Talk:Douglas MacArthur/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

old comment

"Since his brother Arthur MacArthur III was deceased at this point and had failed to give that name to his own son (naming him instead Douglas MacArthur II), MacArthur "laid claim"[8] to the name for his son, thus Arthur MacArthur IV"

This isn't exactly correct. His brother Arthur III had five children, Arthur, Bowman, Douglas, Mary Elizabeth, and Malcolm. However, Arthur (son of Arthur) died at a young age. Schmead21 (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

MacArthur's handling of Kokoda

Paul Ham, an Aussie journalist, has written a book called "Kokoda". He has been incredibly critical of both Blamey and MacArthur. MacArthur because he was an armchair commander, issuing ridiculous, unreasonable and, quite frankly criminal orders to Australian troops. Not only this, but he was dismissive of the Australian army in general, he only went over to PNG once - and even then never saw the conditions the men were fighting in - he insisted on advancing when it was not possible, from what I understand he was one of the reasons why they never employed planes to fly out dreadfully wounded men, and he manipulated the media in Australia and in America to make out it was he who was commanding the fighters on the front line.

If it wasn't for Austraila's gallant few (the Australian militia and the 2nd AIF) who held back the advancing enemy time and time again sometimes outnumbered by a much as 6 to 1 and never giving an inch, Macarthur's true incompetence all throughout the Kokoda campaign would've been very evident, most likely resulting in the invasion of Australia. Instead Macarthur's good understanding of how to handle (some would argue manipulate)the media and make himself look very responsible for the victory of the Battle of Kokoda overshone the selfless acts of the diggers and the Fuzzy Wuzzy angles once again denying them of their rightful title as competent soldiers good men and victors.

Some time earlier in the Kokoda campaign, Macarthur added to this saying that the (australians) were an inferior fighting force and were not equal to their enemies. when in fact the opposite was true.

All in all, not a nice individual and I'm amazed that PNG wasn't successfully invaded by the Japanese (though they had their own incompetent leadership). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Far from "never giving an inch", the diggers retreated all the way from Buna back to Imita Ridge. They were defeated by the Japanese at every turn. Kokoda was a Australian defeat, not a victory. MacArthur was right to be concerned about the Australian performance, especially after Malaya. For a number of reasons, the Australian Army did not fight as well at Kokoda as it did in Malaya and West Timor.

The charge that MacArthur visited PNG only once is completely untrue. He was there for months on end in 1943 and 1944. His strategy was sound and subsequent events vindicated it. Higher leadership of the Australian Army was very good. The problem was that Australia had not built a balanced Army with the logistical wherewithal to fight a campaign.

Wounded men were flown out but they had to be taken to an airstrip. The loss of Kokoda meant that there was no airstrips on the track until you got back to Port Moresby. Hawkeye7 10:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what your references are Hawkeye, but all the ones I have, do not seem to mention that Kokoda was "a[n] Australian defeat" Fortunately for you and I, we still speak English due to their efforts. They obviously won at Kokoda, but it was slow due to the sheer numerical force presented by the Japanese. The Australian plan was to delay to a point where the Japanese could no longer sustain themselves and culminated. This occured and was followed by a swift counter-attack all the way to Buna. Could I recommend Peter Fitzsimons book "Kokoda" and "The Odd Couple - Blamey and MacArthur at War" by Jack Galaway.

You are right about MacArthurs presence in PNG although 'months' is also a little generous. Gallaway produces MacArthurs movements by day and states "MacArthur spent 60 days in New Guinea in 1942, but never went further north than Port Moresby. In 1943 he spent 65 days in New Guinea...[and] in 1944 ...28 days in the north..." What is true from a wide variety of reputable sources, MacArthur was not a great strategist, he instead was driven by his own ego. He lacked the integrity to speak the truth during a significant number of his communiques and was only ever interested in himself and his own development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.168.254 (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed Galaway elsewhere and pronounced it garbage. Avoid it at all costs. Stick to the books written by historians (ie not Fitzsimmons). The best source on Australia's part in WWII is Gavin Long's "The Six Year's War", followed by Robertson's "Australia at War". For the campaigns in New Guinea, McCarthy's "South West Pacific", Dexter's "New Guinea Offensives" and Long's "Final Campaigns". For Blamey, read Horner; for MacArthur, read Clayton James. And yes, the battle of Kokoda was indeed a defeat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Youngest General

MacArthur was certainly the youngest general at the time of his promotion to brigadier general. But I was under the impression that the youngest army general in US history would have been 19 year old Gilbert Lafayette in 1778, or does the Continental Army not count? -- Bucky (unregistered user) 10:55 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The page says he made Brigadier General in 1918. If he was born in 1880, then he would have been 38, not 28 as the text states. Therefore will delete the statement that he was 28 when he made general. 144.139.175.228 02:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There were several generals that were younger during the Civil War. Among those that come to mind are George Custer (mid-20s?) and Wesley Merritt (again mid-20s). Reportedly the youngest of all was the wonderfully named Galusha Pennypacker, who was (depending on who you talk to, either 19 or 20 when he was promoted to Brig. Gen. just after Fort Fisher in 1865. The youngest general of the World War II era (supposedly) was James Gavin, who was in his mid-30s when promoted to Brig. Gen.68.190.212.114 02:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Custer held a brevet General rank in the Civil War, after the war he went back to his permanent rank of Captain.Awotter (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Adolf Galland was 5 years younger in WW2 than Jim Gavin. He was also a three star General, which is higher in WW2 than Gavin. Wallie (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

They are referring to United States generals; Galland was German. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Still not true though. Gavin was the youngest division commander, not the youngest general in the U.S. Army. Gavin was born on 22 March 1907. William O. Darby, deputy commander of the 10th Mountain Division, was born on 8 February 1911. Richard C. Sanders was born on 19 August 1915, and was only 28 when promoted to brigadier general in June 1944. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A Nit

MacArthur did not believe the Chinese would invade, but if they did he said our airpower would make the invasion expensive.

And he would have been right had Truman not kept him from using the full power of the U.S. military to stop the Communist Chinese army. A number of years ago it was revealed that the communists knew that Truman wouldn't stop a Chinese invasion of Korea and based on that info, the Chinese attacked.[1] Jtpaladin 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And aren't we all disappointed that we missed out on World War 3?Theamazingzeno (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So - Were you in Truman's Cabinet? Jokem (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

MacArthur failed to understand conditions on the ground in Korea, and failed to anticipate that his rush to the Yalu River would put American divisions at risk in areas where airpower was tactically less useful. A more prudent general would not have split his command into such disparate pieces, spread them out, and failed to have adequate reconnaissance, communication, and military intelligence. MacArthur's incompetence was singularly responsible for the disastrous loss of life in that campaign.

IMHO PedEye1 (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of air power

In the article, we have the following statement:

MacArthur's use of air power during the New Guinea campaign is considered by many historians as the first harnessing of air power to influence land warfare

This appears to be something of an over exaggeration as it makes it sound like MacArthur was the first person to think of using aricraft in a battlefield! Presumably Macarthur used planes in some novel way in this campaign but I have no idea as to what this might be. I'd suggest that we either find out what this is (with a reference) or simply remove the statement alltogether.

I didn't write that, but it would make much more sense if we added "strategically" or "from a strategic standpoint." 06:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re his use of airpower in New Guinea, I'd call it a pioneer use of tactical airlift; "strategic" isn't the word I'd use. Trekphiler 02:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It was hardly the first major airlift. German Ju-52s carried Franco's army across the strait of Gibraltar, and the Germans had kept 80,000 troops in the Demyansk Pocket supplied by air in the winter of 41-42. Aircraft were certainly relevant to the New Guinea campaign, but I was under the impression that airpower in the South Pacific was most useful against the Japanese Navy.(TariqAlSuave 02:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

I removed the sentence as it's completely ridiculous on all levels. Billy Mitchell has long been considered a pioneer in the use of air power in coordination with land forces for martialing over 1,500 aircraft in the Battle of Saint-Mihiel; and as TariqAlSuave points out above MacArthur's command was hardly the first to use it as a tactical airlift instrument.Awotter (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dismissal section

The section "Dismissal" contains a strong POV. From a "Search Inside" at Amazon, it seems that this POV is indeed adopted in the cited book by Halberstam (The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War), but I couldn't find any appropriate quotes. The way it's currently phrased the POV is presented as fact. I suggest that this part should either be quoted as one view from Halberstam, or deleted. Perhaps someone who has access to the book could take this up? Joriki (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the POV issue. I'd like to point out that this section starts off "In April 1952..." but that MacArthur was removed in 1951. Could we agree to change this reference to "In April 1951..." without issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.197.225 (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the book, The Forgotten War: - Joint Chiefs requested permission to remove MacArthur 12 separate times beginning on the 1st day of the war and ending the day Truman finally concurred. The first was Ike's recommendation when he stopped by the Pentagon that first day.

