Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

M’ARTHUR ORDERED TO TAKE OFFENSIVE; JAPANESE PRESS ADVANCE IN BURMA (3/21/42)
Microfilm-New York Times archives, Monterey Public Library | 3/21/42 | Byron Darnton, James MacDonald, Harrison Forman, Daniel T. Brigham

Posted on 03/21/2012 4:24:27 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-65 last
To: fso301

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.


51 posted on 03/22/2012 11:21:52 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: fso301
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.

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.

52 posted on 03/22/2012 11:29:46 AM PDT by CougarGA7 ("History is politics projected into the past" - Michael Pokrovski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson
M’ARTHUR ORDERED TO TAKE OFFENSIVE;

The type font was so big, they couldn't even fit in one more letter.

53 posted on 03/22/2012 11:44:45 AM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

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


54 posted on 03/22/2012 11:48:01 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7
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.

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.

55 posted on 03/22/2012 11:58:49 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: fso301

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.


56 posted on 03/22/2012 2:09:36 PM PDT by CougarGA7 ("History is politics projected into the past" - Michael Pokrovski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7; Homer_J_Simpson
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).

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.



57 posted on 03/22/2012 3:21:41 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: fso301; CougarGA7
CougarGA7: This is why you don’t even hear about Wainwright from Philippine dispatches until AFTER MacArthur has left.

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.

58 posted on 03/22/2012 3:41:53 PM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson; CougarGA7
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.

59 posted on 03/22/2012 4:28:53 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: fso301; CougarGA7

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.


60 posted on 03/22/2012 5:40:33 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
Thanks!

As CougarGA7 mentioned in previous post on this thread, the two citations do read very similarly. This really isn't surprising given their duties. I suspect if you merged Wainwright's DSC citation with his MOH citation, it would read even closer to that of MacArthur.

It would be interesting to review archives for documentation as to who recommended Wainwright (chain of command, or member of Congress), why MacArthur recommended against Wainwright's MOH, related communications and what happened to the nomination until Sept 1945 when Truman awarded it.

I'm now going off on a tangent but I just wanted to draw attention to the text in MacArthur's citation which I highlighted in bold. One quality MacArthur had was his utter disregard for personal safety. Even field commanders describe escorting him to the front as harrowing... as if he had a death wish.

I've sometimes wondered if the Native American act of bravery called counting coup MacArthur likely heard first hand stories of while growing up on western frontier outposts influenced him? I never read of it but I wonder.

MacArthur leading trench raids while unarmed in WWI bears many similarities to a Native American charging the cavalry line, sometimes even touching a cavalryman but without harming him and then returning to his own side. Sounds difficult to imagine but it happened. Perhaps those charmed breast pieces the Indians wore occasionally worked.

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.


61 posted on 03/22/2012 7:13:53 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: PAR35; CougarGA7
I forget to CC CougarGA7 so, I reported.


Thanks!

As CougarGA7 mentioned in previous post on this thread, the two citations do read very similarly. This really isn't surprising given their duties. I suspect if you merged Wainwright's DSC citation with his MOH citation, it would read even closer to that of MacArthur.

It would be interesting to review archives for documentation as to who recommended Wainwright (chain of command, or member of Congress), why MacArthur recommended against Wainwright's MOH, related communications and what happened to the nomination until Sept 1945 when Truman awarded it.

I'm now going off on a tangent but I just wanted to draw attention to the text in MacArthur's citation which I highlighted in bold. One quality MacArthur had was his utter disregard for personal safety. Even field commanders describe escorting him to the front as harrowing... as if he had a death wish.

I've sometimes wondered if the Native American act of bravery called counting coup MacArthur likely heard first hand stories of while growing up on western frontier outposts influenced him? I never read of it but I wonder.

MacArthur leading trench raids while unarmed in WWI bears many similarities to a Native American charging the cavalry line, sometimes even touching a cavalryman but without harming him and then returning to his own side. Sounds difficult to imagine but it happened. Perhaps those charmed breast pieces the Indians wore occasionally worked.

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.


62 posted on 03/22/2012 7:18:43 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Just goes to show that having a death wish doesn’t make you a good commander.


63 posted on 03/22/2012 11:46:28 PM PDT by CougarGA7 ("History is politics projected into the past" - Michael Pokrovski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7
Just goes to show that having a death wish doesn’t make you a good commander.

And nor do many other characteristics in isolation. Never-the-less, individual characteristics are good to be aware as they can sometimes provide insight into decisions.

64 posted on 03/23/2012 7:15:11 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: fso301
And nor do many other characteristics in isolation.

You're right. When you take all his characteristics in total, he is even worse.

65 posted on 03/23/2012 12:10:49 PM PDT by CougarGA7 ("History is politics projected into the past" - Michael Pokrovski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-65 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson