Posted on 03/21/2012 4:24:27 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
That's interesting. MacArthur, known for leading trench raids from the front while unarmed was awarded a lot of medals in WWI. Because his mother was stateside and understanding communications in that era, how was MacArthur's mother involved in his being awarded medals for service in WWI?
Having read Rommel’s memoirs and a few biographies of him, I agree with the assessment of his colleagues. Most of his successes in North Africa were done with what was really little better than a Panzer Corps with some unreliable allied units attached.
I had the pleasure of communicating with a German veteran who served under Rommel in North Africa and later under Kesselring in Italy. He detested Rommel; said Rommel only wanted glory at the cost of the blood of his soldiers. He loved Kesselring, who he claimed was considerate of the welfare of his troops.
She lobbied the Sec./War, and the senior brass. You do know that she lived at the Thayer Hotel for all four years that Dougie was at West Point. And that her disapproval of Mrs. Dougie #1 contributed to Dougie’s divorcing her [the bride had been one of “Black Jac” Pershing’s mistresses, along with George Patton’s sister. Pershing gave an oil painting of the bride as a wedding gift to the then happy couple].
And Dougie’s mother got away with it because she was the widow of Gen. Arthur MacArthur, who had won the CMH in the Civil War.
I think Bradley had a very large ego. He was also a vindictive bastard with a long memory. He just kept it hidden under that , “aw, Shucks!” image he so assiduously promoted.
I’m a BIG Rommel fan, so I’ll state I have a bias up front.
Having said that, I respectfully disagree with your analysis of how he would have done on the Eastern Front. Whether as a division commander under his old Corps commander from France, Hermann Hoth [7th Pz was part of PzGrp 3], or as a Corps commander, Rommel would have brought a great deal of drive, ingenuity and elan to the Eastern Front. For example, Rommel was the first German Army officer to use 88s as anti-tank guns at Arras in 1940
[although there are claims, which I can’t substantiate, that von Thoma may have done it in Spain].
Rommel wasn’t just competent in 1940, he led the way. He crossed the Meuse before Guderian. He led the drive through France. And he had never handled armor before that time. He was the ultimate combat commander, and would have shone anywhere.
When I was at Armor School, further back then I’d care to remember, Patton was King. But Rommel was God.
Life isn't fair and one is frequently reminded of that as men awarded valor medals say what they did didn't deserve mention when compared against things they saw others do yet received no recognition for. So much depends on the disposition of the commander at that point in time.
As it pertains to Wainwrights MOH, I would begin any analysis by allowing for the possibility that MacArthur had a personal metric based on his two previous MOH recommendations that had been blocked.
That Wainwright surrendered the entire archipelago probably played a role in MacArthur's mind. I don't know the answer but up until that point, had anyone been awarded a MOH that surrendered?
I also think MacArthur awarding Wainwright a DSC in Jan '42 for his service on Luzon and Bataan is also significant in that Wainwright's MOH citation specifically states that it is for his actions Between March '42 and May '42 after MacArthur was ordered to Australia. I can envision a number of different angles here.
The MOH may have amounted to a review and upgrade of the DSC when his service between March '42 and May '42 was also included. If true, he was still able to keep his DSC. Is this normal practice in event of an upgrade to also retain the lesser award? I don't know.
Having read none of the paper trail, I don't know but it would be interesting to learn when in relation to VJ-day Truman got involved with approving Wainwright's MOH.
Had it been filed away collecting dust between 1942 and mid 1945, I then think one would have to consider the mindset of Truman in light of reports by Americans recently freed from Japanese POW camps.
Someday, I'll look into these questions.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that Rommel was an effective and energetic tactical battlefield commander. It is his ability to wage war at the higher operational and strategic levels that is questioned. For example, with his headstrong impetuosity, I doubt he would have been able to have juggled his forces and conserved his units the way Manstein did at the “Miracle of the Donetz” in 1943. Some commanders, like Model, made the leap from tactical to operational commander, and excelled in both offensive and defensive battle. Rommel’s ideas of defensive battle were little better than Hitler’s.
But for which medals? 2 DSCs, 1 DSM, 6 silver stars, 2 wound stripes plus others, American and French. Was she responsible for some, or all of these?
You do know that she lived at the Thayer Hotel for all four years that Dougie was at West Point.
They were definitely devoted to each other but he was in West Point long before WWI when you said she lobbied for his medals so, I'm not seeing a connection.
And that her disapproval of Mrs. Dougie #1 contributed to Dougie’s divorcing her [the bride had been one of “Black Jac” Pershing’s mistresses, along with George Patton’s sister. Pershing gave an oil painting of the bride as a wedding gift to the then happy couple].
