Why wasn't MacArthur sacked?

[SRF]

The 1950 incident on Wake Island is a myth. MacArthur was on the ground when Truman landed.
A complicated man, MacArthur. One can admire and loath him at the same time. Perhaps his greatest weakness was a preference for "yes men", who would never contradict him and would tell him what they felt he wanted to hear. He took his "ring" from WWII with him to Korea, which helped lead him into another disaster.

[temujin77]

Originally Posted by SRF

He took his "ring" from WWII with him to Korea, which helped lead him into another disaster.

You speak as if he had done no good during WW2. Had Eisenhower and MacArthur switched theaters, a lot more Allied boys would've died fighting Japan. Did you know that MacArthur, from Australia to the eve of the Philippine Islands landings, lost about the same number of men as the single Normandy campaign Eisenhower conducted?

If it's not for MacArthur's charisma and leadership, the occupation of Japan would've been much tougher. Perhaps even bloodier. And the Western Allies would not have Japan as such a stern ally in the Cold War.

If MacArthur had his way, Korean War would've been escalated enough that a more conclusive result would be reached. The two Chinas we see today would be much different (in favor of the Nationalists), and the Vietnam War would've been averted.

MacArthur is, without a doubt, a megalomaniac. However, we have to give me utmost respect for what he had done for the US and for Asia. He isn't still worshiped like some kind of god in many Asian countries for no good reason.

[Jim O]

Pete,

While I agree with most of your points in the above post, the following is a great discussion point.

Originally Posted by temujin77

If MacArthur had his way, Korean War would've been escalated enough that a more conclusive result would be reached. The two Chinas we see today would be much different (in favor of the Nationalists), and the Vietnam War would've been averted.

There is no way to know what would have been the outcome. While the above is indeed possible, it is not the only possible outcome. The Vietnam situation was far more complex than "Communism vs. Democracy". It was more of an uprising against foreign occupiers, first the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, then the United States. Technically the US was not an army of occupation, but US armed forces were supporting a popular insurgency against an unpopular government in Vietnam.

As far as your scenario goes, imagine if the Nationalists in China had in fact won and been allied with the US. Then the Soviets may have felt even more threatened by the West and the Cold War may have heated up into a real war.

[temujin77]

Yeah these "what-if" scenarios are hard to picture; any speculation is at best, well, just speculation

With the China situation, I'm not certain that my speculation of a Nationalist victory would occur even if the Nationalists turned on the Communists a day after the war. However, it is obvious that the years the Nationalists waited on George Marshall's advice (thanks a lot, George... we lost our country because of you) was time terribly lost, allowing the Communists to build up in the northeast. Had the Nationalists advanced earlier, the two China situation may still be today, but the borders might be drawn differently. Perhaps a north-south split somewhere in north or central China proper as opposed to the line being drawn along the Taiwan Strait today.

But again, all speculation. And totally thread-jacking :P

[Troy Tempest]

Hi Pete, what do you mean by General George Marshall cost you your country? I thought Gen Marshall was the brainiest US General ever! Was this not the case regarding China? I don't know a lot about that theatre!

[temujin77]

Hey there Troy, good to see you here on this forum! Which reminds me, I haven't been to yours in a while. Oops :P

George Marshall preached (and that's not just with words) for peace between the Nationalists and the Communists, and as a direct result, Chiang Kaishek put off his attacks on Mao's forces in the period immediately following the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Thus, the Communists were able to complete their retreat into the northeast, link up with the Russians for supplies and arms while taking advantage of the infrastructure the Japanese had built in Manchuria. Even at this stage, Marshall continued to rely on his flawed intelligence, stating that there was no evidence that the Chinese Communists were being supplied by the Russians. In actuality, not only Russian arms were being sent across the border, North Korean troops were joining Mao in northeast China as well. Long story short, by the time Chiang got tired of Marshall's rantings and finally put his forces on the offensive, it was too late. The offensive met stiff resistance, collapsed, and the subsequent Communist counter-offensive drove the Nationalists off of the mainland by the end of the 1940s.

This of course is the 2-minute version of the history, and the actual events were much more complicated. But I think I gave a half-way decent gist of it

[Brett]

Originally Posted by temujin77

You speak as if he had done no good during WW2. Had Eisenhower and MacArthur switched theaters, a lot more Allied boys would've died fighting Japan. Did you know that MacArthur, from Australia to the eve of the Philippine Islands landings, lost about the same number of men as the single Normandy campaign Eisenhower conducted?

A fair comparison of leaders would acknowledge that the SW Pacific
theater geography favored the Allies. Because it consisted of big
islands that the Japanese couldn’t defend completely, Allies could
land in lightly defended areas. Then with their superior construction
equipment, they could build airfields near their landing grounds.

In NW Europe, the Germans could form a continuous line forcing an
attacker to make frontal assaults somewhere.

It very well may that MacArthur was uniquely able to take advantage
of the geography he faced. (I remember reading a biography of MacArthur:
“American Caesar” that stated he was one of the few Army generals who
looked on oceans not as barriers, but as highways). But the geography of
Europe gave Ike disadvantages.

As a connoisseur of historical ironies, this has to rank as one of the gems.
The SW Pacific had miserable terrain not suitable to a mechanized army.
There was no road net to speak of and armored divisions were totally
useless. Meanwhile, the navy hated the reef-choked waters of the
theater.

You would think that NW Europe, with large land areas suitable for
armored warfare would be ideal for the Allies mobility. And yet
the SW Pacific turned out better for the Allies because it had worse
terrain for the Axis.