PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Forgotten History: When The U.S. Army Attacked Veterans In Washington D.C.


RNR
06-27-2011, 02:14 PM
I must admit I knew little details about this. While talking with a co-worker today he mentioned this. The more I read the more surprised and shocked I was on how this was handled~

http://www.zimbio.com/War+in+Iraq/articles/5EyT97xp7-J/Forgotten+History+Army+Attacked+Veterans+Washington
Forgotten History: When The U.S. Army Attacked Veterans In Washington D.C. ReportEmail

There are many fascinating pieces of U.S. history that have been forgotten. One such moment in history happened 78 years ago today. On July 28, 1932, the United States Army attacked and killed U.S. World War I veterans in Washington, D.C.

Approximately 17,000 WWI veterans as another 25,000 family members had amassed in the nation's capitol in May, 1932 to demand the immediate payment of service certificates. The service certificates were similar to U.S. bonds, payable with interest at a future date, and had been issued to WWI veterans in 1924, but could not be redeemed until 1945. The rag tag group of veterans nicknamed themselves the "Bonus Army".

This was during the height of The Great Depression, and the veterans were out of work. The small amount of money promised them (up to $500-$625) per person seems crazy now, but it represented life and death at the time to thousands of people.

By June, 1932, the House had passed a bill to give the veterans their full payment immediately. But on June 17th, the Senate voted against the bill, 62-18, leaving thousands of veterans angry and stranded in the city with no money or jobs.

The veterans continued protesting throughout the city, and having built two of their own mini-cities, or camps, with makeshift shacks from rubbish retrieved from a garbage dump, promised not to leave until they received their money.

The largest camp was at Anacostia Falls, now Anacostia Park, near the federal buildings in downtown Washington, D.C. The camps had shacks, streets laid out, sanitation, and the veterans held daily parades. They even required any veteran who wanted to live in the camp to register and prove they had been honorably discharged.

But by late July, Washington's powers that be decided they had had enough. The veterans were not getting their money and it was time for them to leave.

What happened next is a dark moment in American history, that understandably has been buried in the past...

"On 28 July, 1932, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the police evacuation of the Bonus Army veterans. When they resisted the police shot at them, killing two. When told of this, President Hoover ordered the army to effect the evacuation of the Bonus Army from Washington.

At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, Fort Myer, Virginia, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch the U.S. Army attack its own veterans. The Bonus Marchers, believing the display was in their honor, cheered the troops until Maj. Patton ordered the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the civil service spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!"

After the cavalry charged the infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling this exercise was a Communist attempt at overthrowing the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Hundreds of veterans were injured and several killed—including William Hushka and Eric Carlson. A veteran's wife miscarried."

General's MacArthur, Patton, and Eisenhower, who would become heroes in World War II, were all involved in the attack on our own veterans.

The veterans fled Washington, D.C., but the story doesn't end there. The fallout from the bloody attack helped propel Franklin D. Roosevelt to defeat President Herbert Hoover in the 1932 Presidential election. However, FDR also refused to issue early payment to the veterans, and the Bonus Army returned to protest yet again in Washington, D.C.

This time Eleanor Roosevelt met with some of the veterans and convinced many of them to take federal jobs in Florida building a new highway connecting the mainland to the Florida Keys.

What seemed like a peaceful solution would turn deadly.

In September, 1935, 258 veterans building the highway were killed during the Labor Day Hurricane. Public sentiment built in support of paying the veterans, and Congress, now facing another election year, passed a new bill to pay the vets early and in full in 1936. FDR promptly vetoed the bill, but Congress overturned FDR's veto and paid the veterans.

Years later, in 1945, not wanting a repeat of the Bonus Army disaster, Congress passed the G.I. Bill for veterans returning home from World War II.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 02:17 PM
Now you know how the American Indian feels. The federal government is SHIT.

Seriously, if you haven't read Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg, then read it.

It will make your head spin.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 02:22 PM
MacArthur proved what a complete ass he was in this entire affair. Eisenhower was, by all reports, a very reluctant second fiddle in this as MacArthur overstepped what he was asked to do in his eagerness to show that he would not be messed with.

The Veterans Bonus Pay is definitely a stain on MacArthur's record, and a dark day in American history.

It's also interesting that MacArthur held the chief post in the US Army nearly 20 years before he was canned over Korea. That fact helped foster his contempt of the Pentagon -- the guys running the show were majors and colonels when he was THE guy in the Army. And Truman wasn't the great, but annoying, FDR, he was just a pissant who lucked into the WH after being part of the Missouri political machine. And now they were going to tell him what to do? F that.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 02:26 PM
MacArthur proved what a complete ass he was in this entire affair.

Dugout Doug.

RNR
06-27-2011, 02:29 PM
MacArthur proved what a complete ass he was in this entire affair. Eisenhower was, by all reports, a very reluctant second fiddle in this as MacArthur overstepped what he was asked to do in his eagerness to show that he would not be messed with.

The Veterans Bonus Pay is definitely a stain on MacArthur's record, and a dark day in American history.

It's also interesting that MacArthur held the chief post in the US Army nearly 20 years before he was canned over Korea. That fact helped foster his contempt of the Pentagon -- the guys running the show were majors and colonels when he was THE guy in the Army. And Truman wasn't the great, but annoying, FDR, he was just a pissant who lucked into the WH after being part of the Missouri political machine. And now they were going to tell him what to do? F that.

I have no stance as I am still processing this. It has never been on my radar. Two larger than life heroes from WW2 appear much less than heroic here~

durtyrute
06-27-2011, 02:34 PM
:shrug::shrug: What...noooo......not our government, how could they do this to our veterans, our own citizens. This is impossible, it was not on CBS so I do not believe it. NO WAY!!!

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 02:36 PM
I have no stance as I am still processing this. It has never been on my radar. Two larger than life heroes from WW2 appear much less than heroic here~

MacArthur was a POS.

And Patton, like Rommel, was murdered by his own government.

The government is not your friend. Ok, moonbats?!

scott free
06-27-2011, 02:37 PM
I was just reading about this the other day in a great book i have, its huge collection of newsclippings of all kinds from 1900-1999.