- the day before the 2nd Chinese offensive (the 1st major Chinese offensive happened months before Chosin and stalled the allied advance for three days; MacArthur convinced Truman that was just volunteers), Gen O.P. Smith, USMC 1st Division, informed the Commandant that he had removed his men from under MacArthur's command and informed the US Army division commanders he would support any of them who chose to relieve MacArthur of command

- the day after the 2nd Chinese offensive, MacArthur ordered SAC to hit Chinese positions with the atomic bomb, informing the local SAC commander that he had authority from Truman to do so; the SAC commander refused without first obtaining confirmation from the Pentagon; yes, Virginia, there really was a Dr Strangelove

- our UN allies informed Truman they would pull out of Korea if MacArthur remained

- Ridgway, who arrived the day after the 2nd Chinese offensive, assumed immediate command of the theater. Technically, he reported to MacArthur, informing him of his decisions after the fact, but he took no orders from MacArthur

Bottom line: the "Truman dismissed MacArthur over policy" story was used to conceal how screwed up Mac had left things in Korea and, more importantly, that a rogue American general tried to launch an unauthorized nuclear war. We did not learn this until the retired US Army General who wrote the "Forgotten War" used the Freedom Of Information Act to get this data declassified. Badmac (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Article split

Because of the size of the article I created Places named for Douglas MacArthur and Service summary of Douglas MacArthur. Places remains a section with a template direction to new article, most of the material moved was schools roads etc.. Service summary I added to the See Also section since it was a recapitulation of the sections of the main article.Awotter (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Dates of rank and awards could (and probably should I think) be moved as well).Awotter (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not The Bomb

I changed it to the Sov declaration; despite common U.S. opinion today, in Japan at the time, it seems, the Sov declaration was the bigger influence (since Japanese cities were being burned on a routine basis by then...). Anybody that wants to mention both, feel free; I'd very strongly discourage the (previous) emphasis on it being the Bomb alone. Trekphiler (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Soviets had declared war some considerable time previously. It was the "shock" factor of the bomb more than the destruction itself which "did the trick". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.1.17 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Soviets declared war on Japan on 8 August 1945, effective 9 August - after the nuclear strike on Hiroshima on 6 August but before that on Nagasaki on 9 August. Japan offered to surrender on 10 August. Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has written a whole book about this, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan (Belknap Press, 2005)), an hour-by-hour examination of how and why the Japanese leadership decided to surrender, compiled from the Japanese documents. His conclusion is that it was the Soviet declaration of war and not the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings that led to the Japanese surrender. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The defense rests. Perry Mason (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

References Screwed Up

Somebody apparently Rhinocerous Ranger has made hash of most of the references list. Someone who knows how, please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrees (talk • contribs) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see this has been fixed by Eupator, Thanks Alrees (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather funny phrasing

From the "Dismissal" section:

MacArthur by this time had not been back to the United States for more than twenty years and suffered from paranoia, self-destructive impulses, and political aspirations, and he had visions of running against Truman in the 1952 elections.

The construction "... suffered from paranoia, self-destructive impulses, and political aspirations" suggests that we think political aspirations are something one "suffers from", like the aforementioned mental conditions. Also, in the context of this sentence, it is not clear whether the word "visions" refers to a visionary state (which would go with the context of mental conditions) or just reinforcing the "political aspirations". --FOo (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

SCAP

Surely his role as military governor of Japan (Supereme Commander of the Allied Powers) should be included in the info box? Cripipper (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dec 7 vs Dec 8

Those who insist upon giving the date of the attack on Pearl Harbor as Dec 8 based on Philippine local time should insert this technicality as a footnote. One of the objectives of these articles should be clarity. Remember that this article will be read by school children for whom WW2 is ancient history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomTool2 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So why didn't you? Noted, however. Trekphiler (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this:

"On the day of the attack on Pearl Harbor (December 8, 1941, in Manila), MacArthur was Allied commander in the Philippines."

to be confusing. The way it is worded might make people a) think the article is incorrect or b) actually believe the Pearl Harbor attack occurred on 8 December 1941 in Manila. Yes, I understand there was an attack on the Philippines hours later, and that local time would mean it was December 8, not 7. Can that be restated for clarity? I was going to but then found I wanted to rewrite that paragraph completely.

MicheleFloyd (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Look under subject "Dec 7 vs Dec 8" for similar thoughts on this question. Editors are continually changing the 8 to 7, and it's getting very tiresome correcting this.RandomTool2 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

MicheleFloyd, if you can find a way that's clear & doesn't invite constant reversion, I'll give you your own personal Barnstar, free gratis & for nothing, autographed by Elvis. Trekphiler (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

High School

Does anyone know what high school General MacArthur was an alumnus of? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's nothing worth adding to this article. Dragonrider27 (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Particularly seeing as it's already there. MacArthur went to West Texas Military Academy, now known as TMI — The Episcopal School of Texas in San Antonio. It's mentioned in Manchester's biography, amongst other places. He also revisited the school after the Second World War to make a speech, much as he did with West Point.

Heavily POV

This page is heavily pov- see for example

"The speech was recorded, and even in MacArthur's old and faltering voice, it is still possible to hear the mesmerizing presence and towering ego which drove him throughout his career. His stirring final passage sounds like a voice from another age[...]"

213.246.191.57 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at correcting the peacock prose. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great! Just the guy you would wabt to follow into battle. Wallie (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

POV

Somebody has removed both the POV dispute tag I placed on the main page and the rationale for it that I placed here on the talk page. As I said previously, (and was supported in this view by many other editors) the article has no balance and appears to have been hijacked by Macarthur hagiographers. I and others have tried to redress the imbalance before. However, the numerous referenced criticisms from reputable sources which several editors have posted have been repeatedly and systematically removed.

Life is too short to get into edit wars with those who appear to have infinite persistence, but it is reasonable to at least warn article readers that there is a significant difference of opinion on the veracity of this article. RichardH (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

what exactly is pov? 67.173.1.71 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

POV on Wikipedia is very often used to refer to the opposite of NPOV, or neutral point of view, as discussed here: WP:NPOV. Using 'POV' to describe an article or an editor often indicates a state of non-neutrality, and is used to name an undesirable condition. Actual POV (as described here: WP:POV) can be a useful method of addressing a controversial subject such as this one. Anyway, as far as hagiographers goes, the infinite persistence cuts two ways. I'm going to keep Mac's toes to the fire as much as is appropriate, and not let fawning editors turn him into a demigod. What it takes, apparently, is a writing style that has a solid reference for each and every sentence which criticizes the man. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm grateful you're here to make sure no neutral article about a great American general doesn't exist! Bravo, sir! Bravo! 134.50.203.20 (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

what's not neutral here?

