War in the Pacific Chess, Anyone?

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Leandros
I am not a piss on MacArthur person. I don't like him, and I don't think he was all that great strategically, at the time, but he was an operational genius. Genius does not imply perfection in every endeavor. Genius implies thinking/acting outside the box in a manner that will accomplish the mission.

Pretty dry stuff, but I like to think of Generals, and even Majors and Colonels, in terms of elegance. Some got it. Some don't. Mac, for all his warts, had elegance. Ciao. JWE

Actually, myself I have little opinions on MacArthur as a person but I think what he did just before the war broke has been greatly under-rated. Particularly
the fact that he wanted to defend the whole of the Philippines, he has been much "pissed on" for that. The effect of his work on this was effectively nullified by
Hart's unwillingness to give support to ANY supply runs to the Philippines, even to the Southern islands. This is what happens when the military branches are
allowed to operate after each their own head. Just my opinion. There were independent submarine supply operations but, as I understand it, those were executed quite
unwillingly, too.

It's a Little funny, my attention was drawn to the story of MacArthur and the Philippines much as they were to Operation Sea Lion. I reacted to the unison ridiculing
by many in the web discussions. Could MacArthur, or the Germans, for that matter, be as amateurish as they were portrayed?

Regarding MacArthur, in my opinion, the proof of his greatness is shown by what happened on Mindanao and the Visayas. That was a great opportunity for the allies
but they did not grab it.

Fred
[/quote]

In the PI MacArthur had too little to work with and, like most generals, he made mistakes. He lost most of his airpower the first day for example. He was quite wrapped up in his ego and tried to draw a lot of press attention to himself, but then a lot of great generals have been.

Operation Cartwheel was his (planned by his staff at least) and we know little about it today because it worked so well. It was one of the most complex amphibious operations in history and it happened with no major hitches.

He also turned out to be the right military governor of Japan after the war. He was wise enough to realize he could make the emperor something of an ally by allowing his to remain in power and as a result the entire Japanese population pretty much fell in line. The occupation of Japan was one of the most efficient in history.

In 1945 he was the best known general in the US and his reputation was quite good. It only fell apart when Truman fired him during the Korean War.

I consider MacArthur a mixed bag. He played himself up as a great general, and the reality doesn't quite rise to his bragging, but taking his own self promotion out of it, he really was a fairly decent general. Far from perfect, but above average definitely.

Just my opinions looking back on his career.

Bill

[Big B]

Not disagreeing with you wdolson, just adding my thoughts to yours.

MacArthur had a very successful wartime career (through three major wars +) - as you pointed out below.
Given his handling of operations like Cartwheel and Inchon, highly decorated and two purple hearts leading troops in First World War, and praised by General Pershing as "Our best leader of men", graduated first in his class at West Point, and earned the third highest score ever recorded there, ...just to underscore some of his life long achievements.
Given all the above - how would one realistically sight a long and distinguished career of better generalship? ... assuming one is trying to underscore the line of argument that Mac was really mediocre?

This is just thinking out loud, but how accomplished does one have to be to earn a reputation?

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Leandros
I am not a piss on MacArthur person. I don't like him, and I don't think he was all that great strategically, at the time, but he was an operational genius. Genius does not imply perfection in every endeavor. Genius implies thinking/acting outside the box in a manner that will accomplish the mission.

Pretty dry stuff, but I like to think of Generals, and even Majors and Colonels, in terms of elegance. Some got it. Some don't. Mac, for all his warts, had elegance. Ciao. JWE

Actually, myself I have little opinions on MacArthur as a person but I think what he did just before the war broke has been greatly under-rated. Particularly
the fact that he wanted to defend the whole of the Philippines, he has been much "pissed on" for that. The effect of his work on this was effectively nullified by
Hart's unwillingness to give support to ANY supply runs to the Philippines, even to the Southern islands. This is what happens when the military branches are
allowed to operate after each their own head. Just my opinion. There were independent submarine supply operations but, as I understand it, those were executed quite
unwillingly, too.

It's a Little funny, my attention was drawn to the story of MacArthur and the Philippines much as they were to Operation Sea Lion. I reacted to the unison ridiculing
by many in the web discussions. Could MacArthur, or the Germans, for that matter, be as amateurish as they were portrayed?

Regarding MacArthur, in my opinion, the proof of his greatness is shown by what happened on Mindanao and the Visayas. That was a great opportunity for the allies
but they did not grab it.

Fred

In the PI MacArthur had too little to work with and, like most generals, he made mistakes. He lost most of his airpower the first day for example. He was quite wrapped up in his ego and tried to draw a lot of press attention to himself, but then a lot of great generals have been.

Operation Cartwheel was his (planned by his staff at least) and we know little about it today because it worked so well. It was one of the most complex amphibious operations in history and it happened with no major hitches.

He also turned out to be the right military governor of Japan after the war. He was wise enough to realize he could make the emperor something of an ally by allowing his to remain in power and as a result the entire Japanese population pretty much fell in line. The occupation of Japan was one of the most efficient in history.

In 1945 he was the best known general in the US and his reputation was quite good. It only fell apart when Truman fired him during the Korean War.

I consider MacArthur a mixed bag. He played himself up as a great general, and the reality doesn't quite rise to his bragging, but taking his own self promotion out of it, he really was a fairly decent general. Far from perfect, but above average definitely.

Just my opinions looking back on his career.

Bill

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Not disagreeing with you wdolson, just adding my thoughts to yours.

MacArthur had a very successful wartime career (through three major wars +) - as you pointed out below.
Given his handling of operations like Cartwheel and Inchon, highly decorated and two purple hearts leading troops in First World War, and praised by General Pershing as "Our best leader of men", graduated first in his class at West Point, and earned the third highest score ever recorded there, ...just to underscore some of his life long achievements.
Given all the above - how would one realistically sight a long and distinguished career of better generalship? ... assuming one is trying to underscore the line of argument that Mac was really mediocre?

This is just thinking out loud, but how accomplished does one have to be to earn a reputation?

His downfall was not his military leadership, it was political miscalculation. Unfortunately, it seems he's remembered more for his ego and political blunders than for his military effectiveness. Just MHO.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Big B

This is just thinking out loud, but how accomplished does one have to be to earn a reputation?

Scare your opponent, just by being there [;)]