Mac probably still holds the title of Biggest Military Prima-Donna of all time, he was the very picture of that terrible term 'Ticket Puncher', more concerned with his glamorous image than anything else.

Poseur.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 02:39 PM
I was just reading about this the other day in a great book i have, its huge collection of newsclippings of all kinds from 1900-1999.

Mac probably still holds the title of Biggest Military Prima-Donna of all time, he was the very picture of that terrible term 'Ticket Puncher', more concerned with his glamorous image than anything else.

Poseur.

Yeah he was a scumbag and a coward.

RNR
06-27-2011, 02:44 PM
I was just reading about this the other day in a great book i have, its huge collection of newsclippings of all kinds from 1900-1999.

Mac probably still holds the title of Biggest Military Prima-Donna of all time, he was the very picture of that terrible term 'Ticket Puncher', more concerned with his glamorous image than anything else.

Poseur.
I really would like to take a stand here an give an opinion based on a well thought out viewpoint I have formed. Unfortunately I am on my heels and unprepared to discuss the subject. I would have been more clever to have researched this and formed an opinion and then posted it. That would have allowed me to play off I knew nothing about it~

scott free
06-27-2011, 02:54 PM
I really would like to take a stand here an give an opinion based on a well thought out viewpoint I have formed. Unfortunately I am on my heels and unprepared to discuss the subject. I would have been more clever to have researched this and formed an opinion and then posted it. That would have allowed me to play off I knew nothing about it~

All of the reading & doc watching i've ever done that talks about Mac inevitably gets around to his penchant for self promotion at the expense of others, he butted heads with seemingly every high ranking figure from his day & best i can tell, did not endear himself to many people he served with or under.

scott free
06-27-2011, 02:56 PM
And Patton, like Rommel, was murdered by his own government.

Wait, wut? link?

Patton died in a car crash.

Pitt Gorilla
06-27-2011, 02:59 PM
Wait, wut? link?

Patton died in a car crash.http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp181/replicators_album/ARFCOM/its_a_conspiracy1.jpg?t=1247856255

ClevelandBronco
06-27-2011, 03:08 PM
Wait, wut? link?

Patton died in a car crash.

Actually, Patton died almost two weeks after a car crash. That asshole from — damn, I can't remember the name of the TV show/movie — died in a car crash.

scott free
06-27-2011, 03:09 PM
Actually, Patton died almost two weeks after a car crash. That asshole from — damn, I can't remember the name of the TV show/movie — died in a car crash.

George C. Scott?

ClevelandBronco
06-27-2011, 03:11 PM
George C. Scott?

No, that dumbshit that made a career of getting hit in the junk. Died last week.

RNR
06-27-2011, 03:15 PM
All of the reading & doc watching i've ever done that talks about Mac inevitably gets around to his penchant for self promotion at the expense of others, he butted heads with seemingly every high ranking figure from his day & best i can tell, did not endear himself to many people he served with or under.

To this I can speak about, however the subject I posted is another black eye that is nothing less than shameful. His actions in this instance will forever change my view of him as a man and person. Patton was a self promoter also as were many heroes in our history. I was blind sided in this conversation as the subject was China and the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. I boldly spoke with disgust about the actions of the Chinese government running over protesters with tanks. He simply asked me to research this subject and said I might want to rethink my high horse attitude about how different our government has acted in similar instances. Needless to say I am off balance as to how I feel right now. We as a nation addressed this issue I am not saying I think China is superior to our government by any stretch. I do however feel ashamed of this moment in our history~

Brock
06-27-2011, 03:18 PM
There's all kinds of this stuff in Howard Zinn's book.

ClevelandBronco
06-27-2011, 03:20 PM
There's all kinds of this stuff in Howard Zinn's book.

And many, many, many others.

I read People's History. It was mostly a waste of time.

Radar Chief
06-27-2011, 03:22 PM
No, that dumbshit that made a career of getting hit in the junk. Died last week.

You're talking about the dude from Jackass?

RNR
06-27-2011, 03:25 PM
There's all kinds of this stuff in Howard Zinn's book.

I must apologize as I have that book on my next read list. My son sent me another book a few weeks ago he said reminded him of me. It is George Carlins autobyografy. I just started getting into photography and have set my reading schedule back a bit. I do plan to enjoy the bubble gum reading of Carlin and still plan on Howard Zinn next. Work and hobbies keep getting in the way of my late life education~

Jaric
06-27-2011, 03:26 PM
To this I can speak about, however the subject I posted is another black eye that is nothing less than shameful. His actions in this instance will forever change my view of him as a man and person. Patton was a self promoter also as were many heroes in our history. I was blind sided in this conversation as the subject was China and the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. I boldly spoke with disgust about the actions of the Chinese government running over protesters with tanks. He simply asked me to research this subject and said I might want to rethink my high horse attitude about how different our government has acted in similar instances. Needless to say I am off balance as to how I feel right now. We as a nation addressed this issue I am not saying I think China is superior to our government by any stretch. I do however feel ashamed of this moment in our history~
I understand completely. We expect more from our country. (At least we should)

NewChief
06-27-2011, 03:28 PM
There was a movie I viewed or a novel I read recently that used this incident as a background plot point. I can't, for the life of me, remember what it was, though.

Brock
06-27-2011, 03:30 PM
There was a movie I viewed or a novel I read recently that used this incident as a background plot point. I can't, for the life of me, remember what it was, though.

Wasn't it Cinderella Man?

NewChief
06-27-2011, 03:30 PM
Wasn't it Cinderella Man?

Yes! That's it.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 03:37 PM
I have no stance as I am still processing this. It has never been on my radar. Two larger than life heroes from WW2 appear much less than heroic here~

More MacArthur than Ike or Patton. MacArthur went a bit overboard in his "enthusiasm", and was also trying to hog whatever "glory" could be had from restoring order.

MacArthur is one of our greatest soldiers, but also one of our most flawed. This is a prime example of it.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 03:38 PM
MacArthur was a POS.

And Patton, like Rommel, was murdered by his own government.

:rolleyes:

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 03:39 PM
Dugout Doug.

That nickname, which suggests cowardice, is utterly laughable in the face of his unbelievably heroic/brave conduct during World War I, when as a Colonel in the famed Rainbow Division, he literally set records for collecting medals.