All along the Watchtower

"largely responsible for the increased diversion of resources to the Pacific"? I wouldn't disagree, but it wasn't that simple (& I'd fix it if I had sources to hand...). There were two campaigns in PTO, his & Nimitz's, & FDR's inability to choose between them (or unwillingness, 'cause choosing Nimitz was liable to mean Dougie would be Stateside running for President before the ink was dry on the orders) put a strain on logistics & increased the number of LCs in-theatre. (It wasn't helped by slow unloading of shipping...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have access to a source that confirms or denies MacArthur's responsibility for diversion of funds away from the ETO. I am, however, holding on to a diamond of a book that is filled with synthesis and analysis of the Pacific War: Retribution by Max Hastings. This guy has a boatload of sources laid out in front of him, some newly dug up, some historic. He deflates and skewers a couple of sacred American beliefs, such as the wisdom of a two-front war in the Pacific. He argues that MacArthur's presence alone was the reason for such a division of resources and that a unified command under Joint Chiefs control would have decided in favor of a strategy of island-hopping including the bypassing of the Philippines. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hastings puts the importance of the Battle for the Philippines as equivalent to that for Burma. The Philippines didn't decide anything regarding the war's outcome. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hastings was writing a popular work for British consumption. So he did not want to say controversial things about the war in Burma. (Whereas saying outrageous things about the Americans and Australians is okay.) But of course the war in Burma ultimately was not nearly as important as the campaign in the Philippines. Had there existed a Joint Chiefs organisation without inter-service rivalry, it would no doubt have decided on a single approach strategy. It would then have realised that the South West Pacific route was by far the better choice, as it would have allowed greater land and land-based air forces to be brought to bear on the enemy, and reduced casualties by allowing for manoeuvre at the operational level. In real life though, the JCS could not make such a decision, and indeed did not formulate a strategy for the war against Japan until 1943, by which time operations had long been under way in SWPA and SOPAC and the war had acquired a momentum of its own. MacArthur did cause the division of some forces from ETO to PTO in 1942; but in 1943 the JCS denied him the additional resources he asked for, thereby delaying his campaign into 1944. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Retribution is meant to be a popular work. That's why I'm liking Hastings a lot after years of healthy but heavy fiber in my reading diet. Hastings is willing to say the unsayable and back it up based on new interviews and re-fittings of available data into the bigger picture. I'm finding him very quotable here as he's got the knack for bringing the dry facts together in a colorful and brief summation. We're all about brief summation.

In the spirit of "what if" conjecture, I don't think the Philippines or Taiwan were the only good choices open to the JCS for a base of operations nearer to Japan. A too-great amount of facility infrastructure had been put together in Australia -- that could have been used as a jumping off point along with the Marianas for the attack on Okinawa, thence from Okinawa to Japan. I just don't see the need for either Taiwan or the Philippines to be in the picture at all. I think MacArthur's presence in the mix is what made major land campaigns even a remote possibility after New Guinea and before Okinawa. See where I'm going? MacArthur was a big factor in the delays in getting close to Japan. It's not that JCS denied him resources, it's not that he got bogged down by surprisingly resilient defenses under Yamashita, it's the fact that he picked the battle at all. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it was in front of me all along. here's the source for the phrase you quoted. At the very end of the text (before the footnotes) there's a synthesis that states MacArthur's and King's roles in pulling resources away from a Europe First goal. The reference system here works. ;^) Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the Philippines rises above Burma in importance is less relevant than its effect on diversion of resources from a more direct approach & a shorter war, & there's no question of that. Even sensible people have said the invasion was necessary as a base of ops for blockade, forgetting English & Lockwood had been laying on a blockade from Pearl (& later Guam) since around 24/12, when Joe Enright Grenfell (oops...) reached Empire waters.

MacArthur was so obsessed, he failed to see the main objective was defeating Japan, not liberating the Philippines; the same argument applied to adding force in CBI, which is 1 reason the major effort planned (name I don't recall) got cancelled. His very presence did divert resources, by his ability to get what he wanted; if I understand your argument (or Hastings') correctly, Bink, I'd agree with that.

IMO, any effort but a holding action by 14h Army was a needless diversion; the short route to Japan was through Saipan, Iwo, & Okinawa. (Let's not even mention MATTERHORN, or the diversion of fully half the funding for it to ROC graft...)

Hawk, I think you misread the situation in SWPA. Clearing New Guinea or DEI did not bring the Allies (I'd say U.S. & forget the Oz & NZ forces, their contribution was small, but it's not trivial) nearer Japan. Nor was land based airpower dominant. CVs were. You make the same mistake Fire in the Sky does (I can never spell his name correctly... ;) ), & the same mistake the Japanese did. Without seapower, the islands weren't strongholds, they were traps. Barrier & the Javelin describes the use of CVs as judo blitzkrieg, pointing out the need. (I can never spell his name properly, either. =]) I'd only add it wasn't CVs that were ultimately essential, it was subs; cutting off fuel would turn IJN CVs into floating a/c parks without the need to engage (which was more/less the situation by 10/44, but could've been a great deal sooner). Nimitz failed to see it, too (probably his one big mistake of the war), & Uncle Charlie (rightly, IMO) criticizes him for it in (thank Fabartus for reminding me).

We're agreed on the Philippines & Taiwan; I think JCS hadn't fully grasped the potentials of subs & B-29s to hammer the Japanese. As to why, that's a great question. Lack of vision? Distraction by ETO? Blinded by vengeance? I tend to discount, as Racing the Enemy proposes (tho limiting to Truman & the Bomb, but it's been suggested as a broader U.S. motivation elsewhere), there was an innate desire for revenge. Americans were dying, too, in rather large numbers. I do think there was a disbelief Japan would surrender, & by 7-8/45, a desire to test the Bomb & overawe the Soviets with it (certainly that was high in Byrnes' mind); at the time of the decision to invade the Philippines, I have to think FDR was more concerned with Doug being overseas & occupied, rather than in DC (which has been credited as why he wasn't court-martialed for the 12/41 debâcle).

In case I'm not clear (a perennial problem... =]), let me state it simply: Nimitz should have pulled his subs back to Hawaii, put as much manpower on breaking the maru code as he could beg, borrow, or steal (the bandsmen from all the BBs sunk 7/12 would have been a good beginning) & on fixing the godawful Mk XIV (transferrring Jimmy Fife to England, where he couldn't do any harm, & firing Ralph Waldo Christie, in lieu of shooting the SOB, for a start), then turned his S-boats over to training & set a handful of older boats (Bass, Bonita, & 'cuda, if they weren't already retired, & Narwhal, Nautilus, & especially Argonaut) on minelaying duty, & put the rest of his force in the Luzon Strait, Yellow Sea, Tsushima Strait, & off the Bungo & Kii Suido, & strangle Japan. With good intel & working torpedoes, the war ends by 12/43. MacArthur explodes from frustration sometime in 1942. Moutbatten is named Viceroy of Japan. (I do think the odds of it going to Crerar are mighty low, much as I might wish. =] OK, the odds of Dougie actually exploding are low, too, much as I might wish, absent the plot against him mooted in MacArthur Must Die...)

Ultimately, the "two roads" was FDR's choice, not JCS's. Recall, it came to him, & he OKd it, rather than choose, & I think the reason is clear. It isn't good, but I do think it's clear.

Do me 1 favor, tho. Don't ask me for sources... ;D I'm working from memory. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:34 & 08:35, 15 August & 23:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd take the word of a Section 8 anyday

"Interestingly, the official record of the day's events by the Army Air Corps' command has been clearly altered, with numerous erasures and type-overs." Is that sourced? And is it more than a reflection of bad typing by an incompetent clerk? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's funny... I was wondering that, too. The questionable import of messy paperwork is why I didn't protest that sentence's deletion. Binksternet (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable language

This language may be questionable... "As an anticipatory gesture in 1945, MacArthur had given his treasured Gold Castles engineers' insignia, a personal possession, to his chief engineer, Jack Sverdrup; and while MacArthur himself may have just faded away, these insignia continue to be worn by the Army's Chief of Engineers as a tradition." Anyone else have an opinion? 68.230.99.224 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Anticipatory" and "personal possession" are completely unnecessary. We ought to document the gift neutrally without trying to guess motivation. The whole "while MacArthur himself may have just faded away" should go. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Language changed. The IP post above was made by myself when I was not logged in. Thanks for your review, Bink. Tan | 39 17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the line while MacArthur himself may have just faded away was merely a reference to this quote "Old soldiers never die; they just fade away... And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away — an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. Good-bye." and was not making a judgment of McArthur or his influence. I believe it was an acceptable if unnecessary stylistic decision (that was probably missed by most people) on the original authors part. Zamp m (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Important Issues

There are several important issues on this article that you all should discuss further, especially as regards strategic disobedience and counteraction of brinkmanship; and a good start would be learning all the names of the letters, memorizing multiplication tables, and the primary colors for fingerpainting.

