Why wasn't MacArthur sacked?

[Brett]

It is my understanding that HOURS after Pearl
Harbor was raided, most of US planes in the
Philippines were caught on the ground and
destroyed. I believe both the US Army and
Navy commander at Pearl Harbor lost their
command after Dec. 7.

So why didn’t MacArthur, the commander
in the Philippines. lose his job? In the book,
“Commander in Chief: Roosevelt and his Lieutenants”,
the author claims that Roosevelt didn’t relieve
MacArthur because he was politically powerless
and yet was an idol that Roosevelt’s enemies
could worship.

(if this is true, Roosevelt at least got MacArthur’s
political weakness right – in the ’44, ’48, & ’52
Presidential elections MacArthur failed to gain
much support even in Republican primaries, much
less the general election. Ike was far more popular
in 40s & 50s America).

I could imagine a few other possibilities why MacArthur
wasn’t sacked:

1) MacArthur’s career history: Was his record before
’41 so clearly superior to the commanders at Pearl
that it was decided to forgive his getting caught
by surprise? I don’t know enough of the pre-WWII
career of these 3 commanders to comment.

2) US morale reasons: If every commander in the Pacific
lost their jobs, it might have been a huge blow to US
morale, on top of the trauma of the opening of the war.
I imagine MacArthur was far better known than the
commanders at Pearl in Dec. ’41, and thus would have
kept his command.

3) Suitability to the Pacific war. After a very rough 1st year of the war. MacArthur recovered. It is my understanding that his forces advanced with far less casualties than the Central Pacific drive. My personal feeling is that this is not the reason because the amphibious warfare in the Pacific was so unprecedented that no one could have anticipated his skill, especially after MacArthur’s early failures.

(MacArthur’s first year of war just started with the
disastrous initial enemy air raid. All pre-war plans called
for a withdrawal to Bataan & hold out until to relief.
MacArthur instead lost much of his army attempting
against overwhelming enemy air superiority to hold
all of Luzon, and then failed to bring adequate supplies
to Bataan.

In Aug. ’42 he failed to get troops to Buna, New Guinea
despite intelligence warnings of enemy landing there.
This led to a costly 6-month campaign that could have
been prevented had he heeded the warnings.)

[temujin77]

There's always a flip side to the story, of course.

At the time the Pacific War opened, the American military intelligence in Asia was almost zero. MacArthur was the only senior level commander in just about the entire US Army who had some understanding of the geography and culture of Asian peoples. That made him unsackable.

His immense political capabilities also kept him in power there. For one, he was good friends with Filipino leader Manuel Quezon, and that association gave US the political influence she needs to continue to maintain Filipino cooperation; Quezon almost declared Philippines neutral had it not been MacArthur who talked sense into Quezon (though it is doubtful that Japanese would honor that declaration of neutrality, anyway). He was capable diplomatically, too. He crossed the military-civilian line by cabling Washington, recommending Washington to enter talks with Russia. That, too, made him unsackable.

Finally, MacArthur's own brand of "hit 'em where they ain't" island hopping strategy saved countless American lives. He had lost about the same number of men the entire campaign from Australia to the eve of the Philippines invasion as the single Normandy campaign; another comparison noted that his campaign from Australia to the Philippines cost fewer men than what Eisenhower had lost at the Battle of the Bulge defense. For the remarkably low casualty rate, Roosevelt should be thankful that he did not sack MacArthur.

Some of the stuff you have already touched upon. Just trying to note that with a figure as controversial as MacArthur, there's always two sides to each story...

[Troy Tempest]

Is it true that in his reports or his memoirs or both he failed to mention the actions of Australians in New Guinea, or downplayed their role?

[temujin77]

As much as I admire MacArthur's work, I must say he was still a megalomaniac, and his memoirs were very much one-sided. In the big picture, he definitely favored American forces much more than that of Australia. For example, he used almost exclusively (or entirely exclusively?) American forces during the Philippines invasion in late 1944, while the Australians were sent to invade Borneo in a campaign that did not really have significant strategic value at that stage of the Pacific War.