MacArthur had many flaws, but lack of personal valor was definitely not one.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 03:42 PM
All of the reading & doc watching i've ever done that talks about Mac inevitably gets around to his penchant for self promotion at the expense of others, he butted heads with seemingly every high ranking figure from his day & best i can tell, did not endear himself to many people he served with or under.

True to some extent, but one does not raise to the rank he did without being able to obey orders and perform very effectively.

His self-promotion was more notorious after he reached the highest rungs in the command, however.

Words cannot describe his bravery, valor and military brilliance in many instances. They also cannot describe his gross insubordination during the Korean War and even during stages of WWII, nor his utter negligence in dealing with Chinese intervention, or in letting his planes get shot up in the Phillipines at the start of WWII (an act identical to the one that got General Arnold, in Hawaii, cashiered from the service).

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 03:42 PM
Wait, wut? link?

Patton died in a car crash.

This absurd conspiracy theory has been around forever.

RNR
06-27-2011, 03:43 PM
Yes! That's it.

I own that movie and recall the Hooverville reference, but I never looked into it enough to catch on to this~

Brock
06-27-2011, 03:45 PM
I own that movie and recall the Hooverville reference, but I never looked into it enough to catch on to this~

Yeah, I think it may have just been a Hooverville that was crashed by the cops in the movie. But there was a lot of that going on back then, Red Scare BS.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 04:00 PM
To this I can speak about, however the subject I posted is another black eye that is nothing less than shameful. His actions in this instance will forever change my view of him as a man and person. Patton was a self promoter also as were many heroes in our history. I was blind sided in this conversation as the subject was China and the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. I boldly spoke with disgust about the actions of the Chinese government running over protesters with tanks. He simply asked me to research this subject and said I might want to rethink my high horse attitude about how different our government has acted in similar instances. Needless to say I am off balance as to how I feel right now. We as a nation addressed this issue I am not saying I think China is superior to our government by any stretch. I do however feel ashamed of this moment in our history~


I can see you're really taken aback by this and that this has struck a blow to your views and understandings of America etc.

I want to start by noting that I'm a loyal American citizen by birth, my father's family has been here since before the Revolution, and I have had countless relatives serve in the American military through many different wars.

America was founded on the basis of higher ideals than just about any country ever formed. I think it's fair to say that it has tried to live up to those ideals. It's also fair to say, however, that any government is comprised of men (and women, lately), who are only human and prone to the same errors of judgment as anyone else.

It is not unpatriotic or disloyal to understand that America has a number of very serious stains on its history. Slavery, the virtual annihilation of native American Indians, several wars of aggressive expansion, the persecution of minorities long after slavery ended, etc. The clearing of the Bonus Army, in all seriousness, is a relatively minor black eye in the grand scheme of things.

But I think we should realize that on balance America's government has been, IN GENERAL, more fair, more productive, more respectful of civil rights, and more successful, than nearly any other country in the history of the world.

But perfect? Hell no.

If you want to go on a period of serious introspection as to the nation that you (and I) love, then a few other items that constitute food for thought would be:

1. think about the parallels of Nazi Germany engaging in aggressive wars to obtain "lebensraum", and its persecution of the Jews, Slavs, etc., and American treatment of native Americans less than a century earlier.

2. study the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War and think carefully about the stated causes of those wars in the context of the young country and whether they were justified, or they were really just wars to expand territory.

I love my country, but I'm not blind to its sins or faults.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 04:02 PM
That nickname, which suggests cowardice, is utterly laughable in the face of his unbelievably heroic/brave conduct during World War I, when as a Colonel in the famed Rainbow Division, he literally set records for collecting medals.

MacArthur had many flaws, but lack of personal valor was definitely not one.

Serious question, not trying to be a dick---

Have you read up on the heroic actions of Robert E. Lee during the Mexican American War?

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 04:06 PM
Yeah, I think it may have just been a Hooverville that was crashed by the cops in the movie. But there was a lot of that going on back then, Red Scare BS.

Ah the Palmer Raids and a young Edgar Hoover. Good times.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 04:08 PM
Serious question, not trying to be a dick---

Have you read up on the heroic actions of Robert E. Lee during the Mexican American War?

I think Robert E. Lee was a great general, a brilliant man, and from one of the foremost familes in American history, being descended of Richard Henry Lee and Lighthorse Lee.

He made one mistake, in my view, in choosing his state over his nation, and (in Grant's words) fighting for a cause that was one of the worst causes for which anyone has ever fought. That said, I know he, personally, fought for Virginia, not for slavery, and if Virginia had stayed in the Union, he would have loyally served in the Union Army against the Confederacy.

All that said, I am passingly familiar with Lee's exploits in the Mexican-American War. I have not studied the battles of that war so much as the politics around it, and even that somewhat less than most other wars in our nation's history.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 04:24 PM
I think Robert E. Lee was a great general, a brilliant man, and from one of the foremost familes in American history, being descended of Richard Henry Lee and Lighthorse Lee.

He made one mistake, in my view, in choosing his state over his nation, and (in Grant's words) fighting for a cause that was one of the worst causes for which anyone has ever fought. That said, I know he, personally, fought for Virginia, not for slavery, and if Virginia had stayed in the Union, he would have loyally served in the Union Army against the Confederacy.

All that said, I am passingly familiar with Lee's exploits in the Mexican-American War. I have not studied the battles of that war so much as the politics around it, and even that somewhat less than most other wars in our nation's history.

Cool. :thumb:

Disagree about dugout Doug, though.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2011, 05:57 PM
Well, Hamilton screwed over Revolutionary War veterans too on their bonds.

Coyote
06-27-2011, 07:09 PM
That nickname, which suggests cowardice, is utterly laughable in the face of his unbelievably heroic/brave conduct during World War I, when as a Colonel in the famed Rainbow Division, he literally set records for collecting medals.

MacArthur had many flaws, but lack of personal valor was definitely not one.

Maybe. Mostly an academic argument but he is not used as a positive leadership example when studying Commanders at any Intermediate or Top level military school that I have been invited to speak at. Has a Commander I frequently ask my guys what have they done for their country TODAY and my sailors remind me that, "the only easy day is yesterday." So his record is very mixed at best.