98.230.27.142 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bonus Army

User:Trekphiler, be serious. I have no admiration for Douglas MacArthur, much less his contemptible and paranoia-fueled assault on the Bonus Army. This is a simple matter of policy and good writing. The sentence in question is:"It should be noted, however, that no supporting evidence for MacArthur's charges have ever surfaced." First, it is a clear example of words to avoid. Second, it is unverified and unsourced. Third, the next sentence cites a reliable source to prove the same point neutrally and effectively. When I said "unnecessary," I meant "unnecessary." A little good faith next time? Deltabeignet (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Words to avoid? May introduce bias? MacArthur's making baseless charges & taking this out looked (& does look) like a defense (which also looks like introduced bias). I'm not privy to your thinking. On "unnecessary", I'd disagree, but not strongly. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Deltabeignet in that the phrase "no supporting evidence for MacArthur's charges have ever surfaced" is impossible to prove and wouldn't be able to support itself unless modified by directly quoting an author or expert who said that exact thing. It's also bad grammar; it should have been "no... evidence... has ever surfaced". ;^) Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Decorations

This is a question from a German Wikipedia-user. In the Geman Wikipedia Douglas MacArthur is referred to as the "most decorated soldier in the history of the US armed forces". Can we really use that description?

Douglas MacArthur got the highest Decoration (MoH) once, other Soldiers got it twice. And as far as I know, other soldiers got more Decorations (in numbers).

Is it appropriate to use this kind of description?

PS German Wikipedia does not make a difference between Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force and it does not refer to a specific period of time. It just says "most decorated soldier in the history of the US armed forces".--84.173.135.206 (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone going to change the first pic?

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.156.154 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Serious Problems With Controversies Section

This section has some NPOV and balancing issues that really need to be addressed. First, as is often the case with "Controversy" sections in general (and "Criticism" sections, which is really what this particular section is), it's completely weighted in favor of one point of view. There is nothing provided to balance out the critics or provide the alternative viewpoint. There are many sources that defend MacArthur against the charges made in this section, but they are entirely omitted. Instead, what we have is a one-sided treatment of the issue and a magnet for attacks. As such, it violates NPOV.

The second problem I have with this section is that it relies excessively upon one source -- namely, Max Hastings. There are 12 citations within this section and half of them (footnote 51 is a duplicate cite to Retribution) are to Hastings. This, IMO, is undue weight and, fairly or unfairly, could cause the reader to discount the section as better reflecting the attacks of one detractor rather than the synthesis of common and considered criticism. Some diversity is in order. MacArthur, as a polarizing figure, doesn't want for critics, so it shouldn't be that difficult to replace a couple of Hastings citations with cites to different sources.

Finally, I see several examples of a source's subjective opinion blatantly passed off as hard fact. This is especially common with the cites to Hastings. I've listed the most egregious examples below, with the portions I find offending in italics.

• Example 1: "His self-serving resolve, counter to the wishes of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in World War II, to invade rather than bypass and cut off the Philippines, has been criticized as leading to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Filipinos as well as the avoidable destruction of Manila."

This is a subjective characterization made by Hastings and should be presented as such. It could be rewritten as "Max Hastings has characterized MacArthur's resolve to retake the Philippines in the face of opposition from the Joint Chiefs as "self-serving" and leading to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of American and Filipino soldiers, as well as the avoidable destruction of Manilla."

• Example 2: "His choice of Leyte as the initial invasion island has been analyzed as grossly flawed; it was clearly unsuitable as a base for further operations."

Here, the first part of the sentence is okay other than the fact that it should make clear who analyzed it as "grossly flawed" (i.e., Hastings, "some historians," etc.). The second clause is highly objectionable. Besides resorting to use of the weasel word "clearly" (always a sign of a dubious assertion), an opinion is once again presented as hard fact. If a subjective statement like this is to be included, it has to be attributed to its source: "Hastings criticized his choice of Leyte as the initial invasion island as "grossly flawed" on the ground it was unsuitable as a base for further operations," or "Some critics charge that the Leyte landing was grossly flawed because the island was unsuitable for further operations." The point at issue is a judgment, not a truth.

• Example 3: "His personal control of battlefield movements showed Yamashita the more nimble opponent."

Again, a subjective assessment couched as indisputable fact. Opinions are fine, but they must be presented as such in order to not be deceptive. How it should read: "Hastings concludes that MacArthur's personal control of battlefield movements showed Yamashita the more nimble opponent."

To sum up, this section suffers from three severe infirmities: (1) it's unbalanced, (2) it gives undue weight to a single source, and (3) it presents opinions and subjective assessments as matters of fact. The third malady is easily correctable, as I think rewrites along the lines of the examples I've given above adequately address the issue. I plan on making those revisions in the coming days, barring any objections. The other two are obviously more intensive tasks.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You're correct in that the Controversy section suffers from having a single POV. The reason it does is that I wanted to introduce a cohesively written paragraph which could counterbalance the rest of the article in which there was not enough such criticism presented. In that sense the section is balanced—not internally, but balanced against external text. I'm sure we all agree the best way for criticism of Mac to be presented here would be to have it appear dotted throughout the text in relevant chronological framework, but it was much easier to compose one section written with one voice than to rewrite all the other sentences in the other sections in order to knead in a new thought. Sorry for my laziness!

Hastings provides his sources for the hard facts and presents his synthesis for the conclusions and summations. I have no problem with changing the synthesis parts to read "Hastings wrote that MacArthur blah blah blah..."

The clear unsuitability of Leyte as an initial landing choice was the conclusion drawn by Mac's own expert staff. I'll find that cite.

The matter of too much reliance on Hastings is one I don't agree with. Hastings isn't the first to make many of the assertions he makes but he gathers the lot together for easy consumption. Whether we refer to Hastings or the critics who have gone before does not change what Mac was criticized for or how his reputation was affected at the time. If someone felt so strongly about the matter to go in and replace a number of Hastings cites with ones from other authors, I wouldn't object. Binksternet (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that Max Hastings is no expert on the subject and should not be given undue weight. Firstly, Leyte's unsuitability was at that time of year. Under the original plan, it would have been invaded at a more opportune time. Halsey and MacArthur were taking a calculated risk here. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that the invasion of Formosa would have been less costly than the campaign in the Philippines. Thirdly, to say that the Joint Chiefs were opposed to the Philippines campaign is quite wrong. Arnold in particular was strongly in favour. It was only King who opposed it, and his position was undermined by Nimitz and Halsey, who preferred MacArthur's plan. And finally, while Yamashita was a formidable opponent in so many ways, "more nimble" was not one of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't even think this section is encyclopedic. The matters mentioned are drawn heavily from opinion skillfully presented like facts Thinkinggecko (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dereliction of duty

I am removing the phrase "dereliction of duty". The reference for MacArthur's poor showing on December 8, 1941 being called "dereliction of duty" was supposed to be the Bartsch book. After a more thorough reading of the book, I see that Bartsch never uses this phrase on Mac; the only mention of it is on page 419 in regard to Colonel Harold George, chief of staff at V Interceptor Command, who sat on suspicious early radar contacts of the air attack and didn't forward them as required until far too late. The worst that MacArthur gets from Bartsch is that Mac didn't confer with Brereton early December 8, that Mac didn't attack Formosa immediately upon hearing of Pearl Harbor, and that Mac never responded appropriately to General Arnold's instruction to take defensive measures including dispersion of aircraft.

So... I don't know of any other expert author who has written specifically that MacArthur was derelict in his duties. Am I missing someone? Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Most highly decorated in WW2

Surely MacArthur is the most highly decorated US soldier of WW2. He has the MOH, 3 DSC and 7 Silver Stars. Places him ahead of Audie. Wallie (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Two of MacArthur's DSCs were for the First World War, as were all seven of his Silver Stars. This leaves his MOH and one DSC from the Second World War, which still makes Audie Murphy higher decorated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK and thanks. That makes it quite different. I have changed it. :) Wallie (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

This has to be pointed out. MacArthur is an extremely brave man according to the citiation. To resist the enemy under heavy fire and bmbardment takes great courage. The fact that he was an older man makes it all the more remarkable. Wallie (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

MacArthur's MOH citation doesn't need to be in the first paragraph. More important facts about the man are available, and standing still while munitions are flying around isn't his greatest achievement. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll think about that. I personally think his bravery under fire is his greatest achievement. To get the Medal of Honor is a remarkable achievement. This needs to be stated somewhere. Wallie (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