Might as well toss in the Filipina girlfriend/mistress but what do any of these things have to do with your statement that "Pinky" lobbied for some, or all of his WWI medals?
And Dougie’s mother got away with it because she was the widow of Gen. Arthur MacArthur, who had won the CMH in the Civil War.
Again, I don't see how you are connecting MacArthur's mother with his awards in WWI?
Yep!
Very interesting. So, you believe MacArthur was as inept a commander as JFK. I'd be very interested in learning specifics as to why you believe MacArthur was so inept. Of course in the context of Homer's thread, let's try and limit ourselves to discussing MacArthur's record prior to March 1942.
Did she get him his medals? No. She was pushing for Dougie’s CMH, just like dear old Dad. She just came up empty. And I would characterize her relationship with the son as more than “definitely devoted to each other”. ‘Creepy’ comes to mind.
See that's what I would hope wouldn't happen. Basing your opposition to a man's recognition for a job well done based on the fact that you had been turned down for the same award yourself two times is just petty at best. If this is a reason for his opposition it would be a new low for even him.
The type font was so big, they couldn't even fit in one more letter.
I would submit that Rommel had a far greater strategic appreciation than most give him credit for. His take on what the North African campaign could yield [muchj in line with Grand Admiral Raeder’s] was quantum leaps ahead of anything coming out of Zossen or Rastenburg, especially considering they offered a possiblity of knocking Britain out of the war that was far more realistic than invading the Soviet Union to do it.
Rommel had a far greater operational sense for Normandy than Schweppenburg or Rundstedt. Alone, of all the senior officers in the West, he realized what the adverse impact of Allied airpower would do to using the classic panzer reserve/ counterattack once the landings started. And that is probably because he was the only Germ,an senior officer to face the Western Allies after Operations Marita and Merkur. His warnings of the maturity of Allied forces, their learning curve, their flexible use of overwhelming resources, were all disregarded by everyone from Goering [”All the Americans can make is razor blades” Rommel:”I could use a feww hundred of those razor blades”] to OKH, OKW and Hitler himself.
Rommel was the first, and most consistent voice among senior German officers calling on Hitler to draw political [and strategic] conclusions from the failure of German operations in the West, unlike his Eastern counterparts, such as Manstein, insofar as operations in the East..
Nor was “his headstrong impetuosity” unique to Rommel. How about Guderian rouitinely refusing to obey his superior officers [ditto Hoth in Russia], or Guderian’s deliberate and obdurate refusal to main the encirclements at Minsk and Smolensk so he could continue driving east, without the support of most of Army Group Center. How’s that for operationaland strategic clarity. He wound up as Chief of the German General Staff.
As to juggling forces and conserving his units, I’d argue Rommel had few equals in the German Army. He ran the African campaign on a shoe string. Mix and match was how he did it.
Most of the raps on Rommel are that he exceeded his mission statement in 1941, and he had no interest in logistics. As to the former, one wonders why the Germans sent a panzer heavy mech unit to Libya just to hold a position. And since that mission was to protect Tripolitania, I think Rommel did a hell of a job for two years. As to the logistics, check Hoth and Guderian in Russia in 1941, and show me how worried they were about logistics, and how heavily that worry affected their operations.
Finally, compare Rommel with his contemporary, Friedrich Paulus, Dep. Chief of OKH, C/S of Sixth Army, and Commander of Sixth Army. Both faced encirclement at about the same time. Both were ordered to stand and die. One didn’t. Who had the better strategic vision.
I would submit that by 1944, Rommel had grown into his job. He conducted the battle of Normandy, considering the handicaps he faced, with both tactical and operational acumen. He understood the strategic consequences of that campaign better than his superiors and masters
I believe we aren't connecting on this and because I'm admittedly not well versed on the topic, I'll take responsibility.
Many times in corporate life I've seen where the average performer under an excellent manager might grade out as superior under an inexperienced/mediocre/weak manager.
The two managers use the same evaluation template provided by human resources yet, no matter how impartial they try to be, the way they interpret the criteria is vastly different based on the sum total of their individual experiences.
Having said all of that, if someone believes they work in an environment characterized by an objective meritocracy where the relationship between effort and reward is highly correlated across the organization, please let me know where I can submit a resume.
No, I think we are connecting. You and I both see that at least one aspect of MacArthur’s opposition to Wainwrights CMH may have been because he had been jilted on getting one himself in the past. If that is one of his motivations, then I say that is a disgusting example of leadership, but not one I would find unexpected by the likes of MacArthur (hence hubris).
