most overrated General of WWII

Great Debates
1

I would have a tough choice between Monty & Dug-out Doug.

MacArthur was a coward, a braggart,an egotisical blowhard, who kept his staff runnig ragged to cover up his bonehead errors. He almost got us involved in an atomic war w/ China. He was Lionized, as we needed a hero, ANY hero, AND he DID look & talk like one.

Montgomery, on the other hand, got made into a Hero by the Brits, who also badly needed one. He was credited for besting Rommel, after Rommel was sick, and his AfrikaKorps was out of supplies. Any victories Monty got, were because of Ultra, etc, but the Allies had to keep that secret. He slowed the end of the war by at least a month by his grandstanding, and he killed off thousands of troops in his one original plan-“Operation Market Garden”. He also did not LOOK or talk like a hero, but there is no indication he was a coward.

I’m picking “Dug-Out Doug”, as my Dad served w/ him. How about you folks? One of these, or someone else?

2

Well, given that MacArthur’s trouble with the Chinese came during the Korean War, I’d have to say that picking on him for that in a question about WWII is off base.

And, of course, in 1951 the Chinese wouldn’t have been able to get into a nuclear war with us; the Soviet Union would, which is what everyone feared, so at least let’s get the facts straight when taking on MacArthur.

Now, how about you try again, and this time, why not list the military actions under MacArthur’s command during WWII and see if you can establish just how he was a poor general, so that some actual debate can be engaged in on the subject. :slight_smile:

3

Amazing, isn’t it, how people who have never served in the military, don’t know anything about strategy, and have no clue how difficult it is to pull off ANY military campaign successfully, feel qualified to dismiss ANY general as an incompetent idiot.

When ANYONE discusses military leaders’ failings, keep in mind a mantra of Tom Clancy’s: virtually ALL of the greatest blunders in military history have been made by brilliant men (fools, after all, are almost never trusted with important decisions, the kind that COULD lead to disaster).

I don’t say that any military leader should be above criticism. I merely point out that, here on these message boards, at one time or another, I’ve seen the following generals dismissed as morons:

George Washington
Ulysses S. Grant
Douglas MacArthur
George Patton
Bernard Law Montgomery
Napoleon
Erwin Rommel
Robert E. Lee

The list goes on, but you get the idea. Now, one could ask… if George Washington and Douglas MacArthur were morons, who was a genius??? Whatever his failings, Washington WON, after all! He gained our independence against the mightiest empire on earth! Whatever his failings, Douglas MacArthur WON!

War is, by definition, chaotic and frequently unpredictable. The best of generals frequently have to rely on hunches and guesswork, since intelligence is often absent (or suspect). Generals do the best they can with the information and the resources they have. If they come out on top, I figure they’re entitled to whatever glory they receive.

By most accounts, MacArthur was an arrogant egomaniac- it doesn’t follow that he was anything less than a brilliant general.

4

Charges of cowardice against MacArthur are also suspect. As the senior officer in the Pacific with Asian experience, Washington ordered him to leave the Philipines.

In WWI, he personally directed (and sometimes led) several assaults under heavy fire, but was denied recognition because of personality clashes with Pershing.

Tom~

5

But, during WWII in the Phillipines, Macarthur rarely left his underground headquarters and was nicknamed dugout Doug by his troups. Quite a shock to them when he received the Medal of Honor for his actions under fire in the Phillipines! And yes, I HAVE served in the military as did my father and grandfather before him.

6

btw…I’m not saying that Macarthur was the most overrated, just that he was pretty crappy.

7

tomndebb wrote:

And here we were just saying that Washington was a genius!

Oh, wait, you meant the CITY, not the general. :wink:

8

The general I admire most is Hannibal Barca. Of course, he lost! So, was he a moron? I do not think so. There are factors involved in winning a war other than a general’s skill.

When I discuss military leaders’ victories, I keep in mind the words of Sun Tzu:

I would like to respond to the OP in this way: I think that all successful generals tend to be overrated. I believe that Eisenhower was the most successful in WW2.
Pax

9

2Sense, a more accurate (IMHO) rendition of your quote would be “attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy’s army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.”

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith

10

It was my understanding that the “dugout Doug” label was pinned on him by the Marines who were not actually in the Philipines, simply expressing distaste for a guy they didn’t like and about whom they had mostly rumors to build on.

I am willing to look at any information that indicates that his troops on Bataan or Corrigedor called him that.

I am also willing to entertain the notion that the Medal of Honor was as much political as anything else (it’s awarded by congress, for heaven’s sake).

On the other hand, the place of the senior commander in a theatre of war is not out rallying the troops when they are doing their best to hide from the enemy artillery, so I am not at all sure that I consider his time spent in the bunker as valid evidence of fear, in any event.

If you want to insist that the U.S. soldier who received the most battlefield decorations in WWI (over the objections of his commanding officer) simply went chicken later in life, you may, but I am going to want to see a bit more evidence.

(Mind you, I do not like MacArthur, who was very much into self-aggrandizement and who claimed the glory for efforts made and ideas proposed by his subordinates. I think it is a different matter to judge the vain person from the actual war leader, however.)

Tom~

11

waterj2:
[hijack]
My translation is by Thomas Cleary. I do not speak any Sino-Tibetan language.
I like your “quote” better. Which translation are you using?