His MOH was completely political. Mac was a courageous front-line commander in WW1. In the Phillipines in WW2 he did nothing that deserved an award for valor in combat. Eisenhower was offered the MOH also and declined it because he thought it should only go to combat troops. He was right. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. MacArthur was a master of spin, but FDR was no less skilled at public relations. FDR gave Mac the Medal of Honor so that he could more easily be sent slinking away to Australia while his men on Bataan were imprisoned, starved and brutalized. Nothing on the MOH citation is false, but the whole truth is bigger than that. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Being awarded the MOH in and of itself makes someone notable, according to the MILHIST notability guidelines. Many people have an article even though that is the only notable thing that they did. So it has to be mentioned in the introduction. The citation itself is not in the first paragraph but further down. I added it because editors were complaining that every other MOH awardee had a full citation in the article. That plain fact is that the MOH was not always awarded for valor in combat; Charles Lindbergh got one for a peacetime exploit. MacArthur's award was considered by himself and most people as a form of group award to the defenders of Bataan. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was deeply impressed by this: "His utter disregard of personal danger under heavy fire and aerial bombardment...". Even Audie Murphy was not subjected to this. It is not usual to live, if subjected to heavy fire. He must have been very lucky. Wallie (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Audie Murphy endured things MacArthur never came near in WW2. WW1 is a separate story. DMorpheus (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that MacArthur's MOH relates to WW2. Surely being under heavy fire and aerial bombardment can't get much worse, can it? Wallie (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It could kill you... :/ ...Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

corncob pipe photo

that corncob pipe looks kinda photoshopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.202.179 (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you can tell from some of the pixels (and from seeing quite a few 'shops in your time); could you enlighten the rest of us which ones are suspect? Oliphaunt (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

gosh darn it, that corncob pipe just looks so implausible to me. But I guess I must defer to Oliphaunt. He is like a tiger of the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.202.150 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be aggressive. I was just referring to the this looks shopped meme. Fact is, this exacht photo can be found on a U.S. Navy website. I see no reason to assume it is unauthentic. Oliphaunt (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputable statement

The statement "He brought along many talented mid-career officers, including George C. Marshall, and Dwight D. Eisenhower" is debatable. Explicitly contrary to, and probably because of, Pershing's recommendations to put Marshall on the fast track MacArthur relegated him to the National Guard at one point. Eisenhower probably had his "rabbis" as a field grade, but one may need to strain to count MacArthur among them. Mct mht (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Order of the Bath

I removed the post nominal letters GCB, referring to his honorary status as Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, from the introduction of this article as Mr. MacArthur was not closely associated with the United Kingdom in the sense required by the Manual of Style for biographies. The full style guidelines for the use of post nominal letters can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Post-nominal_initials. TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"win" the Medal of Honor

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_honor the CMH is award to those who "…conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States…"

My questions are:

1) At which part of the Battle for the Philippines did Dugout Doug ever risk his life?

2) At which point was he personally engaged in action against the Japanese?

Seems to me that his award of the CMH in 1942 was a complete travesty and totally at odds with the requirements of the award.

SDJ 2/28/08

In this article, it said that ..."General Charles T. Menoher once said that he was the "greatest fighting man" in the army." That enough sounds like more of a reason to atleast look at him as a possible candidate for the MOH. He only recieved it in the Battle of the Philippines because they needed to find a reason to award him. He earned it a lot earlier then when it was awarded to him. FHS 4/7/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.107.66.16 (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

ultimately, McArthur was awarded the Medal of Honor. One can debate the reason, but he did win it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.241.174 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [s[Special:Contributions/75.142.211.19|75.142.211.19]] (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You do not "win" the Medal of Honor. You receive it. ( not even that, you are awarded the Medal of Honor.) Some would say that you are invested with the Medal.

68.100.161.83 15:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He was "awarded" the medal for his defense during the Battle for the Philippines. Dragonrider27 (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting in this context that almost alone of Wikipedia articles on Medal of Honor winners, MacArthur's article does not contain the citation. Is that because the citation, when compared against available documentation, wouldn't pass the giggle test? Peter.zimmerman (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have inlined the citation to bring the article into line with that of other Medal of Honor recipients. The text of the citation was written by General Marshall himself based upon a draft by General Sutherland. It contains one glaring historical error: the notion that the defence of the Philippines was conducted in the face of overwhelming enemy superiority. That this was untrue would not emerge until after the war. James E. Van Zandt had introduced a bill authorising award of the medal to MacArthur. Marshall felt that it would be more proper if the award came from the President and the War Department rather than from Congress. That the citation was not for valour in combat was not overlooked, but the case of Charles Lindbergh was cited as a precedent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

---

What no mention of his firing on the WWI Veterans?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.193.178 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 July 2002.

Because that is Communist crap from the "bonus march" of 1932. In fact the only serious combat took place BEFORE the military took over. Some policemen and some bonus marchers had a fight (with casualties on both sides).

When MacArthur took over he managed to defeat the bonus marchers (some of whom were not WWI Veterans) without killing anyone. The Communists never forgave him for denying them their "martyrs" so they invented some.

Paul Marks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.63.48.48 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 May 2006.

Excuse me but could you please site some of your sources for this comment? As I believe them to be historically inaccurate and I just want to know your sources; since even the most mainstream American history book has the incident documented. Also I really don't think the people at Princeton Press(they publish a lot of classroom text books)are communists. Zeelog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I question the changing of the spelling to "modern" Korean terms. If someone is going to want to know what MacArthur did at Inchon, they're not going to know to look at Incheon. Should we rename the movie "Fifty-five Days at Beijing"? -- Zoe

I agree and I changed all the history-related links back. I see no harm in having the newer spellings at South Korea/Cities or in any other contemporary context. --mav

mav, see your talk page for a link and the reasons of the changes. I think for terms like these, we should handle them like you would handle misspellings. That is, someone looking for Inchon should be redirected to Incheon. Or would you create an encyclopedia entry for Inchon covering the time it was romantized this way, and another entry for Incheon since the new rules? And one for Inch'on which was the correct spelling according to the old romantication?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.180.96.41 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 August 2002.

---

Is the general's name spelled Matthew B. Ridgway or Matthew B. Ridgeway? I've seen Ridgway used more often, although Ridgeway is how it is spelled on the NATO website.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ugen64 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 October 2003.

Ridgway is correct. Pmeisel 01:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I question the writing ability of the author of this article. "He was busying praying" while the invasion was occurring? ugen64 01:44, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Why not cover other people's mistakes when possible to do so without dishonor? 金 15:25, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Technically not correct. He was reading his Bible. He wasn't, for instance, odering Brereton's B-17s to bomb socked in Japanese airbases on Formosa, or convoys still formed up in Formosan harbors. Neither was he arranging movement of food & medical supplies in case of emergency. Neither was he arranging with Hart to provide air reconaissance for Hart's submarines. One may ask what, exactly, he was doing, beyond disobeying a direct order from DC. Trekphiler 13:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

NSA Role in Dismissal

This seems relevant, but I don't know how to integrate it.

Unfortunately for General Douglas MacArthur, the codebreakers were able to read the communications of Spain's ambassador to Tokyo and other diplomats, who noted that in their discussions with the general, he made clear his secret hope for all-out war with China and Russia, including the use of nuclear weapons if necessary. In a rare instance of secret NSA intercepts playing a major part in US politics, once the messages were shown to President Truman, MacArthur's career abruptly ended. - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23231 --198.45.18.20 (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

MacArthurs supposed rebuke of Harry Truman after the battle of Ourck.

The attempted crossing of the River Ourck by the 42nd Infantry (Rainbow) Division took place in late July, 1918.

Harry Truman was Battery Commander of D Battery, 129th ARtillery Regiment which was part of or attached to the 35th Infantry Regiment. Its first engagement was not until September, 1918. The 129th Artillery Regiment would not have had any role with the 42nd Infantry Division.

See Geoffrey Perret: Old Soldiers Never Die, 1996, NY, Random House. Also see the history of the 129th ARtillery Regiment on line.

However, in Manchester's book, there is the comment that Truman served briefly under MacArthur, but no explanation.

In McCullough's book on Truman, there is no reference to any contact between the 129th aand the 42nd. According to McCullough, the 129th did not move up to the front until August, and may not have been in any action until September, 1918.

