actually it was President Lyndon B.Johnson. President John F. Kennedy was assinated in November 1963.
L. Ron Hubbard just passed a whirlwind FAC with little controversy except the size of the article which was reduced while under review. This article is about the same size. Hubbard is as controversial as Mac A. Maybe the real key to getting this article past FAC is to announce you're in a hurry to pass it so it can go on the main page by a certain date. At least that's the message I saw; that or announce you're going on holiday and need to pass the article soon. Brad ( talk) 22:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia write up on Fuminaro Konoe, Prime Minister of Japan prior to Tojo, reports that Bonner Fellers was assigned, via a project by the code name OPERATION BLACKLIST, the duty of lining up evidence that exonerated Hirohito and other members of the imperial family. This is also reported in the Wikipedia write up on Bonner Fellers:
"After the beginning of the American occupation, Konoe served in the cabinet of Prince Naruhiko Higashikuni, the first post-war government. ... (he) refused to collaborate with Bonner Fellers in "Operation Blacklist" to exonerate Hirohito and the imperial family of criminal responsibility..."
So in the section on War Crime Tribunals, where there is a paragraph discussing McArthur's decision early-on to exonerate Hirohito and family members of war crimes, it may be that the Editors would want to actually name at least one of the devices which MacArthur apparently order to implement his strategy to do so as this is yet another part of the reexamination now underway about the role of the Imperial Family in the War, and MacArthur's actions pursuant thereof. Charley sf ( talk) 23:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)