MacArthur - Under or Over rated?

von_noobie

Verified User
Am a bit of a WWI and WWII enthusiast and was curious as to the American view of MacArthur? I already know for the majority in Australia that are knowldgeable about him and WWII that they think he was an over rated pansy but what is the American view? I would like for people to give factual reason's for there view if at all possible.

To me, He was at best way over rated and at worst completely incompetent as a military leader (at least on the large scale).

Reasons for my view:
The US had planned for possible conflict with Japan since the 20's, They knew that any conflict would likely mean the Philippines being cut off for some time, The USN its self stating that it would take them no less then 12 months to fight there way there. As such the plan for the defense of the Philippines was drawn up not to hold all of it but to hold a more defensible section tying up Japanese forces and resources. That area being the Bataan peninsula and the Island of Corregidor, The plan had been built up for decades based on this and for some reason MacArthur decided to scrap it and moved most of the valuable resources and supplies outside of these two area's and to various beaches that he thought would be landing sights, In theory stopping the enemy before they have a foot hold sound's smart, However if your pushed back (which happened) you risk losing any supplies and heavy equipment you moved forward (which happened) and such the forces became in an even worse position then before. Add to that fact that the USAAF never got the go ahead from Mac to launch any attack's nor was the US Asiatic fleet used to any extent. In actual fact after blundering the defense he froze, No order's coming for what has been said day's and never leaving his bunker when danger was afoot. And that was all in just the first week on conflict between the US and Japan, Not long after he would snub us Aussies, Putting un tested US forces to the front when there was thousand's of battle hardened Aussies (especially in the RAAF). One thing that really pisses me off about Mac is some of his replies, In one battle he actually complained that not enough troops had died (Aussie battle) even though we had taken all the objectives.

Look forward to other peoples views.
 
I could give you my view but then again I'm not American.

Oh go for it, Was mainly interested in the US view but hell wasn't just the Digger's and GI's that he pissed off, He also did a decent job pissing off the British, Dutch, Portuguese etc etc so give your view if your like, Im not overly picky if your a Yank or not.
 
He's overrated but not anymore so than most American generals of the period. He was a winner of WW2, he's going to get a little idolized. Now Rommel.....THAT man was incredibly overrated, even by his own army.
 
MacArthur is overrated, because he often let his ego interfere. If you look at some of the US history from the interwar period, such as the court martial of Billy Mitchell, then it's clear that the overall machine in DC was not taking the Japanese threat seriously. I also believe that MacArthur was ordered away from the Phillipines anyway, regardless of how he viewed the situation from the ground.
 
He's overrated but not anymore so than most American generals of the period. He was a winner of WW2, he's going to get a little idolized. Now Rommel.....THAT man was incredibly overrated, even by his own army.

Was Rommel over rated? Yes but much less then that of MacArthur. Rommel had actual victories under his belt that occurred due to his leadership while Mac had none in WWII, Every battle in the Pacific was planned by the forces on the ground, Mac was back in Australia so he played no part in the tactical situation, He was more of a figure head that thought he was needed more then any one else.
 
Back
Top