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.

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)

• Yes. Everybody tries to dodge it. Although Mac and Harm probably would have gotten Mitchell off, his legal team did pretty well. Their main problem was that Mitchell was so guilty. He was arraigned on eight charges, the main ones being conduct prejudicial and conduct of a nature. The Billy Mitchell article should explain all this but it isn't very good.
• I can't editorialise but it paints a picture of MacArthur, doesn't it? Especially when read in conjunction with the subsection on Côte-de-Châttillon. MacArthur doesn't mind being shot at; but goes silent when his superiors speak. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidently (as usual... ;p), I wasn't entirely clear. Even the movie makes pretty clear Mitchell was guilty. (Tho, yeh, Mac & Harm would've gotten him a pass. After all, the show made a SeAL an Admiral; what did he have, pix of the SecDef with a goat? ;p) I was thinking more along the lines of MacArthur's late mouthing off & getting fired for it; after the example of Mitchell, what did His Egoness expect? (Yes, I'm not an admirer, which is why I don't edit the page much. As Harry Callahan once said, "A man's got to know his limitations.") And it wasn't an editorial I was thinking, just a passing comparison; if you're following Harry's advice, I withdraw the question. ;D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mac starts referring to himself in the third person shortly after the end of WWI; his report on the Olympics marks the emergence of his famous purple prose.
• The trick with my last controversial featured article, was to pay close attention to the three national narratives without accepting them. I'm not sure why it is that Mac is so controversial though.
• The Truman-MacArthur dispute is a bit of a barometer of civil-military relations and at the moment, in the wake of the Rumsfeld era, very sensitive.
• Navy SEALS: it's been done. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thx. ( This I find very hard to believe, seeing how unconventional SeALs tend to be. Huh.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:42, 3 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)

1. Done. I've deleted that sentence. It's now quite ambiguous, which may be the way we want it.
2. I have all those books here. Manchester is complete rubbish. Disperse into camouflaged, hardened revetments? Yeah, right.
3. The 0530 was a radio message, not a phone call.
4. Bombing Formosa was not part of Rainbow 5 as such. I think it was Brereton's idea. But Rainbow 5 did call for "air raids against Japanese forces and installations within tactical operating radius of available bases" which could have been interpreted to allow raids on Formosa.
5. I tend to think that MacArthur wanted to use the B-17s against an invasion force.
6. Of course it's unlikely the B-17s would have found the Japanese airfields, much less damaged them.
7. We therefore have to agree with MacArthur's post-war assessment that it would have had no chance of success. But you're quite right; that was written after the war with 20-20 hindsight.
8. Brereton published his account in 1946, before everyone else, and dressed it up to look like a diary. However he was involved in a number of disasters, and his book is not too reliable.
9. I already removed the "one prewar plan" bit. I think the editor meant WPO-3.
10. I think the problem with the aggressive defence was as much underestimating the Japanese as overestimating the Filipinos
11. I wonder how today's Afghan Army would fair against the Japanese army.

Hawkeye7 ( talk) 13:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Points:

1. Manchester I had little confidence in; he came off such an admirer...
2. Phone call or radio, that was from memory; it was the order to execute I found important, especially since MacArthur denied getting one.
3. Just which plan was meant IMO is less important than the change. And my bias is probably showing, here, 'cause I wouldn't pass up a chance to make Doug look stupid. ;p However, that is really not NPOV. Why he went to aggressive defense I don't begin to know, tho what little I've seen suggests personality as much as faith in the Scouts; might've been misplaced (it seems to've been in re quality of training) & led to overconfidence, but that's pure speculation.
4. Whether Brereton is reliable I can't say, & I won't defend him or Doug as reliable sources on it, so you're right, better to avoid it entire.
5. I've heard the claim Doug meant for the B-17s to be used against convoys & beaches; I've always dismissed it as fantasy, or misunderstanding (& haven't seen a good source saying it), given the B-17's complete inability to hit moving ships under AAF operational methods at the time.
6. I was interested to learn there was money for airfield improvements, which I didn't know before; too bad some of the putative revetments weren't actually built... (I can just hear the ignorant saying that would violate the treaty...even if they weren't built until 1941.)
7. The Afghanis wouldn't have a prayer. Given halfway competent officers, I'd pick IJA over almost anybody; with German (WW2 era) officers, anybody. IJA troops were the best disciplined, bar none, & had some of the worst, most miserable, most incompetent, & corrupt officers (company grade on up, even platoon on up) I have ever heard of. For which the U.S. should be grateful, because if they'd been remotely as good as the Germans, Japan would still be radioactive. I wager we wouldn't have a WP page effectively nominating MacArthur for sainthood, tho. ;D IJA gets a really bad rap, but it wasn't the grunts. (Is it ever?)
8. One right back: any speculations on why IJA went bad between the RJW & WW2? A bad (terrible, IMO) training regime? (Reminds me of Sov Army.) And since this is one I'm particularly interested in reading more about, have you seen anything good? I confess, all I've seen are bits & pieces. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere!

1. I only used Manchester for goss.
2. The scouts were Filipino soldiers in the U.S. Army. Their number was limited by law to 12,000. MacArthur had no interest in increasing their number, as he was trying to build up the Philippine Army. Will add words to this effect.
3. His faith in the Filipinos was misplaced. Yet he certainly knew how bad they were. I'm thinking that he underestimated the Japanese. Yet he knew them pretty well too. Before the war, everybody wrote off the Philippines as indefensible. Militarily correct, but as an actual conflict drew near, the emotional implications of doing so started to sink in. MacArthur's largest contribution to defeat seems to be his infectious optimism. I'll consult Brian McAllister Linn for some explanations.
4. I've had problems with Brereton before on Operation Market Garden. But Sutherland is also unreliable, and gave two different accounts of events. I think we'll leave it as it is, implicitly endorsing Brereton's account, and see if anyone complains.
5. Attacking ships was what the B-17s were originally designed to do. The difficulties of doing so were not understood. Will add words about USAAF doctrine.
6. The dispersal areas and revetments were not built because there was no money before July 1941. After that, there was no time. Will add words to this effect.
7. It never seems to be the grunts fault! In English-speaking cultures they always want to rely on (and later blame) the man rather than the system. This is going to come up in the next section as I have to cover Kokoda and Buna. Popular historians like to emphasise the courage and suffering of the ordinary soldiers but this has nothing to do with military effectiveness.
8. I'd never thought of the Japanese going bad. I'll consult Drea.

Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Now we're getting somewhere!" Why thank you. ;p

1. Not sure if numbers had anything to do with it. I do know MacArthur showed a peculiar disconnect between faith in the P.A. & knowing their flaws. Some of that may've been PR, to avoid getting what $$ he did get reduced, but I make no claim to actual knowledge.
2. Seeing Brereton, Sutherland, & MacArthur is a battle of the least unrelaiable ;p source, as a default, I'd pick Brereton; he seems to have the least reason to lie about it, IMO.
3. I'd overlooked the B-17's design for patrol use; oops... AFAIK, there were no (remotely realistic) trials to test the theory (Mitchell's 1921 stunt, which appears to be the basis for faith in it, doesn't even merit a mention), & it was as useful for simply spotting, which I suspect USN would've been happy with. You might also mention unrealistic testing; as somebody pointed out, it's one thing to have "pickle barrel" accuracy on a test range in the Mojave, quite another under fire against a target covered in cloud... I also (very vaguely) recall someone raising a connection between the effectiveness of the B-17 & the attack on Pearl, on the basis of prewar overconfidence in its ability to defend a coast, but I'm damned if I recall exactly how the argument ran, & who wrote it is long since lost in the fog of memory. :(
4. I do question if building revetments couldn't have been done. Not modern hardstands, just earth & logs. I confess, I don't know what engineering standards had to be met, or how long it would take for each, & I won't suggest a search for it, if there's a source more/less saying "there wasn't enough time". Nor will I insist on inclusion.
5. The AUS system is pretty f*cked up. If you're interested in the subject, have a read of R. D. Gabriel's Military Incompetence (Hill & Wang, 1985; I looked it up... ;D). This was true in 'nam (which was compounded by idiots & fools in DC; don't blame media, who got it badly wrong on incomplete information). It appears it's true moreso now.
6. Kōgun mentions the change, but doesn't explain; it also illustrates the training regieme (which IIRC was also used by IJN, if I-boat Captain can be trusted). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

About point number three: The first squadron maneuvers conducted by the twelve YB-17s against US Navy assets occurred in August 1937, with lead pilot Caleb V. Haynes and lead navigator Curtis LeMay flying west of San Francisco to locate the old USS Utah and bomb it with 50-pound (23 kg) water bombs. They found the battleship and attacked, scoring three direct hits out of 50 bombs dropped. The description I read did not give any mention at all of very close near-misses, the which would have been much more damaging in the case of real bombs against a ship. The bombers attacked very low under low cloud cover, at 600 feet (180 m), and were not subject to counter fire as they would be if attacking enemy ships. See Maurer Maurer, author of "Aviation in the U.S. Army, 1919-1939". Binksternet ( talk) 01:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never seen that before. Would've been good if the wartime execution had been remotely close to it. It does make a counterfactual I came across, suggesting attacks at masthead height, more credible, tho. Any idea why the operational missions went from 600' to 10K+? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The doctrinaire position taken by the bomber mafia was this: the higher the better. If you attack at a zillion cubits altitude, your enemy cannot counterattack. Anything lower, and you start getting co-opted into missions that help friendly units in the field, and then your ivory-tower theory of strategic bombing to suffocate enemy industry goes out the window. You get constantly called to bomb enemy concentrations, and your strategic effort gets the leftovers. Ten thousand feet was not a high altitude bombing run, it was considered a medium altitude run. High altitude was when oxygen was required. However, practical bombing results showed that lower altitude bombing reduced the diameter of the bomb pattern to make for effective results, even with the Norden bombsight and perfect weather. US air planners did not want to admit it but high altitude bombing was completely indiscriminate. Binksternet ( talk) 01:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe how far and how fast this article has come. You are doing an awesome job and I apologize for not really doing much but minor edits but I have still been unable to get the refs I needed (that you already seem to have). I think at this point I would almost be in the way but I will try and do some edits in the next couple days. Hopefully I can get the references before you all finish the article..lol. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"If you attack at a zillion cubits altitude" Well said. (Here deleted was a 'graph on the bombing campaign in Europe which was extremely OT. ;D) AAF & Harris were arguing from the same playbook. D'you suppose overconfidence in the B-17's effectiveness actually did leave Pearl more vulnerable? And did MacArthur's faith ( Faith? ;p) in a strong P.I., & so building up in P.I., actually force Japan to attack the U.S., when she might've let the P.I. alone? (That's a rhetorical "force".) (Personally, I think once IJA decided to "go south", IJN couldn't've left Pearl alone for fear of loss of $$, & of face, so the theory {in Barrier & the Javelin, IIRC} falters on a moot point.) Can any of that be substantiated, d'you think? And if so, does it bear on this page? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The change mentioned may also be covered in Edgerton Warriors of the Rising Sun. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:59, 13 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.