141.157.88.215 (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

One-sided and POV

This article is ridiculously one-side and reads almost like something from the general's press agent. His very clear failures are passed over. For example, there's no mention that

1. many military historians consider him one of the most over-rated generals in history (he's actually listed as such in Robert Cowley's and Geoffrey Parker's "Reader's Companion to Military History"),

2. he's widely viewed as having badly misjudged Japanese capabilities and intentions leading up to the Japanese attack

3. his decision to meet the Japanese amphibious assaults at the beaches was a fiasco, particularly given the qualitative differences between his forces and the Japanese and the fact that his air force had been destroyed

4. his micro-management of logistical supplies undercut his fallback to Bataan

5. his later decision to retake the Philippines was strongly opposed by other war planners, who saw the Philippines as a secondary objective compared to taking islands closer to Japan (and thereby cutting off the Japanese in the Philippines)

6. rather than simply contain the strongholds of Japanese resistance on Luzon (following the strategy taken in the rest of the Pacific by Nimitz), MacArthur insisted on a bloody reconquest of the whole archipelago, possibly for ego reasons (i.e., so he could live up to his vow to "return")

7. despite having been taken by surprise by the Japanese in 1941, he repeats the mistake in 1950 by underestimating the threat of a North Korean invasion of South Korea

In addition, the article barely mentions how badly MacArthur misjudged the possibilty of Chinese intervention on behalf of North Korea, or how many consider the Chinese intervention to be the "worst debacle in American military history" (to quote Bradford A. Lee). And while the article goes into extensive depth about how MacArthur "made his greatest contribution to history in the next five and a half years" as leader of the American occupation of Japan, it doesn't mention that a great many of his most significant reforms (industrial deconcentration and dismantling the zaibatsus, developing a Japanese labor movement) were almost completely reversed following 1948, when George C. Marshall sent George Kennan to Japan to take over what was widely perceived (by the U.S. government, at least) to be MacArthur's ineffectual and counter-productive reconstruction efforts. (See Michael Schaller, The American Occupation of Japan (Oxford, 1985).)

Instead, this article reads like a partisan of MacArthur's abortive 1950s-era presidential campaign. Puleeze. He wasn't all that and a bag of potato chips. Epstein's Mother 23:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Schaller is a polemicist who is great at digging up facts to support biased half-truths and venomous lies, like David Irving only left-wing and apparently not against the law these days. Anything by him including on this page must be balanced by someone without an anti-MacArthur agenda.[ 03:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the balance might be achieved with a link to Logical_fallacy/Ad_Hominem. And my point was that there was no balance at all. The article mostly reads like something written by MacArthur's press agent. Epstein's Mother 06:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article seems like a fair rundown of his life, and in some parts it is actually a bit more negative than positive. Nothing as biased against him as Schaller, but nothing particularly laudatory either. It mentions the major controversies without offering an opinion on them. It doesn't say anything such as "others commend his actions during the Korean War, believing them to have prevented a complete loss," but instead comes close to suggesting that it is a hard fact that his actions were wrong rather than noble. As if "everyone knows" that. Was there a poll taken recently? It also leaves out important things he did, for better or worse, on his own accord during that war. Other than that, the article looks fine.

As for MacArthur's abilities as a commander, the brilliance with which he planned and commanded invasions and major offensive operations was unrivaled by any military leader of the 20th Century with the possible exception of Erwin Rommel. In that category he is actually the most underrated general in history . However, his skills as a defensive strategist were faulty and compared to his awe-inspiring offensive strategies, often abysmal. His management of logistics usually wasn't the best either, but it wasn't as responsible for the Philippines fiasco as as it is often claimed to be. MacArthur's weaknesses were only part of the problem, FDR was the main one to blame for that. His "Europe First" policy made no sense from an American standpoint, and even before America was officially drawn into the war he was paying more attention to helping Britain than defending the Pacific. The only wise policy relating to military logistics ever enacted by FDR was his refusal to bomb the concentration camp traintracks. As a tactician MacArthur was always excellent even during his worst moments, because he still managed to inflict more casualties than the enemy expected. He lost fewer men during his entire World War II career than Eisenhower did in the Battle of Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge (seperately, not put together), but critcs always seem to single him out for accusations of losing too many men. As far as casualties ratios, his record is again one of the greatest in history. The so-called historians who attack his military abilities are politically motivated. They dislike him because he was politically controversial and took political matters into his own hands in ways that determined the course of the 20th Century. Whether he was a dangerous arch-criminal on par with Hitler or the only truly courageous American patriot of the 20th Century to hold such a high position of world-altering power, MacArthur siezed and impacted the course of history in a way that few other post-Napoleanic Western leaders did. It's understandably difficult to get an honest and fair evaluation of such a man's strengths and shortcomings as a military leader. George Marshall, someone who really was "not all that and a bag of potato chips" in the grand scheme of things was nowhere near as historically significant as MacArthur, a lobster criticizing a shark because the scraps taste a bit too fishy. 10:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? MacArthur's generalship has been seriously questioned even by conservative historians such as Max Hastings. Those criticisms deserve to be noted in this article. 192.12.184.2 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You realize you just responded to something two years later, right? Tan | 39 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

is there a statue of limitation on commenting? stop trying to the silence people and address the very valid issue backed by copious amounts of research.(thank you Epstein's Mother)

Here's your statue of limitations... ;^)

Neatness and spelling count. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

great, you sent me a dead link. I am forever humiliated and defeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.242.4 (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

FDR's policy

Not really McArthur relevant, but I'd like to argue that FDR's policy made perfect sense from an American standpoint, both in the short term and longer term...

FDR was the main one to blame for that. His "Europe First" policy made no sense from an American standpoint

Actually, "Europe First" made perfect sense from a U.S. grand strategy standpoint. At first, the USSR, bearing the brunt of the land war in Europe against Nazi Germany, were intensely suspicious of the U.S./U.K. cutting a deal with Germany for peace on the European theater's Western Front; this indeed was the sentiment of much of the Nazi leadership, who after the fall of France and the Low Countries in 1940 repeatedly expressed a willingness to allow the U.K. to retain her Empire in exchange for a free hand on the Continent, particularly with regard to Eastern Europe. Rudolf Hess's Quixotic flight to England, deranged though it was, was with the intention of negotiating peace with Britain, an idea that was quite popular in Nazi circles at the time.

Stain frequently and bitterly complained to the West regarding the lack of a "second front". If the U.S.S.R. had collapsed in the early years after Barbarossa (1941 or 1942), which didn't seem at all impossible with the tremendous German gains in the first two years of that front, Germany would have gained almost unfettered, blockade-proof access to the oil fields of the Caucasus, the wheat fields of the Ukraine, and the other vast natural treasures of European Russia. Germany could have then relegated nearly all of their military resources to defense in the West, and through access to the sea through Scandinavia and the Baltic ports, they might have eventually developed a naval force sufficient to challenge the U.S. and the U.K. in the Atlantic. An Allied invasion of Europe would have been several orders of magnitude more costly and difficult with no Eastern front to divide the German land army.

Finally, they might have closed the Mediterranean and Suez, which Churchill later admitted would have made continuing U.K. prosecution of the war doubtful.

It was therefore critical to insure there was no Soviet collapse.

Later in the war, once it became clear that Nazi Germany would never conquer the U.S.S.R., and indeed the reverse was more likely, there was all the more pressure on the U.S./U.K. to get their land armies afoot on the continent, before much of Western Europe was overrun by the Red Army as they rolled back the Germans. It was absolutely critical to have Allied shoeleather on significant amounts of German soid, in order to participate in the shaping of the postwar continent. The Normandy invasions were barely in time to avoid total postwar Soviet control East of the Rhine.

Japan's war goals were far different than Germany's, although rooted in a similar quest for access to resources and empire. Japan did not pose a near-term threat to the continental U.S. Their conquest of Pacific islands was in order to make the Pacific, and in particular the Western Pacific, a Japanese lake, and to remove the ability of the U.S. and European empires the ability to project power to the Asian mainland. The Pacific islands themselves are of negligible value in terms of natural resources.

Japan already had conquered large areas of the Asian mainland, however their land army in Asia was heavily committed, and their conquests in Asia up until Pearl Harbor were not fully developed, requiring more infrastructure such as railways, in order to increase their striking distance further West into the Indian subcontinent.

Embeddedcynic (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to address the original essay point by point:

1. MacArthur accomplished almost every mission that was entailed to him.

2-4. MacArthur had almost no resources to combat the might of the Rising Sun in the Phillipines. This was realized early on in the thirties and acted on accordingly. The Japanese did not plan for any prolonged defensive engagement or allow for any retreat, their attack was to be immediate and overwhelming, based on the German war machine. But yes, it seems everyone agrees that their supply train was not pulled in to Corregidor as intended. The fact that MacArthur was able to retreat and put up a defense surprised the Japanese greatly. What's interesting to contemplate is how long they could have "holed" up and put up a credible defense against overwhelming forces if they had been able to bring all their supplies in, as initially planned.