"During the early months of the War in the Pacific, some American soldiers on Bataan sang, to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic":

Dugout Doug MacArthur lies ashakin' 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.


Dugout Doug, come out from hiding
Dugout Doug, come out from hiding
Send to Franklin the glad tidings
That his troops go starving on! (Manchester, pp. 237-38)


And President Truman "privately called the General 'a common coward' for leaving Corregidor in 1942" (Manchester, p. 672)."

Though other academics (unless this is your work) hold your opinion:

http://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE97/Lutz97.htm

RNR
06-29-2011, 02:12 PM
I can see you're really taken aback by this and that this has struck a blow to your views and understandings of America etc.

I want to start by noting that I'm a loyal American citizen by birth, my father's family has been here since before the Revolution, and I have had countless relatives serve in the American military through many different wars.

America was founded on the basis of higher ideals than just about any country ever formed. I think it's fair to say that it has tried to live up to those ideals. It's also fair to say, however, that any government is comprised of men (and women, lately), who are only human and prone to the same errors of judgment as anyone else.

It is not unpatriotic or disloyal to understand that America has a number of very serious stains on its history. Slavery, the virtual annihilation of native American Indians, several wars of aggressive expansion, the persecution of minorities long after slavery ended, etc. The clearing of the Bonus Army, in all seriousness, is a relatively minor black eye in the grand scheme of things.

But I think we should realize that on balance America's government has been, IN GENERAL, more fair, more productive, more respectful of civil rights, and more successful, than nearly any other country in the history of the world.

But perfect? Hell no.

If you want to go on a period of serious introspection as to the nation that you (and I) love, then a few other items that constitute food for thought would be:

1. think about the parallels of Nazi Germany engaging in aggressive wars to obtain "lebensraum", and its persecution of the Jews, Slavs, etc., and American treatment of native Americans less than a century earlier.

2. study the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War and think carefully about the stated causes of those wars in the context of the young country and whether they were justified, or they were really just wars to expand territory.

I love my country, but I'm not blind to its sins or faults.

I am aware of many times we have fallen short of the lofty goals we set as a country. I have a soft spot for men who go to battle and are willing to die for their country. The thought of the very government they stood the line for turning on them and killing them makes me angry. And fuck MacArthur~

Amnorix
07-03-2011, 09:53 PM
Maybe. Mostly an academic argument but he is not used as a positive leadership example when studying Commanders at any Intermediate or Top level military school that I have been invited to speak at. Has a Commander I frequently ask my guys what have they done for their country TODAY and my sailors remind me that, "the only easy day is yesterday." So his record is very mixed at best.

"During the early months of the War in the Pacific, some American soldiers on Bataan sang, to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic":

Dugout Doug MacArthur lies ashakin' 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.


Dugout Doug, come out from hiding
Dugout Doug, come out from hiding
Send to Franklin the glad tidings
That his troops go starving on! (Manchester, pp. 237-38)


And President Truman "privately called the General 'a common coward' for leaving Corregidor in 1942" (Manchester, p. 672)."

Though other academics (unless this is your work) hold your opinion:

http://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE97/Lutz97.htm

Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I had meant to, but kept forgetting and/or had the real world interfere.

Anyway -- obviously Truman hated MacArthur, so he's going to denigrate him. He saw him as the worst kind of prima donna (true), a rogue member of the military who was repeatedly going beyond his mandate and interfering in political matters (true), and someone whose extremely high prestige with the American public and Republicans in Congress made him nearly uncontrollable (true to an extent, but Truman showed he could handle them in the end, albeit later than he should have).

MacArthur was ORDERED off Corregidor by President Roosevelt -- a direct Presidential order that was not really subject to being disobeyed. I suppose MacArthur could have heroically gone down with the ship, metaphorically speaking, but it would have been both disobedient and plain stupid. Under the circumstances, this is the equivalent of LETTING the Taliban capture Patraeus, or the Iraqis capture Norm Swartzkopf. You just don't do it -- the public relations coup for the enemy is too much, and there is no advantage.

MacArthur went on to conduct an utterly brilliant military campaign in the Southwest Pacific theater, and to do a very effective job administering conquered Japan.

You won't find a bigger supporter of MacArthur's firing than me, and I will go on at length to describe all his many faults and fallacies, including potentially accepting large illegal gifts from foreign governments -- but cowardice and "dugout Doug" and stuff is complete crap.

Mr. Kotter
07-03-2011, 10:19 PM
The "Bonus Army" was ordered to vacate; they refused. The consequences were, regrettable, but can hardly be blamed, credibly, on the government. If you choose civil disobedience, there are consequences.

The immediate consequences were tragic for the Bonus Army; long term, their sacrifice won FDR the election in 1932. I call it an even trade, IMHO. Just sayin'.

SNR
07-03-2011, 10:21 PM
The immediate consequences were tragic for the Bonus Army; long term, their sacrifice won FDR the election in 1932. I call it an even trade, IMHO. Just sayin'.
There are many things that I'd call that statement. A "humble" opinion is not one of them

Mr. Kotter
07-03-2011, 10:26 PM
There are many things that I'd call that statement. A "humble" opinion is not one of them

You decide to challenge the gubment? Well, stuff happens. And it wasn't MacArthur's fault...after Hoover failed to "fix" things after three years, the table was set. Unhappiness, doesn't grant you carte blance. Vets were warned, well in advance. Consequences. Game, set, match. Period.

FTR, I am a Vet. Just sayin'.... :hmmm:

SNR
07-03-2011, 10:35 PM
You decide to challenge the gubment? Well, stuff happens. And it wasn't MacArthur's fault...after Hoover failed to "fix" things after three years, the table was set. Unhappiness, doesn't grant you carte blance. Vets were warned, well in advance. Consequences. Game, set, match. Period.

FTR, I am a Vet. Just sayin'.... :hmmm:It's an opinion. Maybe even a good one. But it's not humble.

Mr. Kotter
07-03-2011, 10:42 PM
It's an opinion. Maybe even a good one. But it's not humble.

Humble, in that I recognize....other well informed folks may disagree. Even if they are wrong. Heh. ;)

RNR
07-04-2011, 07:30 AM
The "Bonus Army" was ordered to vacate; they refused. The consequences were, regrettable, but can hardly be blamed, credibly, on the government. If you choose civil disobedience, there are consequences.