• Perret claims that Booz was hazed severely but died of tuberculosis after he left West Point. His parents used his death to attack West Point policies from there. MacArthur himself was severely hazed which he downplayed at the congressional hearings even though the other cadet that also testified explained the full story of MacArthur's hazing to the committee.
  • Is that not what the article says? Perhaps it needs to be expanded a bit...
• I think we're cheating the reader out of information more towards MacArthur's personal life and dealings but this article is already in need of splitting off. I've sort of tossed around the idea of a separate article dealing with that. -- Brad ( talk) 02:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea. There are already sub articles on his wives and his brother which could use some attention. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 03:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I keep getting ahead of the game here. If his military career is split out into a separate article then there will be more room to expand on his personal life etc. A separate article on his personal life would only end up reading like a tabloid piece. -- Brad ( talk) 03:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Unlike Eisenhower or Marshall, he didn't really have much of a career other than his military career. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

1. . No, the warnings were in late September; the PLA began crossing the Yalu in early October.
2. . Yes, MacArthur met with Truman at Wake on 14 October 1950. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 06:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thx. As noted elsewhere, however, I'm less interested in answers here than corrections on the page (which I presume you'll take care of without needing further prompting from me.. ;D) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:54 & 07:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Already done. I re-phrased to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Two other things comes to mind. It may be pretty obvious, but does linking to line of latitude bear doing? I imagine most readers know "38h parallel" ="38°N lat", but... Also, is it worth saying this is the only case of the SU not using the veto? Or is that getting way OT? (It was kind of in the back of my mind when I first put it in, but no strong feeling on it.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:00 & 08:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The article already links 38th parallel north which in turn links circle of latitude if the reader doesn't know. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
2. The Soviet Union did not invariably veto resolutions. Although the Soviet Union/Russia have vetoed 123 resolutions, over 2,000 have passed. I've linked United Nations Security Council Resolution 82. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I saw the rewrite, which is why I said "no need to answer". ;D (Same applies to comments in sections above, which I take it you noticed & chose to ignore, instead. ;p) I also noticed (but didn't check :( ) the 38 link; serves me right, I guess. On veto, my recollection is, whenever military action against a Soviet client was at issue, the veto came out, & this is the only case I recall (not to say the only) where that didn't happen. If OT, I won't argue to include mention of the broader issue, & certainly won't if memory is faulty; just an idea. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yes. :D I did however put in a link to UN Resolution 82 so someone could look it up. A Gen Y reader might be under the impression that it is the U.S that vetoes everything. An article this broad throws up a lot of questions. One I was puzzling over that maybe user:Kumioko might know is about Mac's admission to West Point. Today he would be eligible for automatic admission as the son of a Medal of Honor winner, but this obviously and understandably wasn't the case in the 1900. But I have been unable to find out when the rules were changed. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:02, 22 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 don't want people to confuse Richard Marshall (on the SWPA staff) with George Marshall (the Chief of Staff). Calling Richard Marshall a colonel is an error, because he was promoted to brigadier general in December 1941. (And calling him General Marshall will not help much.) So for the purposes of the article I refer to them both using their first names to avoid confusion. If you think it is too jarring, we can refer to everybody by their first names, ie "$75,000 to Richard Sutherland, $45,000 to Richard Marshall, and $20,000 to Sidney Huff." Hawkeye7 ( talk) 06:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it more (for lack of a better word) inappropriate than jarring as such; I guess I tend to prefer (or be more used to) rank than given name, & I find use of rank for military men more "right". Can we get away with calling GCM "the Chief of Staff" when there's potential confusion, & leave off given names at all? I wouldn't object to "Bdr Marshall", either, if you woudn't; I wouldn't go as far as "B/G", for the same reason I wouldn't say "Gen", i.e. dab the Chief. Failing that, can we get away with a blanket statement "Payments were made to all of MacArthur's senior staff" & not name them? Or does that fall down on concurrent refs to the Chief? And BTW, I didn't mean to trample you before; I'd noticed you doing it, & only now thought to explain my reasons. :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:54, 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)

FDR only approved the possible payment of monies to Mac, made by any foreign country. FDR did not specify percentages or amounts, and he did not require Mac to accept. I think Mac's acceptance was legal, but it was a huge blunder politically, and a great deficit to his reputation after 1979 when Carol Petillo outed him. Aside from what you and I think, plenty of reliable sources comment on the large gift, with enough opining that he was money grubbing and callous to merit inclusion here. I wonder why Mac said nothing about the $500k in his memoirs, though he dredges up just about every other money he earned or was given. ( PBS, American Experience. The Secret Payment (January - February, 1942)) Why did he wish to hide this amount from his readers? Many historians observe that taking the huge gift showed impropriety and narcissism ( Conrad Black, in Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom), a later aim to hide it from the IRS ( Alan Schom in The Eagle And The Rising Sun), and an obligation to act favorably toward the Philippines in the future ( Carol Petillo in "Douglas MacArthur and Manuel Quezon: A Note on an Imperial Bond", James C. Bradford in The military and conflict between cultures: soldiers at the interface, and Michael Schaller in Douglas MacArthur: the Far Eastern general).

A few observers still think that the gift was illegal, including Russell D. Buhite in Douglas MacArthur: statecraft and stagecraft in America's East Asian policy and James C. Bradford.