5-6. MacArthur did go back because of his promise. He saw the Asian sphere as the most important in the world in the coming century. An oft overlooked fact in generalship is that you lose wars (forget battles, the prime example being General Washington in the Revolutionary War) when you lose the will of the people you are fighting for. It was not just a tactical battle or elegant way to the quickest "checkmate" that we were fighting for. At that time and place, both the American citizen and the Phillipino (and by extension, the asian tributaries under attack by the Rising Sun) expected him to return. But, you would be correct in stating many in the war department did not want, or saw as needless, the battle to "return"... and attributed it to MacArthur's vanity (which he had alot of) but it's so intermingled with his supreme self-confidence in his rightness of choice, we really have to look at the results. Especially cognate is the way the people he administrated in that part of the world viewed him... and his legacy today with them.

7. Primary intelligence for the Korean peninsula and China was with Truman and his intelligence organs. This is where MacArthur's godlike persona and hubris fatally damages him and ultimately leads to his recall... because the "buck" can be passed to him. Truman gambled the war and his army's soldiers, based on almost everyone in Washington telling him that China would not invade. He gave MacArthur a free hand based on this. MacArthur also pointed out in his congressional testimony a telling point, "What do you tell the soldier he is fighting for, when they're wounded and dying by the thousands weekly?"

I would also like to point out that MacArthur had no influence on the Korean peninsula before the war broke out..politically or logistically. Whatever his feelings or opinions, its doubtful he could have done little to anything. Delphicrates (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What the hell does "especially cognate is the way the people he administrated in that part of the world viewed him" mean? If it means that he was respected by the Japanese, then yes, he was. They were extremely happy to find that unconditional surrender and occupation by the USA was far better than they had feared. Binksternet (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1. "MacArthur had almost no resources to combat the might of the Rising Sun in the Phillipines." You're joking, right? In '41, the P.I. had higher priority than Hawaii! And higher priority for B-17s than Britain! And how, exactly, does a supposed lack of resources excuse bungling the dispersal of resources? (I'll leave off whether he bungled in having no more ammo, 'cause that had to be OKd by DC.) Also, how, exactly, does that excuse bungling defensive preparations? There were no bunkers, no gun positions, no a/c shelters, no trench systems, no beach obstacles (even tho Lingayen had been the expected LZ for more than a decade). Don't give me "London Treaty", either. Japan had abrogated it in 1936, so restrictions on fortifying were no issue. What was MacArthur doing for the 5yr in between? Nothing. You can also explain how that excuses the dismal level of training of the Philippine Army, improvement of which had allegedly been a main reason MacArthur was hired in the first place.
2. "put up a credible defense against overwhelming forces"? Don't be ridiculous. The Japanese were outnumbered.
3. "when you lose the will of the people you are fighting for" Say what? When did MacArthur become Filipino? His enemy was Japan; liberating the P.I. did not contribute to defeat of Japan. In fact, it directly delayed Japan's defeat by at minimum the six months it took to clear the P.I., plus the months more it added when troops bound for the P.I. ended up on Okinawa & Iwo Jima, instead. (They did, because the Sub Force was so effective at intercepting shipping by '44.)
4. "MacArthur had no influence on the Korean peninsula before the war broke out" IIRC, Korea was in his AO, so it was his responsibility, & he bungled it. And it wasn't before that was the big problem, it was during. Calls to bomb China, drives to the Yalu in violation of orders... Do you blame the Chinese for being pretty nervous? How do you suppose the U.S. would respond if a Chinese army had been coming up Mexico toward the Rio Grande, threatening to nuke Dallas & L.A.?
5. "because the 'buck' can be passed to him." Ah, yes, finally some truth. That's the real reason he wasn't crucified, like he should've been, after the P.I. débâcle: FDR didn't want him in DC running for President, which Dougie undoubtedly would've been, given a chance. (He did from Tokyo postwar!) So Kimmel & Short got their heads handed to them, & Dougie got the Medal. (A less deserving recipient, I don't know about.)
6. "we really have to look at the results" Yeah, why don't you try doing that, instead of being blinded by MacArthur's halo? (Yeah, I'm not an admirer. I formed my judgment without even knowing who he was, at first.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions and comments needed

I have been working on this article the last couple days trying to clear up some of the many many issues that it has and I need to get a second opinion on a couple things. Normally I would just charge ahead and do it but do to the very high visibility of this article I wanted to pose it here first. First, I do not believe this article, in its current state, is even up to B level. There are POV issues, citationn issues and its generally speaking just a mess. I want to downgrade this and then once I have fixed some of the issues then resubmit it for a B class review by another editor so I can get a fresh set of eyes on it. I am also planning on building on and cleaning up some of the parellel articles at the same time. Second, I want to structure the pages with his awards and honors into lists due to the volume of data (he has over 110 military awards alone) and build them up as lists working into the FLC process, unless someone has a problem with that. I am also planning on doing a peer review after I get it up to B class but if anyone has comments about the article, I would appreciate the insight and suggestions. I am also going to leave this comment on the article talk paheg as well. --Kumioko (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A courageous effort! I'll keep half an eye on the article's progress. I am mainly interested in seeing a strong balance between MacArthur's assets and deficits as a commander. No rah-rah hero worship, please. Binksternet (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Brave indeed! I'll be watching with interest to see if you can overcome the hagiographers. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

MacArthur has long been on my to-do list. Let me know if you need any material or references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, right now there seems to be too many references but I may take you up on that in the future. I expect it will take a couple of months of sculpting and word smithing for this one. --Kumioko (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the basics should be looked at first. The article layout needs help for example, his personal life section seems to just appear out of nowhere. Certainly there would be many spin off articles needed to keep this one in focus and of reasonable length. 10-15 years ago I took up a self-study about Douglas so I should be able to pick out general facts that need to be included. I've looked at this article several times in the past and thought about what a shame of a condition it is in but at the same time knowing it will be a huge task just to get to GA. I've watchlisted the article so will look things over. --Brad (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am by no means a MacArthur expert so Ill take what help I can get. I agree that it will be a significat undertaking and don't anticipate this being done in less than a couple months. I also agree that there are going to be several spin off articles. There are already a few. --Kumioko (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Brad101

Here's some easy points I see missing:

• His brother Arthur named his son Arthur but the boy died young. Apparently this would have been Arthur IV.
• His grandfather was a Supreme Court Justice.

It mentioned this briefly but I agree it needs to be expanded a bit. --Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Doug had a habit of not following US Army dress regulations. Wore yellow scarves in WWI. The main photo in the article shows him in his Philippine Field Marshal's cover which he wore all the time. During the invasion of Inchon he was wearing a black leather aviators jacket.

Good point, Ill make sure I mention that but I don't remember seeing this mentioned when I was perusing the refs I have on him. Im sure someone mentioned it at some point though. If anyone knows were its at please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I seem to recall that his whole regiment or company followed his yellow scarf motif. We needs refs though.

• I'm sure you already realize the bibliography, further reading and external links need to be slashed to some reasonable size. --Brad (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, you should have seen them when I started. I am planning on reducing it by roughly half. There is so much literature on him its easy to get bogged down in data. I am planning on picking 5 or 6 key ones (I don't know which ones yet so if you have any suggestions let me know) and then bits and pieces from others as needed. Most of them are redunent and over detailed for this article anyway. For the sake of this article we don't need to know what he had for breakfast in the spring of 51, IMO..So to speak.--Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, keep the suggestions and comments coming, also keep watch of the to-do tasks above, I will update it as they are resolved. Feel free to pitch in if you see something out of place or jumping out at you. --Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I will do the alt text if you're fairly sure that the current pics will remain in the article. Also, I will pick one biography book and get it from the library to use for referencing. I'll have to see what is available first. Most definitely his memoirs are required here as a balance between pro and con. I subdivided this section by commentator; hope it's not a problem. --Brad (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Comment:

1. I think the first thing to is to decide on a citation style. Once this is done, the copy editors can fix up the existing references and new ones can be added. If you can get everything referenced, then the article can be upgraded to a B. That would be an important milestone.