[/hijack]

Peace

12

Mine’s by Ralph D. Sawyer. I highly recommend his version over Cleary’s. There’s 162 pages of historical background and notes before the actual text even starts, as well as extensive endnotes and index. Plus the translation seems to be somewhat better done. The quote we were discussing is an example. I found an example on the web in Chinese, and from what little I could tell, the character for “one hundred” was definately in the first part twice.

I’m not at all a Chinese scholar, I just happen to have researched that one quote, as it is a personal favorite.

13

Evidence that MacArthur was incompetent? How about his performance on the opening day of the war? After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the war alert was sent to MacArthur’s headquarters in the Philipines. MacArthur who had spend the last few years creating a command system that required his personal approval for all major decisions, was stunned by the enormity of the Japanese attack and to all appearances went into shock. This meant that no preparations were made for the impending Japanese attack and when this attack arrived the next day, the Japanese were able to destroy the majority of the aircract and military supplies of the Philipines which had not be disbersed from storage. Contemporary Japanese accounts express their amazement at the ease of their air attacks; they had anticipated a vigourous defense of the islands, heavy casualties, and limited targets.

14

I’ve seen Macarthur’s Pacific campaign be labelled as brilliant by more than one military historian. I seem to recall that he captured immense amounts of territory with very little loss of life by island-hopping around Japanese strongpoints and cutting them off rather than engaging them as was expected.

I think he also did a brilliant job in managing the peacetime transition of Japan.

15

Well at Pearl harbor the Japanese were banking on getting every single ship. The japanese were going to hit pearl harbor then take up as much land as possible and dig in. However 2 carriers were out doing stuff and the japanese lost because of that.

What exactly were they supposed to defend pearl harbor with? :slight_smile: (when its a suprise attack)

16

1st, my Dad was in HQ, Northern Pac. He was an adujant to a general. He was a decorated , disabled vet, with both the Phil Campaign, and the Phil liberation medal. HE thought Dug out Doug was a coward & an incomptent. The one time Doug had to make decisions on his own, was when he was in command in the Phillipines. He was given total warning about the Jap attacks, and he had plenty of time to act. He froze up, and all his planes were caught flatfooted, on the ground. Yes , he was ordered off by Marshall, but only after he asked to ordered off. He took his personal files, instead of nurses, who were later tortured by the Japs.

His successes were in spite of him, not because of him. The naval Commanders (Nimitz & others), were brilliant, and basicly ran the show, with all strategic dec coming from Washington (such as the Island hopping idea). Our naval tactices were great, but our land tactics sucked. On our first island attack, Doug ignored the advice of the navy, and ordered the attack during LOW tide, causing hundreds of men to be moved down as they ran over wide streches of beach. Look at our land battles… thay all cost us way too many casualties for what we accomplished. The naval battles were just the opposite.

Go ahead, name a great land battle Doug won.

Now, it does appear, in WWI, that Doug was a differnt king of soldier, but a lot can change in 20+ years…

17

astorian,

I am not certain what to make of your post. There are numerous military histories which offer information for anyone to judge the relative competence of a commander. We have the assessments of his peers, superiors, and the men he commanded. We can contrast him with other commanders based on their records. etc. etc.

I am not a composer but I know Mozart was better than Salieri. I am not an artist but I know Picasso is greater than leroy Nieman. This is a free country and anyone can make any judgment they want if they can back it up.

Perked Ears indicate curiosity - Know Your Cat

18

In this case, I’ve got a few things to say. 1st, if it works, go with it. MacArthur, regardless of how he commanded his troops did win, and, moreover, did so fast and effectively. (How can you complain about his command style? Look at Patin, he wanted troops at the front to wear ties and shave regualrly.)
Monty is another story. In the desert, Monty had one thing: Drive. He could,would, and did push the Germans to past the brink. He could knock heads with the densest, but as a tactician, he was perhaps not the match of the general to previously hold his post. This has been made clear in several instances: At Cain, where, after dropping an amount of fire power that exceeded that of the Atom bomb, he failed to take the city- instead he lost half his armor. That could be blamed on faulty tactics, because the infantry did not advance with the tanks. Then, operation Market Garden. Not the best plan. Think about it like this: You’re at one end of a foot ball field with three of our 140 lb friends. You have to get to the end. In between you and there are 4 of your 120 lb friends, and 8 220 lb guys. Not easy, huh?
One little point: someone mentioned starting a nuclear war with Russia in 1951-3? Nope, wouldn’t’ve happened- Russia didn’t have a working bomb until 1955. So, I have this feeling that this might not have helped, so I’ll offer my own opinion. Good old monty was the most overrated general of the war. Sorry, how about the topic changes to most underrated? That’d make things much more interesting…

19

Argeable
The Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb in 1949. http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/chrono3.html

20

I see the charge against MacArthur for the Air Corps losses and I wonder whether some history books are suppressing information about the events of December 8-9. The Air Corps did sortie to search for the expected Japanese bombers and the Japanese fleet. The Japanese were grounded in fog on Formosa/Taiwan. The Japanese expected to be chewed up because the news from Pearl Harbor was out, but when they got to the Philipines, they discovered the Air Corps refueling from their first searches (not unlike the situation we encountered at Midway six months later).

MacArthur made lots of enemies with his self-aggrandizing personality, but a lot of the stories told against him are not supported by the records.

Yet we treat Ike and his boys as brilliant for launching D-Day at low tide when the many obstacles Rommel set up to rip apart the landing craft at the “inevitable” high tide invasion were exposed and could not harm the boats–the long beach exposure notwithstanding.

Tom~