However, some historians do not offer a negative opinion of the transaction. Paul P. Rogers, writing in The good years: MacArthur and Sutherland, fails entirely to address the question of propriety, only describing in detail the probable joy that MacArthur and Quezon got from tweaking the nose of Harold L. Ickes. Binksternet ( talk) 00:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also a question of legality been raised. Wasn't MacArthur a serving AFUS officer at the time the award was given? And wasn't it illegal for serving officers to accept gifts? (I again acknowledge my own anti-Dougie bias, here. ;D) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that until this change was made the article reported facts and not debate. With the addition it is now POV without the entire explanation and ins and outs. So either we explain everything or revert back to the facts. -- Brad ( talk) 02:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rogers does detail his own embarrassment at the payments, which certainly implies a concern about the propriety. Rogers also notes an amazingly oblique reference in the Reminiscences, in the part where MacArthur discusses the issue of a pension for Pershing. MacArthur does not detail how much money he made in Reminiscences. When you compare MacArthur with other officers like Eisenhower or Sutherland (or indeed any of the dozen I've written bios for so far), it stands out that he was never a struggling young officer trying to raise a family on a junior officer's salary. He marries late, and then to a pair of wealthy heiresses. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We explain everything, including the post-revelation consensus that his taking of the money was, in various ways, not quite right. Binksternet ( talk) 02:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean a sentence about Carol Petillo? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but possibly. A sentence or two describing the transaction. A sentence discussing the historicity of the facts, saying his $500,000 windfall was known only to a few in Manila, and a few in Washington DC, until 1979 when it was made public. A sentence saying that, post 1979, most expert observers do not look favorably upon Dugout Doug for taking the money. Binksternet ( talk) 02:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Which sounds like the best approach: "Just the facts, ma'am", & let the reader decide. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Let the reader decide" is the best way to go on any controversial point. We aren't here to make him out as a criminal or the Pope. -- Brad ( talk) 04:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 06:59, 23 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)

MacArthur attributed it to Truman's well known lack of self control. Your quote supports this. In the light of the two men's academic records, the word "stupid" cannot be taken literally. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not personally consider either of them stupid. But, if one considered the other stupid, that is history and can be taken as such. The General was a top grad. But, then again so were many of the brains at Goldman Sachs. I'm just letting Harry be Harry, chips fall where they might. Your point is well-taken.-- MrWellread ( talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Harry's quote is on his page. I can balance it with MacArthur's on his page if you like. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:45, 24 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)

Fair enough. I was trying to avoid repeating "United States". Re-worded Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:20, 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)

No worries. I was agonizing over "continental United States," the problem being that MacArthur visited Hawaii in September 1944 when it was not one of the states but it is now. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:00, 26 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)

Actually I think you'll find it's Hawkeye and myself who've removed this, and we've said why in edit summaries. If you want to discuss it in more detail, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That MacArthur has been criticised is a fact. That he did not spend a night in Korea is not. The astute reader can infer this from the accompanying picture, but I did not want to confuse people. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What picture are you referring to? cgersten ( talk) tuco_bad 21:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The one showing him watching the bombardment of Incheon from his flagship, USS Mount McKinley. The reader can see that he was there on 15 September, and had to travel back by sea, as there was no airport. In fact, he stayed at Inchoen for several days. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Did MacArthur stay in Incheon as you imply, or did he stay aboard the ship? Did he return to Japan by ship or by air, as Incheon was still a battle zone. cgersten ( talk) tuco_bad 01:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The burning problem here is that you're inserting a strong statement without context. Exactly who was it that criticized Mac A? When did this occur? It's quite apparent that Mac A did spend time in Korea so to state that he never did creates this conflict. -- Brad ( talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes - MacArthur did spend some time in Korea (never overnight), only a few hours at a time (flew in and out). BTW – MacArthur himself in November 1950, before the Chinese offensive, actually flew in a small reconnaissance plan near the Yalu River, looking for signs of Chinese infiltration. He didn’t see any, and took no further action. (I will mention the historians who criticized MacArthur) cgersten ( talk) tuco_bad 12:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, MacArthur spent several days in Korea in September 1950, staying on USS Mount McKinley, anchored at Inchon. The aircraft MacArthur flew in was a C-54, not a small reconnaissance plane. It was typical of MacArthur to decide on a personal reconnaissance, however dangerous. He could not find signs of a Chinese buildup. "If a large force or massive supply train had passed over the border, the imprints had already been well-covered by the intermittent snowstorms of the Yalu Valley. I decided to have Walker await withdrawing until actual combat might indicate its necessity." So he didn't exactly do nothing. I will expand the paragraph. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Hawkeye7 Eradicating this statement? Historians Stanley Weintraub and David Halberstam each criticized MacArthur for not having spent a night in Korea, and for directing the war from Tokyo. cgersten ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

In order to maintain a NPOV, it was agreed that the article must contain facts about MacArthur, not criticisms of MacArthur. However if you have some particular facts that you feel are worthy of recording, I can certainly add them to the article. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 wrote: It was typical of MacArthur to decide on a personal reconnaissance, however, dangerous. However MacArthur was dubbed Dugout Doug, because he visited Bataan from Corregidor only once during the fighting.

From the song: Battling Bastards of Bataan

Dugout Doug MacArthur lies a-shakin’ on the Rock

Safe from all the bombers and from any sudden shock.

Dugout Doug is eating of the best food on Bataan

And his troops go starving on.

But this is another issue.

As for MacArthur staying on USS Mount McKinley, anchored at Inchon, not quite the same as staying overnight in Korea and perhaps getting first-hand facts.

MacArthur was with the frontline troops each day during that stay. There is no basis whatsover for the claim that he could have got more first hand information. He often visited the front. I was just getting tired of continually referring to him at the front ignoring sniper fire. I will add another couple of these. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any pictures of MacArthur in Inchon? Perhaps if MacArthur "often" visited the front he would have received first-hand info from our soldiers of encounters with Chinese units prior to the Chinese onslaught in November 1950. cgersten ( talk) tuco_bad 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As for maintaining a NPOV, the criticism of MacArthur is not mine but by well-respected historians and in all fairness should be included to let the reader research further. cgersten ( talk) tuco_bad 00:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to maintain a NPOV, it was agreed that the article must contain facts about MacArthur, not criticisms of MacArthur, whatever the source. However if you have some particular facts that you feel are worthy of recording, I can certainly add them to the article. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How about a compromise and simply say that MacArthur directed the war from Tokyo? cgersten ( talk) tuco_bad 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do! Hawkeye7 ( talk) 05:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of source

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)

David Halberstam is a journalist not a historian. I couldn't find the same criticism in Weintraub's book although I found quite a few errors of fact. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Halberstam was a historian, author and historian (e.g., The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War).

hmmm - Weintraub, noted historian, is wrong in his facts, how so? cgersten ( talk tuco_bad 02:27, 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)

Maybe in the Occupation of Japan article. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 03:42, 30 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, Patton slapped two soldiers, not one.