The immediate consequences were tragic for the Bonus Army; long term, their sacrifice won FDR the election in 1932. I call it an even trade, IMHO. Just sayin'.

And it is clear to me that you view the lives of men willing to die defending our country with little regard, much like our government, Just sayin'~

BucEyedPea
07-04-2011, 08:02 AM
And it is clear to me that you view the lives of men willing to die defending our country with little regard, much like our government, Just sayin'~

Yeah, but since he peppers his posts with the subjective word "credible" it means it's the only viewpoint one "should" have.

Coyote
07-04-2011, 08:16 AM
Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I had meant to, but kept forgetting and/or had the real world interfere.

Anyway -- obviously Truman hated MacArthur, so he's going to denigrate him. He saw him as the worst kind of prima donna (true), a rogue member of the military who was repeatedly going beyond his mandate and interfering in political matters (true), and someone whose extremely high prestige with the American public and Republicans in Congress made him nearly uncontrollable (true to an extent, but Truman showed he could handle them in the end, albeit later than he should have).

MacArthur was ORDERED off Corregidor by President Roosevelt -- a direct Presidential order that was not really subject to being disobeyed. I suppose MacArthur could have heroically gone down with the ship, metaphorically speaking, but it would have been both disobedient and plain stupid. Under the circumstances, this is the equivalent of LETTING the Taliban capture Patraeus, or the Iraqis capture Norm Swartzkopf. You just don't do it -- the public relations coup for the enemy is too much, and there is no advantage.

MacArthur went on to conduct an utterly brilliant military campaign in the Southwest Pacific theater, and to do a very effective job administering conquered Japan.

You won't find a bigger supporter of MacArthur's firing than me, and I will go on at length to describe all his many faults and fallacies, including potentially accepting large illegal gifts from foreign governments -- but cowardice and "dugout Doug" and stuff is complete crap.

Yeah the real world has a way of doing that. Here's the drill:
If Dugout Doug/cowardice is such crap why are so many historians/public and his own troops either on one side or the other concerning his actions in the PI? Why would Truman "hate" an American hero?
I made it clear I'm a "maybe" on Doug. You highlighted "ordered" as if that absolves him or even shows some soldierly virtue to his quitting and running when his subordinates did/could not. All orders are subject to interpretation-it's the first step in the mission analysis process that all Commanders go through upon mission receipt and why we study their decisions. Doug made some real bad ones as this thread started with. He also made some very solid ones (Inchon, though people also question his judgment concerning Chinese intell reports) but in this case he seems very self-serving and approaching personal cowardice.
The irony is that he so valued his legacy/reputation and it would be much more clear without his surrendering his men and leaving them out of some sense of his own value to our country. This is one of the few orders he ever followed from his senior commanders or the President. http://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/2010/11/rating-general-douglas-macarthur.html
You're firm stance is curious as it seems based on his prior WWI record, where he nominated himself for most of his awards or from his being ordered to leave the PI. Brave men act on scene and do not hide behind specific orders particularly at the Combatant Commander level. For a positive example upon arrival in WWI the 4th Marines were ordered to follow the general retreat issued to all allied forces and reponded,"Retreat, Hell, we just got here." They disobeyed that order and their legacy continues yet they are the same Regiment surrenderd by Doug whose survivors finally burnt their own colors becoming POWS. were reconstituted and fight with valor today yet thier colors have never returned to the United States since Doug surrendered them.
I am a "maybe" because I recognize that he had multiple facets to his decison and his overall record does not relfect cowardice. Had he been captured or killed fighting to the last, I suspect he would be much more revered.

Amnorix
07-04-2011, 08:20 PM
Yeah the real world has a way of doing that. Here's the drill:
If Dugout Doug/cowardice is such crap why are so many historians/public and his own troops either on one side or the other concerning his actions in the PI?

Let me simplify -- can you give me a specific example of MacArthur exhibiting cowardice other than leaving Corregidor, which was doomed, with him obeying an executive order directly from the President to leave?

Why would Truman "hate" an American hero?

Because he was both insubordinate, occassionally idiotic, and had inserted himself inappropriately and disastrously into the political process around the Korean War in which he had military, not political, responsibilities. Because of his Republican backing and unusual stature, he represented a problem for the president that was unprecedent in US history with POSSIBLY the exception of George McClellan. Not even McClellan, however, had MacArthur's stature when he was sacked.

IIRC MacArthur's ticker tape parade in NYC is still the largest on record.

I made it clear I'm a "maybe" on Doug. You highlighted "ordered" as if that absolves him or even shows some soldierly virtue to his quitting and running when his subordinates did/could not. All orders are subject to interpretation-it's the first step in the mission analysis process that all Commanders go through upon mission receipt and why we study their decisions. Doug made some real bad ones as this thread started with. He also made some very solid ones

I'd agree with all this. I note, however, that letting someone of MacArthur's stature get captured would have been a massive coup for the Japanese both in terms of removing an excellent commander (militarily) from the American side as well as a public relations coup. No reason to give them that. For him to recognize this and obey his direct orders (which I do not believe left much room for "interpretation") seems to me smart, not cowardly.

What is your definition of cowardice? Mine is failing to do one's duty due to being afraid. I don't think MacArthur was afraid to be captured, I think he was smart to avoid capture.

FDR also issued the order two or three times, IIRC, before MacArthur actually left.

(Inchon, though people also question his judgment concerning Chinese intell reports) but in this case he seems very self-serving and approaching personal cowardice.

Inchon was a high risk, high reward stroke that turned out to work perfectly. There is no doubt it was a brilliant military manuever, but it was also highly dangerous, and could have turned out disastrously. As it worked perfectly, he gets all the credit.

"question his judgment concerning Chinese intel reports". That's possibly the most massive understatement I've ever seen on the matter. His intel commander was a bumbling buffoon who parroted the party line, spouted by MacArthur, that the Chinese would not interfere. They INTENTIONALLY ignored both diplomatic warnings as well as early intelligence that the Chinese had actually already crossed the Yalu in significant numbers, BEFORE the big strike came. In my opinion, the intelligence commander, Willoughby, who was also improperly given a command in the field while also holding senior staff position under MacArthur, should have been brought up on charges instead of being given a third star and gracefully retired (bumped up an additional star) after MacArthur got his late and well-deserve shit-canning.