And when we think about it, we haven’t even gotten into Eichelberger’s CMH. He was put in for one as well, and MacArthur blocked it too. Unfortunately for Eichelberger, he couldn’t overcome this MacArthur obstruction and ended up never getting the CMH which I would say he deserved more than MacArthur ever did.
If you really look at the entire scope of things there’s a trend. MacArthur had a tendency to undermine his own subordinates if it may detract from his own glory. This is why you don’t even hear about Wainwright from Philippine dispatches until AFTER MacArthur has left.
Ok. My point which I think you got is that regardless as to whether a medal was awarded or not, a human element in the recommendation and review process always exists.
When most MacArthur detractors point to his recommending against Wainwright's MOH, they do so under an implicit assumption that it was purely for personal reasons.
Personal reasons can play a role but is there any evidence supporting such belief? Because you mentioned having done a paper in this area, I exclude you but I've never seen anyone back up their beliefs by citing an historian that analyzed and published a paper focused on an objective analysis of Wainwright's MOH recommendation.
I never looked for such paper either so, if you are aware of one, I'd be very interested in reading it. Otherwise, I'll just wait for some future date to analyze the full paper trail myself.
And when we think about it, we haven’t even gotten into Eichelberger’s CMH. He was put in for one as well, and MacArthur blocked it too. Unfortunately for Eichelberger, he couldn’t overcome this MacArthur obstruction and ended up never getting the CMH which I would say he deserved more than MacArthur ever did.
If I am not well versed on Wainwright's MOH, I'm even less well versed on Eichelberger's. Again, if you are aware of a paper focused on this, I'd be interested in reading it.
If you really look at the entire scope of things there’s a trend. MacArthur had a tendency to undermine his own subordinates if it may detract from his own glory.
If it could be shown that MacArthur's immediate subordinates received fewer/lesser awards than for comparable commanders, I'd be interested in knowing about it. Because I don't see any such facts and figures advanced by detractors, my assumption is that they don't exist.
This is why you don’t even hear about Wainwright from Philippine dispatches until AFTER MacArthur has left.
Now here's where I have to direct your attention to today's (3/22/1942) P2 report from the Philippines on Homer's thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2862250/posts. Notice the successful American/Filipino assaults on Mindanao. No mention of anyone in the dispatch other than General Wainwright. Not one person today complained about Wainwright getting sole name credit for a successful assault on Mindanao.
fso301: Now here's where I have to direct your attention to today's (3/22/1942) P2 report from the Philippines on Homer's thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2862250/posts. Notice the successful American/Filipino assaults on Mindanao. No mention of anyone in the dispatch other than General Wainwright. Not one person today complained about Wainwright getting sole name credit for a successful assault on Mindanao.
Doesn't that just validate Cougar's argument? MacArthur left the Philippines over a week ago and now we are reading about Wainwright.
Well, perhaps I misunderstood. As I understand the general issue, detractors of MacArthur assert that only his name appears in dispatches and that he takes credit for the successful work of subordinates. With that understanding in mind, when we read today's dispatch, it's all about Wainwright.
My point was today's dispatch about Wainwright appears to be no different from the much maligned dispatches about MacArthur.
WAINWRIGHT, JONATHAN M.
Rank and organization: General, Commanding U.S. Army Forces in the Philippines. Place and date: Philippine Islands, 12 March to 7 May 1942. Entered service at: Skaneateles, N.Y. Birth: Walla Walla, Wash. G.O. No.: 80, 19 September 1945. Citation: Distinguished himself by intrepid and determined leadership against greatly superior enemy forces. At the repeated risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in his position, he frequented the firing line of his troops where his presence provided the example and incentive that helped make the gallant efforts of these men possible. The final stand on beleaguered Corregidor, for which he was in an important measure personally responsible, commanded the admiration of the Nation’s allies. It reflected the high morale of American arms in the face of overwhelming odds. His courage and resolution were a vitally needed inspiration to the then sorely pressed freedom-loving peoples of the world.
MacARTHUR, DOUGLAS
Rank and organization: General, U.S. Army, commanding U.S. Army Forces in the Far East. Place and date: Bataan Peninsula, Philippine Islands. Entered service at: Ashland, Wis. Birth: Little Rock, Ark. G.O. No.: 16, 1 April 1942. Citation: For conspicuous leadership in preparing the Philippine Islands to resist conquest, for gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against invading Japanese forces, and for the heroic conduct of defensive and offensive operations on the Bataan Peninsula. He mobilized, trained, and led an army which has received world acclaim for its gallant defense against a tremendous superiority of enemy forces in men and arms. His utter disregard of personal danger under heavy fire and aerial bombardment, his calm judgment in each crisis, inspired his troops, galvanized the spirit of resistance of the Filipino people, and confirmed the faith of the American people in their Armed Forces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.