The MacArthur article also covers his testimony about hazing, his divorce, his mistress, his paying money to the news media, his involvement with the expulsion of the Bonus Army, his receipt of payments from the government of the Philippines, etc, etc

(In contrast, there is no mention of Jean Gordon in the Patton article.)

If there is any information that you feel is missing, I am willing to add it.

Hawkeye7 ( talk) 03:14, 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)

If you didn't find the mistress stuff, you'll have to re-read the article. There's going to be a pop quiz you know.

1. Bataan. I've spoken to some survivors and they didn't see it that way. There was some bitterness about the way they were treated in 1941-42 and even more about the shabby way that they were treated after the war. But they were proud to have served under MacArthur, as were other veterans of WWII. Unfortunately, the Bataan Death March was not the culmination of their ordeal but only the beginning.
2. Nimitz. Nimitz and MacArthur cooperated well. Neither was immune to the inter-service rivalry that obstructed the war in the Pacific, but MacArthur several times loaned Nimitz vital resources that he needed for his own campaigns. In turn, Nimitz leant a hand a several critical junctures.
3. War reparations. Germany did pay war reparations, mainly to France and the USSR. These were taken in the form of machinery, which was dismantled and shipped. Japan also agreed to pay 1 trillion yen as part of the peace treaty.
4. War crimes. As the Tokyo War Crimes article is at great pains to point out, several times as many people were convicted in Tokyo that at Nuremberg, and a higher percentage were hanged.

Hawkeye7 ( talk) 09:26, 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)

All of that information is in the article and a lot more. What the article is deliberately missing is the colourful opinions. This in order to maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV), and also to conform with the Manual of Style (MOS), which quite rightly prohibits such constructs. Thus, the article contains no purple prose about how "brilliant" and "audacious" his campaigns were, or what a "man of peace and reform" he was. This also means that it does not contain ludicrous assertions that he was "destined to be a military leader" or breathtaking hyperbole like describing a career of nearly fifty years, over thirty of them as a general, as "meteoric". Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Some points from Perret (which I'm still reading through) is that as a young Lieutenant in Wisconsin Mac A was given a poor performance review by his superior because Mac A was too busy chasing after a woman and writing poetry. Mac A's communiques were often exaggerated and outright false such as reporting battle victories before the battle had even begun. I believe it was at Buna where American casualties far outweighed those of the Japanese just so Mac A could report his victory before Nimitz could report one. -- Brad ( talk) 20:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We all did that! Doug's instructors at the Engineer School were also not very impressed with his lack of attentiveness, but it was hard to argue with the President. However, a poor performance review was not the career ender back then that it would be today.

The communiqué issue is mentioned in the article, along with a couple of examples. It wasn't just the communiques though, which were just chook pellets after all; MacArthur habitually declared victory and moved on to the next operation prematurely. There are examples in the article. GIs and diggers used to say that "mopping up" was when the Japanese defence was down to its last few thousand men, with some artillery and just a few dozen tanks, and could no longer threaten the western United States. At Buna the effort was not to beat Nimitz though, but to drive the Japanese out before they could reinforce. I found a document in the files where a staff officer referred to "MacArthur's plan to beat the Navy" and Sutherland has written in the margin: "Not the Navy you idiot - the Japanese!" Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly, he wanted the war over so he could concentrate on the real enemy--the Navy! ;D And I never did that. (I hate poetry. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:57, 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)

Yes, but why is it such a popular thing? There's obviously some important American national myth at stake, but I don't know what it is. MacArthur is clearly a divisive figure today, in a way that Eisenhower is not. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

MacArthur in Popular Mythology sounds like a class that should be taught at West Point. I've noticed that primadonnas like Mac A are often discredited for whatever they do in life because of it. Doesn't matter how brilliant they were. But the popular thing to do is modern revisionism such as Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (like anyone should care) and discrediting everything Thomas Jefferson ever did because he was a slave owner. To please the bashers I shall start investigating Mac A's sexuality. -- Brad ( talk) 02:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And how I'd love to teach it! We have a term for this in Australia: Tall poppy syndrome. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 04:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Most Mac bashers are intelligent. Readers of Smithsonian are intelligent. :-)

Binksternet ( talk) 23:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Smithsonian article expended all of one short paragraph to the relief and replacement by Ridgeway yet all the letters to the editor focused on Mac A being over rated and under skilled. It's comparable to writing about apples and receiving responses about oranges. -- Brad ( talk) 03:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Most Mac bashers are intelligent." Thank you. ;p And I'm not sure soldiers blindly follow orders, either. Certainly Monty & Harris resisted, & I doubt Dougie failed to consider refusing to obey. (Would he had... "I shall remain"?) There appears to be an issue of national honor at play (one MacArthur blatantly played on in getting his way back to the P.I.: he'd effectively pledged U.S. honor to liberation). For myself, I couldn't care less if Doug was screwing odd-numbered sheep; it's his self-serving & stupid command decisions, & his rewriting of history, that irritate me. (Same applies to Monty, who I'd call the British MacArthur.) As has been pointed out, you don't get to be a general, let alone a successful combat general, without a fairly healthy ego. It's a rare case I'm aware of where that comes out as supreme self-confidence rather than being an overweening PITA; Nimitz & Eisenhower (& to a somewhat lesser extent IMO Bradley) show that, while others, like Rommel, are a bigger pain. (I excuse Patton, because he had a flair I admire; I claim bias.) I also wonder if there isn't a psychology at work: do we want our national heroes to be a bit more modest, or at least to show a bit more style? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This would all be on the West Point syllabus. :) As a rule, we get what we pay for. If, for example, you make promotion competitive, then you will promote competitive people. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 06:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's systemic issues, too, I'm sure. Today, there's an issue of "turbulence" (described in Why America Loses at War IIRC); in short, if you need time in a variety of stations to get promoted, you never get good at any of them... (This is also one reason interwar USN intel was so awful; it was lo regard, & sea time was prized higher, so intel officers didn't spend anything like enough time in the job.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:36, 4 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 an article about Mac A and not an article about Japanese WWII War Crimes. Unit 731 and Mac A's pardon of those involved is clearly stated in the appropriate area of this article. What Unit 731 specifically did or how many deaths they were responsible for belongs in the Unit 731 article. -- Brad ( talk) 16:38, 4 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)