   I don't know what its called but I usually use the style as shown in Smedley Butler with the full reference in the Bibliography and an abbreviated one with the Name, Year and Page number in the references. I think its easier to read. I'm not married to it though if anyone has suggestions I am open. Your right though getting it to B is a good milestone, I think we got a little ways to go to get their though. I am aiming for B by the end of Feb. --Kumioko (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

   That being the case, I'd like to use the harvnb template. It formats like you describe, and also adds a link to the biblio. Also, I'm thinking the end of March is much more realistic, the end of February being only a week away. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

   I'm with Kumioko on this one. I find the repetition of the full cite needless & a bit distracting. (I'm also not a real fan of the consolidated refs, but I yet again appear to be in a tiny minority on that. ;p) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2. I wouldn't bother trimming the bibliography until all the references are done. They may all be required! However, once that is done, then the bibliography should contain everything actually cited and the further reading section can go.

   Your right I wasn't going to cut anything until we get the article built up and references a little more. I don't necessarily think we should just chop the whole further reading section but it definately needs to be trimmed. --Kumioko (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

3. The Notes section can also go. Anything worth a note should be in the main text. (None of the section seems to fall into that category though)

   I don't necessarily agree that we should cut this section although your right that some of the info can be assimilated into the article. We have a long way to go before we need to argue this point though. --Kumioko (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

   Do you disagree material not directly on point, but relevant, should be in notes? I draw a distinction between parenthetical (on subject, but a bit off point) & interesting (on subject, but farther off point). So, for instance (& I can't think of one relevant here...), here, a mention of Benson as Ned's ex-CO is parenthetical, but Henry being the only one of them not to have a command in the Pacific War is a fn. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

   No I can live with that. --Kumioko (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

4. The layout seems generally sound for the most part. I agree that the marriages section should be broken up and the text moved to the appropriate chronological places.

   We can do this but do to the volume of data on him and the length of service and number of things he did I fear that his marriage will be lost in the military action info. Thats why I moved it to the family section at the top. --Kumioko (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Tag any "references required" or "expansion required" with the appropriate tag.

   I went through and added the citation needed already but I agree there are areas of expansion that needs to be identified. --Kumioko (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

6. You talk about sub-articles. Any ideas about what ones are required?

Yep, We already have one (that I think should be a list) on his awards, military or otherwise. There is at least one more for stuff thats named for him. I would say we could merge them but there are a lot of both (over a hundred in each) so it would get unwieldy fast. I think we could easily create another for his World War II service and possibly another for his order of battle so to speak as currently seen in his service career article. This is just off the top of my head and any ideas for others are certainly welcome. --Kumioko (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

¾-10

• Just one note about slashing the bibliography. Quite right that it is definitely appropriate to identify the list of sources that are actually cited with inline citations, and make it clear to the reader which those are. The purpose of a "Further reading" section is then to tell the reader, "we didn't cite these works, but they are available if you are interested in learning more than this encyclopedia article can tell you." Thus a "Further reading" section has real value and should not just be casually annihilated. In this view, the hierarchy would be "Bibliography" (superset) (==) with "Sources" and "Further reading" as subsets (===). If anyone just can't abide that school of thought, then I would answer the question "Any ideas about what ones [subarticles] are required?" with the following: "Douglas MacArthur bibliography", in which the word "bibliography" is meant in its highest academic sense, which is "an extensive list of the books about a topic", which for some topics runs to a book in and of itself. — ¾-10 00:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies

I'd recommend the following:

• James, D. Clayton (1970). The Years of MacArthur Volume 1, 1880–1941. Vol. 1. ISBN 0-395-10948-5). {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• James, D. Clayton (1975). The Years of MacArthur: vol. 2 1941–45. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-395-20446-1.
• James, D. Clayton (1985). The Years of Macarthur: Volume 3: Triumph and Disaster 1945–1964. Vol. 3. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-36004-8.
• MacArthur, Douglas (2001). Reminiscences of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. Annapolis, Maryland: Bluejacket Books. ISBN 1-55750-483-0.
• Manchester, William (1983). American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880–1964. Laurel. ISBN 0-440-30424-5.

The 3 volume Clayton is horrifically detailed (one volume alone for WWII) and Manchester treats the subject fairly from both sides. MacArthur's memoirs of course are required for this article. I think the best thing to do would be to stick with major publishing houses for use in this article. Of course we need more books than this but these are the ones I recall reading. --Brad (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WorldCat has a listing of works that MacArthur authored. The link includes all audio, video and text but keep in mind that it's showing all versions. --Brad (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A search at American Heritage Magazine turns up some interesting articles. Probably good for secondary sources. --Brad (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I was thinking the same about the Clayton 3 and I appreciate the help. --Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Clayton James is the authoritative biography of MacArthur. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's James D. Clayton. The cite book template was filled out incorrectly. --Brad (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The bibliography is correct. The biographer's name is Doris Clayton James. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I was at the library today and picked up Perret, Geoffrey (1996), Old Soldiers Never Die: The Life and Legend of Douglas MacArthur, Random House, ISBN 0-679-42882-8 so I can use references from this book. I don't want to step on toes so perhaps assigning me a section to work on would prevent that. --Brad (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be working my way through World War I, West Point, and the Bonus Army this weekend. I'd greatly appreciate someone making a start on providing missing citations for the post-World War II period. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's quite likely that the article will have to be rewritten as it goes along. With that in mind I think it might be better if I followed behind you and added Perret references to back up or supplement James. MacArthur's involvement with West Point as a cadet seems a bit short as it appears now. MacArthur was seriously hazed himself which his tent mate testified to at the congressional hearings. Another issue with references is that the ones cited here before the restoration of this article began cannot in my opinion be trusted unless someone lays eyes on them to make sure they're correct. The amount of vandalism this article was subject to could have easily misplaced a citation. --Brad (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I only got WWI and West Point done. Coming up: Billy Mitchell, Bonus Army and Chief of Staff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

spin off articles

Just some preliminary thoughts on spin off articles. Service summary of Douglas MacArthur should probably be renamed and utilized for Military career of Douglas MacArthur. Criticism of Douglas MacArthur is likely going to be needed as well. --Brad (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we can come up with a better name than service summary of but I am not sure if Military career is the way to go. This covers an extremely broad aspect and I believe well probably need to break it into a couple of pieces. For example we could have one for military career but then we should probably have a seperate one just for his WWII service. --Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We can do without Criticism of Douglas MacArthur. I know you're thinking of it as a lightening rod, so you can point to it when someone asks where the uninformed criticism is, but it still sounds like more trouble than it is worth. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Where MacArthur is concerned, trouble is inevitable. Either it's on a "criticism" page, in the vein of this, or it's here. Much as I'd rather block the uninformed twits, that's not an option, so a "criticism" page seems to be the lesser evil. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

At the rate his military career section is growing in this article I can predict that a separate section will likely have to be formed. The "service summary" article does not make a lot of sense as his military career should be summarized here. I suppose we should wait and see how things develop before spinning things off. --Brad (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree on all counts and I apologize I haven't really had a chance to help out much, Im still trying to get the refs but Im glad that you are already working on it. Hopefully I will be able to do some more editing to it in the next few days.--Kumioko (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

World War I

The World War I section was brief, but terribly riddled with errors. Consider the original version:

These duties were performed while he was serving on the Army General Staff.[1] MacArthur was later in charge of dealing with the National Guard Bureau within the War Department.[2] In early 1917, prior to U.S. entry into World War I, MacArthur was elevated two grades in rank from major to full colonel.[3] Upon his promotion to full colonel, he transferred his basic branch from the Corps of Engineers to the Infantry.[4] During World War I MacArthur served in France as chief of staff of the 42nd ("Rainbow") Division. Upon his promotion to Brigadier General, he became the commander of the 84th Infantry Brigade.[5] A few weeks before the war ended, he became division commander.[6]

1. Although he was working in the Office of the Chief of Staff, MacArthur was not serving on the general staff at this time.
2. He was not working with the National Guard Bureau.
3. This happened after the US entered the war.
4. This happened when he was promoted.
5. He became a brigadier general two months before taking over the 84th Infantry Brigade
6. He became division commander on 10 November, the day before the war ended.

Aarrghh. We're going to have to check everything carefully. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Them

In the Veracruz section, the "they"s & "them"s are a bit convoluted & it's not really clear who is who. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will do another pass over it this afternoon sometime. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, quick service! ;D Thanx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)