Obviously, leaving Corregidor is self-serving. But WHY did he leave? Cowardice? Obeying orders? Realizing that he is of far greater value to the American cause by leaving to fight another day than by languishing in an American prison?

GI Joe's who have no such choices obviously are bitter when their commanders are able to do such things. Dugout Doug and other insults are awarded. But GI Joe's may know how to load their cartridges and stay alive in the jungles, without a broader appreciation for the strategic requirements of war. Strategies and tactics differ, as do the concerns of Presidents and generals vis-a-vis sergeants and privates.

I think he left because he recognized (accurately if not pompously) that his best contribution to America could be made by leading our forces in the fight against the Japanese. If ordered to remain there, I have little doubt he would have.

The irony is that he so valued his legacy/reputation and it would be much more clear without his surrendering his men and leaving them out of some sense of his own value to our country. This is one of the few orders he ever followed from his senior commanders or the President. http://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.com/2010/11/rating-general-douglas-macarthur.html

Well, his legacy woudln't be much if he had languished in a Japanese prison from '42 to '45...

I haven't reviewed teh blog in detail, but it's a bit of an overstatement to suggest he never followed his commanding officers orders. He rarely disobeyed them directly, when given directly. More he evaded, argued, etc. endlessly. And, of course, he was far worse by '45 and '49 than he had been prior. As his successes grew, so did his ego and sense of self-importance.

But again, did he leave out of cowardice or because he thought (rightly, it turned out) that there was more to be gained by leaving than staying?

You're firm stance is curious as it seems based on his prior WWI record, where he nominated himself for most of his awards or from his being ordered to leave the PI. Brave men act on scene and do not hide behind specific orders particularly at the Combatant Commander level. For a positive example upon arrival in WWI the 4th Marines were ordered to follow the general retreat issued to all allied forces and reponded,"Retreat, Hell, we just got here." They disobeyed that order and their legacy continues yet they are the same Regiment surrenderd by Doug whose survivors finally burnt their own colors becoming POWS. were reconstituted and fight with valor today yet thier colors have never returned to the United States since Doug surrendered them.
I am a "maybe" because I recognize that he had multiple facets to his decison and his overall record does not relfect cowardice.

There's alot here. I don't have any real response. MacArthur was obviously never shy, or hesitating in reaching for glory. All accounts of his exploits with the Rainbow Division, however, are pretty much uniformly admiring of both his valor and his abilities.

I had to refresh myself on the Magnificant Bastards, Marines 2/4, but you may recall that Wainwright ordered them to surrender, not MacArthur. MacArthur was, at least theoretically, opposed to the surrender. Prepared to fight to the end (or at least so he said -- MacArthur had a grand sense of theater and his honesty was always only in play so far as it could advance his own goals), MacArthur opposed the award of the Medal of Honor to Wainwright for surrendering. Such opposition is rather stunning -- very rare in military annals.

Had he been captured or killed fighting to the last, I suspect he would be much more revered.

Perhaps by those few who knew his name. Soldiers who die heroically but unsuccessful in the completion of their mission are worshipped briefly, given appropriate medals and, sadly, mostly forgotten. There are a few rare exceptions, but MacArthur was not internationally famous in 1941. How many Americans could have named him before the start of WWII? Some, certainly, but all? A vast majority? No.

The foundation of his legacy was built in WWI, but the structure was built in WWII.


Let me make it more simple -- go poll 100 people and see how many can tell you who Douglas MacArthur is....and who Jonathan Wainwright is....

banyon
07-04-2011, 09:38 PM
Well, Hamilton screwed over Revolutionary War veterans too on their bonds.

Actually, he fought to have the Federal government assume the obligations because the States were going to default on them. That's the direct opposite of your irrelevant tangential smear here.

go bowe
07-04-2011, 09:58 PM
Actually, he fought to have the Federal government assume the obligations because the States were going to default on them. That's the direct opposite of your irrelevant tangential smear here.

irrelevant tangential smear?

banyon, meet ms. pea brain...

Coyote
07-05-2011, 08:39 AM
Let me simplify -- can you give me a specific example of MacArthur exhibiting cowardice other than leaving Corregidor, which was doomed, with him obeying an executive order directly from the President to leave?



Because he was both insubordinate, occassionally idiotic, and had inserted himself inappropriately and disastrously into the political process around the Korean War in which he had military, not political, responsibilities. Because of his Republican backing and unusual stature, he represented a problem for the president that was unprecedent in US history with POSSIBLY the exception of George McClellan. Not even McClellan, however, had MacArthur's stature when he was sacked.

IIRC MacArthur's ticker tape parade in NYC is still the largest on record.



I'd agree with all this. I note, however, that letting someone of MacArthur's stature get captured would have been a massive coup for the Japanese both in terms of removing an excellent commander (militarily) from the American side as well as a public relations coup. No reason to give them that. For him to recognize this and obey his direct orders (which I do not believe left much room for "interpretation") seems to me smart, not cowardly.

What is your definition of cowardice? Mine is failing to do one's duty due to being afraid. I don't think MacArthur was afraid to be captured, I think he was smart to avoid capture.

FDR also issued the order two or three times, IIRC, before MacArthur actually left.



Inchon was a high risk, high reward stroke that turned out to work perfectly. There is no doubt it was a brilliant military manuever, but it was also highly dangerous, and could have turned out disastrously. As it worked perfectly, he gets all the credit.

"question his judgment concerning Chinese intel reports". That's possibly the most massive understatement I've ever seen on the matter. His intel commander was a bumbling buffoon who parroted the party line, spouted by MacArthur, that the Chinese would not interfere. They INTENTIONALLY ignored both diplomatic warnings as well as early intelligence that the Chinese had actually already crossed the Yalu in significant numbers, BEFORE the big strike came. In my opinion, the intelligence commander, Willoughby, who was also improperly given a command in the field while also holding senior staff position under MacArthur, should have been brought up on charges instead of being given a third star and gracefully retired (bumped up an additional star) after MacArthur got his late and well-deserve shit-canning.