There was previous conversation on the topic of spin-off articles that never went anywhere. With all of the comments about the article length being brought up at the FAC review I think it's time the issue was addressed again. The WWII section is enormous so possibly a "MacArthur in WWII" spin-off is required which would allow no loss of what is currently written. -- Brad ( talk) 19:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of sub articles were created out of the process, one on honours and awards and another on Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur. Some issues remain:

1. We don't know what size the article should to be reduced to in order to pass FAC. A useful A-class article is be superior to a dubious featured article candidate, if it won't pass unless it is seen to be as comprehensive as the current article. Note how the article was opposed by one editor on the grounds that the Japan section was too short and apparently wasn't mollified by pointing at the Occupation of Japan article.
2. Unlike the dismissal article, sub-articles like Douglas MacArthur as Chief of Staff will not stand on their merits. They will be referred to only from the main article. So I'd like assurance up front that they would not be subject to AfD.

Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that tall poppy syndrome continues on even into the FAC comments. I see clamoring for more derogatory comments about MacA. However, I think there are places where the article can be reduced but this is never a good idea to do while there are 75 screaming reviewers saying it's too long. This needs to be thought out carefully. I don't believe that any information from this article that is broken out to an article of it's own wouldn't stand on it's own merit considering the amount of research and referencing you have done. But the only way to take the heat off the situation is after the FAC is either closed or passed. -- Brad ( talk) 19:08, 6 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)

Usually what people see as OR is just me adding references to back up what another editor has written without sourcing. I've added another reference which explicitly references MacArthur. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's fine now. I had to make corrections to the ref so it would display properly. Also, Arlington National Cemetery is not the publisher in this case. The site is not associated with Arlington. -- Brad ( talk) 00:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thought I would add that I realize the condition this article was in prior to your work on it. I'm quite sure that there were many things that needed cleaning but it seems that we've caught most of them thus far. It's annoying when people bash the article you worked so hard on; something I can relate to as well. -- Brad ( talk) 22:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

More picky medal things

• I'm not sure if it's important to clarify that Arthur Jr. was not awarded his MoH until 1890.. 25 years after his actions. I suppose it's not a big issue but.. well.
  • It should be in his Dad's article. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• While Mac A was gassed twice in WWI the award granted at the time was a Wound Chevron as the Purple Heart had not been resurrected at that time. When Mac A resurrected the Purple Heart for wounds while he was Chief of Staff all those who had been awarded wound chevrons were eligible to apply for the Purple Heart; it was not automatically granted. Of course Mac A applied for his directly. -- Brad ( talk) 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I did not know this when I wrote the WWI section, and only found out when I wrote up the Chief of Staff section. Clayton James made the same mistake. I meant to go back and correct the relevant sections. I have done so now. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:48, 9 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)

• I love it! Hawkeye7 ( talk) 03:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. I remembered that Obama had an extensive FAQ so I went over there and robbed it. You might want to put Talk:Douglas MacArthur/FAQ on your watch list. -- Brad ( talk) 04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know how they ever got Barack Obama through the FAC process. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course the main reason it got through FAC is that Obama isn't MacArthur! The article originally passed FAC in August 2004 and has had 7 FARs since then and still lives. I think it's a good example of people dedicated to keeping an article at FA. -- Brad ( talk) 17:40, 9 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)

If you've got a copy, why don't you add? I would caution, tho: if Acheson "strongly" advocated MacArthur's removal, his account isn't unbiased. (And I'm no fan of MacArthur, either.) 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I contend that it is unbiased - although Acheson, having more controversies to answer, may have spun things less on each individual issue; it may be no better than MacArthur's own memoirs, which this article quotes at length. But I do not have a copy to hand - and I have spent too much time on Wikipedia arguing with fanboyish schlock to take on another hopeless cause. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If this was an article on the Korean war, then who's strategy was best is something that should be discussed. rather this is about MacArthur, so why he did what he did is more important, than if it was right or wrong. That is to say, since this article is about MacArthur, his side of the story would be more prominent, not that it should be one-sided, just that MacArthur's actions and reasoning are more important than Truman's here. If it was Truman's article, it would be more about Truman. 67.176.160.47 ( talk) 05:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's idiotic. Is the Hitler article written from his point of view? Why should this disobedient crazed lunatic be treated any differently. Wikipedia fanbois are the scum of the earth and cause wikipedia to be as worthless as a texas school book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.122.231 ( talk) 08:25, 24 June 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 believe this has been addressed. -- Brad ( talk) 18:01, 13 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)

Sources

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)

Aside on use of Doug's autobio: I'd be inclined to leave in anything where his statements contradict the popular view (on whether he meant to run for President before '52 {?}, frex). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And also a mention of the article relying too much on James and Mac A for references. -- Brad ( talk) 21:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

