MacArthur a Six Star General!

What I find most disturbing about a six star MacArthur scenario is that maybe because of the number of US casualties sustained during the invasion of Japan, or MacArthur's increased power and influence he gets permission to use nuclear weapons on the Chinese!!
 
I do not like telling people they are wrong, but you are.

The official title for a five star is "General of the Army."

General's stars are silver. The US Army officer ranks that are gold are Second Lieutenant (2LT), represented by a gold bar, and Major (MAJ) represented by a gold oak leaf. All enlisted and NCO ranks are gold.

You are quite right about the thought of MacArthur being a six star general............it is disturbing!

Mea culpa. You are quite right on both points. However, when Pershing was promoted to five-star rank he was made 'General of the Armies', so a different title will have to be devised.
 
Six star general in a no atomic bomb scenario, I can see. MacArthur wearing the brass I cannot. Although MacArthur was a war hero and winner of the Medal of Honor, I believe that he irritated enough people in Washington to prevent his authorization to the rank of General of the Armies. personally, I think George C. Marshall might have been asked for the job simply because he was promoted to the rank of General of the Army first and had seniority; but it could be argued that he wouldn't have been asked because he was the premier "go to" guy for Europe. part of me thinks that they might have asked Admiral Nimitz and or Admiral King if they wanted the job.

Here is an interesting thought. Why have a six star promotion for anyone? According to legend, teh five star rank was formed so the U.S. military would have an equivalent rank of Marshall with its fellow allies that way there was no confusion or weight being thrown. Honestly, I don't see a need for a six star rank. I think the U.S. would have had Nimitz and MacArthur work together in a Japanese invasion. Since this was still the time of the Navy Department and the War Department and the concept of Jointness and a unified defense department didn't exist, I think the two departments would have chosen their respective leaders, one to focus on land, the other on sea and they would simply compare notes and formulate a master invasion plan.

I also agree, MacArthur with a six star rank; I'll be in the back vomiting with CalBear.
 
Why was there a need for a six-star rank? To be in charge over all the five-stars and armies that were coordinating and working on the Japanese invasion.
Was Pershing a five-star? No. He was above General of the Army- he died only after WWII, after all.
Interesting that Nimitz was considered for the position.
 
The five-star rank is entitled "General of the Army" (singular).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Army_(United_States)
Huh, so its a problem here, too.

The software on forums like this does not like to have a closed parentheses ')' at the end of a URL, for some reason. To get it to work, you need to ad a space between the paren and the end bracket, like this: ...(United States) ]. If you don't, it moves the paren to after the bracket, like this: ...(United States]), and the link doesn't lead directly to the page.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Army_(United_States)
 
Huh, so its a problem here, too.

The software on forums like this does not like to have a closed parentheses ')' at the end of a URL, for some reason. To get it to work, you need to ad a space between the paren and the end bracket, like this: ...(United States) ]. If you don't, it moves the paren to after the bracket, like this: ...(United States]), and the link doesn't lead directly to the page.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Army_(United_States)

Didn't even realize. Thanks!
 
Mea culpa. You are quite right on both points. However, when Pershing was promoted to five-star rank he was made 'General of the Armies', so a different title will have to be devised.

Pershing was never promoted to a 5 star rank. When Pershing was promoted to General of the Armies he was authorized to create his own insignia for the new rank and chose four gold stars. At the time there was no such thing as a five-star rank. It hadn't been created yet. At the time the highest rank was four silver stars and it was for the temporary rank of Army Chief of Staff. Pershing's insignia and rank were permanent.


The five-star rank was only created in 1944 and given the title of "General of the Army" (singular) or rather in full "General of the Army of the United States" . They re-used a title from the 1800s which had been a four-star rank then (so there would have been no need to devise a different title for MacArthur as "General of the Armies" with six silver stars and Pershing as "General of the Armies" with four gold stars as in US Army history there have clearly been persons with the same title "General of the Army") but a different number of stars (four or five depending on the period)). As to the reasoning for creating a five-star rank, just go back to Maniakes' post:

The WW2-era five-star rank was created to standardize the general-officer rank structure among the Allies: Britain, France, and Russia had five tiers of General Officer ranks (e.g. Brigadier, Major General, Lieutenant General, General, and Field Marshal in the British Army), whereas America only had four active ranks, and it was an important matter of protocol to clarify that Marshall, Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Bradley were equivalent in rank to the top commanders of the other allied armies, not to the next rank down...
 
Like Pershing being General of the Armies of the United States from 1919 until his death in 1948, Dewey had been Admiral of the Navy from 1903 (retroactive from 1899) until his death in 1917. This rank was unequivalently seen as a six-star rank during the Second World War (but as a five-star rank before the creation of the rank "General of the Army").
If Japan did not surrender and the invasion had to happen both MacArthur and Nimitz would have been promoted to a six-star rank (General of the Armies or Admiral of the Navy).

BTW army has two different meanings in English:
1. a military unit made of 2-4 corps (two and more armies form a army group)
2. all land-based military (sometimes including marines) of a nation

IMO both promotions (MacArthur's to General of the Armies and Nimitz' to Admiral of the Navy) will not change anything if Japan surrenders.

BTW with Washington's posthumously promotion to General of the Armies of the United States in 1976 this rank exists (even if no one else will ever reach this rank).
 
Let's just suppose that Japan did not surrender and an invasion of Japan happened. Let's also assume that MacArthur gets the six star rank and becomes the first and possibly only officer to hold that rank. Considering how big his ego got in OTL, the possibilities are interesting.

So what happens in a world with a six star MacArthur who is ultimately successful in taking Japan?
MacArthur as a six star general? Excuse me a moment, I just have to do something.
svomit_100-104.gif


That aside, whilst a sickening prospect, it's certainly an interesting question.
 
MacArthur as a six star general? Excuse me a moment, I just have to do something.

Was he really so bad? I thought he did a reasonable job in Japan.

No doubt there were times when he'd have been the better for a red-hot poker shoved up his backside, but isn't that true of most brasshats?
 

Titus_Pullo

Banned
Well I remember that peaked cap he always wore wasn't US Army issue. It was given to him by then Philippine president Manuel Quezon when he appointed him "Field Marshal" of a non existent Philippine Army.
 
Was he really so bad? I thought he did a reasonable job in Japan.

No doubt there were times when he'd have been the better for a red-hot poker shoved up his backside, but isn't that true of most brasshats?

I'm sure he would have enamoured more people if he you...know....didn't advocate nuclear warfare; didn't seem to not give a damn what the casualty projections were like for Olympic and was just generally an all round more reasonable guy....sorta like Eisenhower.

No doubt there were times when he'd have been the better for a red-hot poker shoved up his backside, but isn't that true of most brasshats?

Off the top of my head I can think of a few folks who were not like that; Marshall, Eisenhower, Krueger, Hodges.....

It's actually a good thing most brasshats don't seem to have been like MacArthur or God forbid, Patton. They may have been good at what they did, but they serious problems.
 
It's actually a good thing most brasshats don't seem to have been like MacArthur or God forbid, Patton. They may have been good at what they did, but they serious problems.

I'm reminded of an AH proposal where MacArthur and Patton run against each other in...'48, I believe.
 
Top