I don't believe he truely undervalued the contributions of the Australians, however. MacArthur knew he couldn't have done it in New Guinea without the Australian troops. MacArthur also actively courted John Curtin during the war, reflecting his belief that Australia played a vital role in the region.

[Brett]

In my original post, I in no way meant to imply that
I thought MacArthur should have been sacked. I think
a lot of Allied soldiers were very lucky he was in command.

I just thought it was a little strange he was able to
stay in command based on the fact that Pearl Harbor
commanders were sacked.

So thanks for your reply temujin77, I did not know
a lot of what you mentioned. I did have one question
on the passage below:

>> He was capable diplomatically, too. He crossed the
>> military-civilian line by cabling Washington,
>> recommending Washington to enter talks
>> with Russia.

When were these cables and what did he want
discussed?

....

As far as the Australians, it is my understanding that
his reports did downplay their role. For instance a landing
with Aussie forces alone would be announced as "Allied
forces landed today at ..." & if US & Aussie forces attacked,
the communique would say "US forces attacked ..."

[temujin77]

If I recall correctly, even before the war, MacArthur had suggested talks between Washington and Moscow to curb Japanese expansion, but it was generally turned down because the US, much like Britain and France, was distrustful of Stalin. After Japan's attack in the opening days of the Pacific War, MacArthur again cabled the War Department, multiple times, I think. In one of them, he stated "the world situation at the present time indicates that the hopes of civilization rest on the worthy banners of the courageous Russian Army", citing that the Russian effort to stop the Germany Army at the outskirts of Moscow was exactly what they needed to set back the Japanese from the north. His belief was not shared in Washington, though, and as it played out, Russian declaration of war on Japan did not come until the final days of the war in 1945.

[Troy Tempest]

But what was he thinking when he refused to get out of his plane first, and kept President Truman waiting? I can't remember where it was, but I was watching a show about him, and it made mention of how the President had to get his plane on the radio, and order him out, is that right? And was that the final straw and he was sacked after that?

[temujin77]

Troy, I think you're thinking of the Pacific Strategy Conference at Hawaii in Jul 1944.

WW2DB: Pacific Strategy Conference

At that conference, he upstaged Roosevelt (not Truman) by arriving fashionably late, and fielded a motorcade bigger than the president's, or something along those lines -- my memory is failing me slightly tonight on the details

He wasn't "sacked" until Korean War. Sure he was not perfect, but he was definitely the scapegoat for the war not going as well as the White House wanted. Truman cited the excuse of his "un-cooperativeness" with his commander-in-chief as one of the reasons for his removal.

WW2DB: Douglas MacArthur

MacArthur left Japan on 16 Apr 1951 after he got the "sacking" order. That morning 250,000 Japanese lined the street at 0630 to say goodbye to their respected former SCAP, General "Makassar". Signs said "We Love You, MacArthur", "With Deep Regret", "Sayonara", and "We are Grateful to the General". His ticker tape parade in Manhattan had a greater turn-out than Eisenhower's. The people loved him as a hero. The politicians hated him because he had the potential to beat them at their game.

[Troy Tempest]

No, the event I am remembering involved two aircraft, the President was on one, and MacCarthur was on another. Common courtesy dictated that the President left his aircraft last, so he wouldn't be waiting for the other guy, but MacCarthur refused to leave his plane first, and the President had to get MacCarthur on the radio and pretty well order him out of his aircraft, or so my (failing) memory tells me!

He did run for President himself though didn't he, or he at least considered it? Why didn't he do better than he did?

[temujin77]

I'm pretty sure you're talking about a meeting between MacArthur and Truman at Wake Island. Probably 1950? But I can't recall any details at the moment...

And I'm too lazy to look...

Well, maybe not "lazy" per se. I'm at work and probably shouldn't be on this forum anyways let alone research on the web :P