This was worked over but may not be there yet. -- Brad ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Was a little surprised the nomination was closed since it had a few supports and I think only one oppose and work was being done addressing the comments. I wanted to support this article but have to admit my impression going over it was that it is a little too easy to find things to nitpick about. I made comments regarding the lead and while improved the MoH stuff is still repeated and that doesn't help lessen the impression the article leans towards being favorable to the subject. Even without the repetition the lead reads like a litany of awards given—although that in itself is fine by me—but it doesn't help the case that the article is neutral. Lambanog ( talk) 13:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The supports the article gained were all from milhist people which is what Sandy was going on about in a couple of passages. The article needed more reviews from people unassociated with milhist. A lead section is supposed to summarize as much as possible the contents of the article. An article of this size should have four paragraphs in the lead. I agree with your observations that it focuses on the MoH and awards more than it explains what Mac A did during his life. -- Brad ( talk) 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Length

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)

• There's also parts where people still want more. Three for consideration:
  1. Japanese attack on December 8, 1941
  2. Occupation of Japan
  3. Dismissal

As far as I'm concerned there is no way this article should be expanded any further and enough effort had been expended to reduce it. That leaves us with break out articles. There is no stand-alone article for the 8 December attack that I could find except for History_of_Clark_Air_Base#The_Attack. That one is filled with uncited text and opinion. Occupation of Japan seems to be complete enough for those looking for more information and carries a B rating. Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur unfortunately is a horrible mess telling us little more than is mentioned here. That one should be built on to provide a wider look at the issue. -- Brad ( talk) 02:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I just saw Battle_of_the_Philippines_(1941–42)#Far_East_Air_Force_controversy which is actually a realistic look at what happened. So we're stuck with two different descriptions in two different articles. -- Brad ( talk) 02:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

• It would help a lot if you could say where this occurs. In the course of the FAC process, the article actually became sunnier as critical comments in the Great War and Second World War sections were excised. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 03:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I will go through the article and makes changes where I think it's needed. At the same time however, I think there are also some areas that could be reduced with less details and all of those details are of minor importance to the subject imo. That may reduce the article size a bit more. -- Brad ( talk) 14:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done enough mangling for now. I'll let you catch up and comment before I go further. -- Brad ( talk) 19:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that some corrections were made in the Chief of Staff section. My questions now are for two passages: While not as violent as other anti-riot operations and He ensured that detailed plans were drawn up for its employment and decentralized its administration to the corps areas, which became an important factor in success of the program. How was the eviction not as violent as other anti-riot operations? Seems like comparisons are needed here if the wording stays. How exactly did Mac A's plans for the CCC make it a "success"? Were there other plans that were rejected or other plans that failed? -- Brad ( talk) 02:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Considered as a military operation, the eviction is something of model. That is because MacArthur had a body of disciplined, well-led troops whom he put through special riot control training beforehand. Given the number of Bonus marchers and their disposition, deaths could have been reasonably expected. Looking at the List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States, many efforts were not so well handled. The problem was that unlike the Red Scares in 1917-1920 and 1947-1957, this one was confined to Washington. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• The CCC is generally regarded as a popular and successful New Deal program. MacArthur's contribution was mainly to how it was organised. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'm concerned by the cuts to the Great War section. You seem to catering to the belief that his decorations were not for gallantry under fire. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Again with the apologetics. Enough. This article will remain tagged until it is rewritten by someone who can maintain a neutral tone - and preferably has some understanding of the background. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Unless you can provide reasons why the CCC was successful and the Bonus eviction well-handled because of Mac A then you aren't allowing the reader to decide for themselves. As to the medals, I know they're awarded for specific reasons but describing why they were awarded is again not allowing the reader to decide for themselves whether Mac A actually deserved them. At least without the entire context of what he actually did for the award. -- Brad ( talk) 19:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dismissal

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)

• It seems to be a situation where the foreigners like myself do not understand, and the Americans cannot articulate. It seems to me that the dismissal involves two principles of liberal democracy in conflict. The first is the principle of civilian control of the military. The second, which I heard Admiral Mike Mullen talk about, is that the military should be apolitical. If military leaders can be dismissed at will for disagreeing with the President, then this principle is compromised. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 03:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me take a stab at explaining, & let you decide how, or if, to put it in. MacArthur didn't get fired just for disagreeing. (As I understand the UCMJ, not in effect at the time, doing that is bad enough.) He got fired for doing it in public (& as I understand the UCMJ, not in effect at the time, doing that is verboten), & after being told (i.e., ordered) to shut the hell up. The "non-political" works both ways: officers are expected to keep their views of policy "in-house", & "not air dirty laundry" in public. Same applied to Mitchell: he didn't get court martialed for his views, but for continuing to express them in public after being ordered not to. In truth, Dougie got off easy. He could've been court martialed. (IMO, he should've been, but that won't pass NPOV muster, will it? ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The JCS agreed that MacArthur was not legally guilty of insubordination (§ 891); nor was he guilty of "using contemptuous words against the President" (§ 888) although today this is read broadly to include both public and private comments. Are you sure he was ordered to shut the hell up? (Which could have attracted (§ 892)). But as you say, the UCMJ was not in use (for another month!) I have read an article that claimed that "Truman did not remove MacArthur simply because of his repeated insubordination, but because he wanted a reliable commander on the scene should Washington decide to use nuclear weapons." But I don't know how much weight to give to this. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 05:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the author is finding things that aren't there. His footnotes don't back up his claim; rather he's using material to find a new reason. Trekphiler is correct about US Military protocol whether it's written in stone or not. Perret touched on this in his book relating that Mac A showed contempt for Truman and that Truman already had a dislike of Mac A before he was President. The meeting on Wake Island reinforced these things. For example, when the President comes to meet with you, you meet him on the tarmac, not saunter up to him ten minutes later without saluting him. When the President asks you if you would like to join him for lunch you say yes and not make some excuse as to why you don't have the time. Mac A didn't want to travel all the way to the US to meet with Truman so he made the President fly to Wake instead. So, bad manners and not following expected protocol only made things worse. -- Brad ( talk) 14:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• That's a zombie myth that comes from a TV show in the 1970s. MacArthur arrived on Wake the day before Truman and greeted him as he got off the plane. There's video footage of this. Truman's original proposal was to meet in Hawaii, as Roosevelt had done in 1944. Truman didn't want to meet MacArthur in Washington, D.C. But Marshall's message added that "if the situation in Korea is such that you feel you should not absent yourself for the time involved in such a long trip, I am sure the President would be glad to go on and meet you at Wake Island." MacArthur really wanted to supervise the landing at Wonsan, so he replied: "I would be delighted to meet the President on the morning of the 15th at Wake Island." Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So does that mean you don't agree that Mac A showed disrespect towards Truman? Roosevelt may have had to ignore Mac A's quirks since WWII was going on but Truman didn't have to since he had plenty of generals around after the war. -- Brad ( talk) 02:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. MacArthur was always unfailingly polite to people, even people he disliked. The two men actually gone along well at Wake. They fell out afterwards. With Roosevelt, MacArthur had a warm personal relationship that went back to working together before the Great War (now missing from the article). MacArthur was Chief of Staff under Roosevelt when Truman first came to Washington in 1934. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 12:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perret isn't the first author to point out that Mac A could be a pompous drama queen and often engaged in petty vindictiveness. The comment on this particular part of his life has so far been ignored. You're forgetting that WP is about verifiability and not truth so if there are several sources pointing out his faults, those faults should be included in the article. This is the overall reason why the article isn't meeting npov. -- Brad ( talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