Obviously, leaving Corregidor is self-serving. But WHY did he leave? Cowardice? Obeying orders? Realizing that he is of far greater value to the American cause by leaving to fight another day than by languishing in an American prison?

GI Joe's who have no such choices obviously are bitter when their commanders are able to do such things. Dugout Doug and other insults are awarded. But GI Joe's may know how to load their cartridges and stay alive in the jungles, without a broader appreciation for the strategic requirements of war. Strategies and tactics differ, as do the concerns of Presidents and generals vis-a-vis sergeants and privates.

I think he left because he recognized (accurately if not pompously) that his best contribution to America could be made by leading our forces in the fight against the Japanese. If ordered to remain there, I have little doubt he would have.



Well, his legacy woudln't be much if he had languished in a Japanese prison from '42 to '45...

I haven't reviewed teh blog in detail, but it's a bit of an overstatement to suggest he never followed his commanding officers orders. He rarely disobeyed them directly, when given directly. More he evaded, argued, etc. endlessly. And, of course, he was far worse by '45 and '49 than he had been prior. As his successes grew, so did his ego and sense of self-importance.

But again, did he leave out of cowardice or because he thought (rightly, it turned out) that there was more to be gained by leaving than staying?



There's alot here. I don't have any real response. MacArthur was obviously never shy, or hesitating in reaching for glory. All accounts of his exploits with the Rainbow Division, however, are pretty much uniformly admiring of both his valor and his abilities.

I had to refresh myself on the Magnificant Bastards, Marines 2/4, but you may recall that Wainwright ordered them to surrender, not MacArthur. MacArthur was, at least theoretically, opposed to the surrender. Prepared to fight to the end (or at least so he said -- MacArthur had a grand sense of theater and his honesty was always only in play so far as it could advance his own goals), MacArthur opposed the award of the Medal of Honor to Wainwright for surrendering. Such opposition is rather stunning -- very rare in military annals.



Perhaps by those few who knew his name. Soldiers who die heroically but unsuccessful in the completion of their mission are worshipped briefly, given appropriate medals and, sadly, mostly forgotten. There are a few rare exceptions, but MacArthur was not internationally famous in 1941. How many Americans could have named him before the start of WWII? Some, certainly, but all? A vast majority? No.

The foundation of his legacy was built in WWI, but the structure was built in WWII.


Let me make it more simple -- go poll 100 people and see how many can tell you who Douglas MacArthur is....and who Jonathan Wainwright is....

Final Response. Real word priorities.
BLUF: Doug was an American hero who also was a self promoting pompous ass, Mama’s boy prone to lapses in moral courage, integrity and judgment.
Your points in order:
1) Bad form. Have the courtesy to answer a question or at least ignore it without asking one in response to “simplify.” Selectively simplifying with wholly subjective and emotive word modifiers in your question is just a tactic to distract from the issue and attempt set the tempo by framing the question so as to only support your side or remove the main point; Macarthur’s character. That said, I’ll do you the courtesy of an answer: he lacked courage (moral in particular) in multiple examples outside of Corregidor: Stolen valor- (multiple cases of awards that were incompatible with his actions and showing no shame in continuing to seek them into his 70s. Remember Adm Boorda as an opposite). Dropped Libel lawsuit: only after his affair was made clear by his mistress who also clearly had a change of opinion concerning his character and gave the reporter all of Doug’s love letters. Writing love letters to a mistress is another example of bad judgment and hubris. “The Moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1”- Napoleon or look at Sun Tzu’s values of Generalship if you prefer an Eastern model. He fails either standard.
2) We’re in violent agreement.
3) OK. Pure opinion and conjecture on either side. No sweat, I simply come from a different framework other than your convenient definition of cowardice. Another question: I’ll answer with the definition of courage since it is the one I use to write USMC Fitness reports and is the opposite of cowardice while coming from the manual (cowardice does not since to define it might give it some credence ): “Moral and physical strength to overcome danger, fear, difficulty or anxiety. Personal acceptance of responsibility, accountability, placing conscience over competing interest regardless of consequences. Conscience overriding decision to risk bodily harm or death to accomplish the mission or save others. The will to persevere despite uncertainty.” He fails in that definition during many fitrep reporting periods.
4) Agreement. You point to his Intell Chief. I am clear that a Commander is responsible for his staff and their actions. A Commander may delegate his authority but he cannot delegate his responsibility. Your questions; don’t matter why, he left is what matters from a command perspective.
5) Repetitive.
6) Polling on dead men and discounting war dead for the sake of reputation. OK, makes my point -he was more concerned about his legacy than his men or missions. The only polling that matters is his men-most are not available to poll. Mission first. Soldiers always.
7) Nice discussion. Enjoyed it. Macarthur remains hugely polarizing and evokes visceral responses. I made it clear that I’m a maybe. I remain so. I also suspect our frameworks are different and that partially explains our views. Mine; I don’t care about his politics or his legacy; I care about how well he fought and what lessons we can apply from his Joint Forces Command styles/examples. Frankly, I tend to avoid his study since the junior field grade officers (desiring to become JSOs so as to be competitive for GO/Flag rank) typically break down along the lines of his Corregidor actions (like here) regardless of which case study we attempt. The break down is also fairly predictable. Army officers (particularly USMA graduates and more Republican leaning voters) revere him and use many of your points. They view any mention of his failings as an attack on their institutional and political values and heritage. Navy officers (USNA grads and historically more Democrat leaning voters) use him to prod the soldiers and point to his inadequacies. Marine and USAF officers seem fairly split. Comparing and contrasting the effectiveness of Nimitz’s command to MacArthur’s then following that thread to PACOM today and the fact that PACOM is our oldest and largest unified command and also has never been commanded by a soldier is a thesis directly linked to MacArthur by some.

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 09:54 AM
Final Response. Real word priorities.
BLUF: Doug was an American hero who also was a self promoting pompous ass, Mama’s boy prone to lapses in moral courage, integrity and judgment.
Your points in order:

I actually agree with just about all this. What we are debating, however, is PHYSICAL courage. At least, that's what I was debating.

1) Bad form. Have the courtesy to answer a question or at least ignore it without asking one in response to “simplify.” Selectively simplifying with wholly subjective and emotive word modifiers in your question is just a tactic to distract from the issue and attempt set the tempo by framing the question so as to only support your side or remove the main point; Macarthur’s character.

Really? Really? I wrote a million word reply to your post and you say I'm dodging? WTF? I thought we were having a friendly debate about what is truly an insignificant issue because, ultimately, what difference does it make to anything other than to people who want to care/debate about this. But I guess this is just another CP DC bullshit debate. Fine, I can play it either way.

Fact is, I answered the issue on MacArthur's character AS TO LEAVING CORREGIDOR in great detail. I dodged nothing.

That said, I’ll do you the courtesy of an answer:

umm....thanks?

he lacked courage (moral in particular) in multiple examples outside of Corregidor: Stolen valor- (multiple cases of awards that were incompatible with his actions and showing no shame in continuing to seek them into his 70s. Remember Adm Boorda as an opposite). Dropped Libel lawsuit: only after his affair was made clear by his mistress who also clearly had a change of opinion concerning his character and gave the reporter all of Doug’s love letters. Writing love letters to a mistress is another example of bad judgment and hubris. “The Moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1”- Napoleon or look at Sun Tzu’s values of Generalship if you prefer an Eastern model. He fails either standard.

You have completely changed the topic here. You aren't going to find me supporting MacArthur in too many of these areas. I'm no huge fan of MacArthur. You're acting like I'm a MacArthur toady, and that is FAR from the truth. You can spout all the invectives against him you want, and I will largely agree.

2) We’re in violent agreement.

Talk about bad form -- your poor method of response leaves me uncertain which of my statements you're even referring to. I didn't number my responses, and your response method is poorly constructed to say the least.

I guess you mean the reasons why he left Corregidor. Obviously, you may violently disagree, but if you can tell me what benefit would have been had to AMERICA from MacArthur being captured, I'm very open to hearing it. That's not a moral victory for America, and certainly no morale victory either.

3) OK. Pure opinion and conjecture on either side. No sweat, I simply come from a different framework other than your convenient definition of cowardice.

WTF? Convenient definition? I'm not aware that I've redefined the term at all. You've enlarged it to include moral courage, and then pick up his whole career. I'm talking about just Corregidor. One act.

Another question: I’ll answer with the definition of courage since it is the one I use to write USMC Fitness reports and is the opposite of cowardice while coming from the manual (cowardice does not since to define it might give it some credence ): “Moral and physical strength to overcome danger, fear, difficulty or anxiety. Personal acceptance of responsibility, accountability, placing conscience over competing interest regardless of consequences. Conscience overriding decision to risk bodily harm or death to accomplish the mission or save others. The will to persevere despite uncertainty.” He fails in that definition during many fitrep reporting periods.

Yes he does. As I noted before, I am no fan of MacArthur's, and I am only talking about leaving Corregidor, which I view as the correct decision for both him and the country. Self-serving or not, I would have been utterly pissed if I was FDR and MacArthur let himself get captured giving the enemy a massive public relations coup and costing me a highly qualified general.


4) Agreement. You point to his Intell Chief. I am clear that a Commander is responsible for his staff and their actions. A Commander may delegate his authority but he cannot delegate his responsibility. Your questions; don’t matter why, he left is what matters from a command perspective.

Obviously MacArthur was responsible for Willoughby's failings. In fact, Willoughby's failings were directly exacerbated by MacArthur inasmuch as Willoughby was trying as hard as possible to color the intel to meet MacArthur's preconceived notions.

The question why doesn't matter "from a command perspective"? What the hell does that mean. The question is whether he left from cowardice or for good reasons. I think there were many overwhelming GOOD reasons, therefore you can't assume cowardice. You argue he repeatedly had failings of moral courage. I would agree with that, but that doesn't mean his leaving Corregidor was prompted by cowardice.

6) Polling on dead men and discounting war dead for the sake of reputation. OK, makes my point -he was more concerned about his legacy than his men or missions. The only polling that matters is his men-most are not available to poll. Mission first. Soldiers always.

I'm uncertain what you're saying, but the phrase "the only polling that matters is his men", yeah, no. Just like a player-friendly NFL coach can be the wrong guy for the job, there is a helluva lot more that matters than the opinions of one's troops. Obviously, morale is a critical component to success, but there are plenty of ways to get a job done effectively.

Agreed that MacArthur was more concerned about his reputation and legacy than damn near anything else.

7) Nice discussion. Enjoyed it. Macarthur remains hugely polarizing and evokes visceral responses. I made it clear that I’m a maybe. I remain so. I also suspect our frameworks are different and that partially explains our views. Mine; I don’t care about his politics or his legacy; I care about how well he fought and what lessons we can apply from his Joint Forces Command styles/examples. Frankly, I tend to avoid his study since the junior field grade officers (desiring to become JSOs so as to be competitive for GO/Flag rank) typically break down along the lines of his Corregidor actions (like here) regardless of which case study we attempt. The break down is also fairly predictable. Army officers (particularly USMA graduates and more Republican leaning voters) revere him and use many of your points. They view any mention of his failings as an attack on their institutional and political values and heritage. Navy officers (USNA grads and historically more Democrat leaning voters) use him to prod the soldiers and point to his inadequacies. Marine and USAF officers seem fairly split. Comparing and contrasting the effectiveness of Nimitz’s command to MacArthur’s then following that thread to PACOM today and the fact that PACOM is our oldest and largest unified command and also has never been commanded by a soldier is a thesis directly linked to MacArthur by some.

I'm aware of some of the debates you reference, including the struggle for credit over island hopping strategies and the like.

On balance I would tend to say that MacArthur was a great general in WWII, who was also a massive pain in the ass to his superiors and often less than admirable to his subordinates. There is no arguing his brilliant successes in the Southwest theater during the war, however, and his New Guinea campaign was genius.

It's inquestioned that he is far less admirable a person than many, MANY other generals in American history, and is a very mixed bag in terms of the total package. I'm never shy to point out that his failings when the Japanese initially attacked the Phillipines were identical to those that got General Short canned in Hawaii. I'm no fan of his, but then again, nearly every American general had some failings. His were, IMO, more grevious than most, but his brilliance and successes were also greater than most. But his failings, especially in ignoring evidence of Chinese intervention in Korea, were also greater than most.