He could indeed be pompous beyond belief. I was leaving this to quotes from MacArthur. We could mention his eccentricities wearing a kimono in the office and habitually speaking of himself in the third person. He wasn't normally vindictive though. He had a terrible falling out with Sutherland, but kept him on as chief of staff. He had flaming rows with Krueger and Kinkaid in 1945, but then nominated them for promotion to four-star rank. As a commander his biggest fault, one that Eisenhower complained about in the 1930s, was that he always tolerated mediocrities. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only a kimono but also a jeweled cigarette holder. But I believe you're still missing the overall point. While not the only reason for his dismissal, his disrespect towards Truman was most certainly a factor involved. He kept Roosevelt waiting for an hour in Hawaii while he went to "freshen up" after his long plane trip. These are things you don't do to the President out of respect for his office. -- Brad ( talk) 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(Later) The most oft cited example of vindictiveness relates to the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, where MacArthur confirmed the death sentences on (not nearly enough) convicted war criminals. The article notes how these included Homma and Yamashita. MacArthur kicked the corpse of a Japanese soldier on Leyte of the division involved in the Bataan death march. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going on this, which appears to say (if not expressly) Doug was told to keep it out of public view (I was being a bit loose, I admit, :( & perhaps shouldn't have been) & he didn't. That he got fired may've colored JCS's & JAG's view: they really couldn't hurt him much more. Given Doug's views on the use of nukes, & Truman's expressed intent to keep Korea "limited", I tend to believe it factored in the decision, especially since Doug already seemed inclined to slip the leash (viz "don't approach the Yalu").

Aside on use of Doug's autobio: I'd be inclined to leave in anything where his statements contradict the popular view (on whether he meant to run for President before '52 {?}, frex). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That he got fired may have coloured the JCS' view in another way: if Truman could fire MacArthur, would he hesitate to get rid of one of them? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Could be, Counselor. ;p If my learned colleague will allow, I've a hunch (no more) they weren't worried, 'cause none of them was as big a publicity hound as Doug. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Admiral Sherman was pretty worried after the " Revolt of the Admirals", and Clifton B. Cates feared that his Marine Corps would be abolished. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The contemporary definition of non-political was so stringent that Marshall and Eisenhower, for example, did not even vote during their military service. The Army was not kept free of politics by asserting officers' liberty to disagree with the President, but by officers staying out of political issues. MacArthur had violated the custom of the Army by making a public statement on a matter of strategy at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This note from the Good Article Review should also be read and digested by anyone attempting to salvage this article. It expresses a significant POV; this article does not. (Using Manchester's life as often and with as much attention as James' might well do that; I can only observe for now that this article does not.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 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.

• Irrelevant and/or distracting information: For example, the following sentence appears in the Luzon subsection of the Philippines Campaign (1944–45) section:

  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.

  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.
  • This is an important point about the man as a general. We could move it somewhere else... Hawkeye7 ( talk) 12:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• MacArthur's responsibility for the catastrophic failure of intelligence in the bombing of Clark Air Field on 08 December 1941 should also be mentioned. This will help to satisfy those who claim the article POV is decidedly pro-MacArthur. Respectfully, DiverDave ( talk) 05:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It was originally much longer but got cut back. The conspiracy theory is that MacArthur was under orders from Roosevelt to let the Japanese strike the first blow. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 12:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • We are not required to give undue weight to fringe theories. However, the present text blames Sutherland - which would require explicit support from a third-party source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Although MacArthur's support for a strong military, and his public criticism of pacifism and isolationism, made him unpopular with the Roosevelt administration. Which implies that the Roosevelt administration was pacifist and isolationist, as a statement of fact. What hash have you been smoking? This is incredible; it may well be MacArthur's own view - in which case it should be credited to him - but it will not do in our voice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• But the fundamental problem with this article is that over half of the footnotes are drawn from two sources, one of them MacArthur's autobiography, and the other almost equally favorable. This will not be ready for consideration for FA until more sources, not exhibits of the fringe views of MacArthur's campaign for the Presidency, are read and understood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

Kennedy authorized a state funeral which a president can do at anytime. Johnson confirmed the state funeral upon Mac A's death. Brad ( talk) 22:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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)