Why is MacArthur seen negatively on this forum? Was he a bad general? Perhaps I'm just uninformed, but the way he was taught in my school put him in a positive light.
My opinion is not consensus; so when I write your mileage might vary, I suggest it "should" vary based on one's interpretation of the evidence available on the individual.US military chain of command during WWI - what is the consensus of opinion on the relative merits/abilities of the following folks at or near the top of the food chain?
I would regard him as the most overrated and most damaging of American presidents. His incompetence is legendary. Not until the late 20th Century do American presidents approach his level of ineptitude and sheer evil. Yes, I mean EVIL. He was a vile human being.President Wilson - (I'm not a fan....) to me the most useful thing he did once war was declared was to limit his input to the military. Prior to the DoW, his actions consciously left the US with our pants down.
Reviews on him are mixed. His incompetence puts him near Ray Mabus as the bottom of the barrel Secretary of the Navy types. Daniels famously is renowned for the social engineering he attempted in the USN by creating a fleet of teetotalers. That might have been the only thing he did right, because he did screw up the merchant marine program, he fouled up the four stackers programs, and he completely derailed the C and R proposals for the Standards.US Navy
* Secr. of the Navy Josephus Daniels (to me, a political hack. A meddler).
First CNO, he replaced Bradley Fiske. Bradley Fiske is the GOLD STANDARD. Compared to him, anybody short of a Sims, Nimitz or a King is not going to show up favorably. However...Benson's chief defect, I maintain, is that he almost killed the WWI United States Naval Air Service. Fortunately... Franklin Delano Roosevelt, assistant secretary of the Navy, told him not to abolish the service, maintaining the airplane is far too useful a new tool.* Admiral William Benson
My complaint with this "gentleman" was that he was an atavistic 'jingoistic egotistical racist bastard' who made things "difficult" with the British and who first demonstrated his incompetence at Tampico, Mexico; where he practically guaranteed that incident would spiral into a near open war crisis with Mexico. On the plus side, once he saw a British aircraft carrier, he said; "I want that!" American naval aviation regards him as one of their first champions.* Admiral Henry Mayo
The Percy Scott of the USN, but only much much better. Wrap Jellico, Fiske, Fisher, and the ghost of John Paul Jones and season with a little of Alfred Thayer Mahan and you get a Sims.* Admiral William Sims
Competent is a relative term. Remember this man championed that idiot, John Pershing, and he staunchly supported Wilson.US Army
* Secr of the Army - Newton Baker (by comparison to Daniels, surprisingly competent, considering his complete lack of background with the military.)
I have two words to describe, "Black Jack"; "incompetent idiot."* Gen. John Pershing
I like him a lot. Competent artilleryman and he hated Woodrow Wilson's guts. Also had little use for Pershing, so I am amazed he became Army CoS under those two idiots. Must have known where the bodies were buried. More importantly, he started implementing the WWI lessons learned he reformed the right way in the American army, before the 1920 National Defense Act and Pershing came in and screwed it all up.* Gen. Peyton March
Old guy was a bit long in the tooth when he was the US representative on the Allied Supreme War Council. Butted heads with Pershing, Foch and Haig and Wilson. SOB. Love the guy. He had no use for:* Gen Tasker Bliss
Solidly competent and universally disliked.* Gen Hunter Liggett
Douglas MacArthur... reckless.Anybody else needing addition to this list?
Wilson re-segregated the government, limited the duties and privileges of african american units, and committed u prepared troops to Russia with limited rules of engagement.US military chain of command during WWI - what is the consensus of opinion on the relative merits/abilities of the following folks at or near the top of the food chain?
President Wilson - (I'm not a fan....) to me the most useful thing he did once war was declared was to limit his input to the military. Prior to the DoW, his actions consciously left the US with our pants down.
US Navy
* Secr. of the Navy Josephus Daniels (to me, a political hack. A meddler)
* Admiral William Benson
* Admiral Henry Mayo
* Admiral William Sims
US Army
* Secr. of the Army - Newton Baker (by comparison to Daniels, surprisingly competent, considering his complete lack of background with the military.)
* Gen. John Pershing
* Gen. Peyton March
* Gen Tasker Bliss
* Gen Hunter Liggett
Anybody else needing addition to this list?
My opinion is not consensus; so when I write your mileage might vary, I suggest it "should" vary based on one's interpretation of the evidence available on the individual.
I would regard him as the most overrated and most damaging of American presidents. His incompetence is legendary. Not until the late 20th Century do American presidents approach his level of ineptitude and sheer evil. Yes, I mean EVIL. He was a vile human being.
Reviews on him are mixed. His incompetence puts him near Ray Mabus as the bottom of the barrel Secretary of the Navy types. Daniels famously is renowned for the social engineering he attempted in the USN by creating a fleet of teetotalers. That might have been the only thing he did right, because he did screw up the merchant marine program, he fouled up the four stackers programs, and he completely derailed the C and R proposals for the Standards.
First CNO, he replaced Bradley Fiske. Bradley Fiske is the GOLD STANDARD. Compared to him, anybody short of a Sims, Nimitz or a King is not going to show up favorably. However...Benson's chief defect, I maintain, is that he almost killed the WWI United States Naval Air Service. Fortunately... Franklin Delano Roosevelt, assistant secretary of the Navy, told him not to abolish the service, maintaining the airplane is far too useful a new tool.
Jeffery S. Underwood, The wings of democracy: the influence of air power on the Roosevelt Administration, 1933–1941 (1991) p. 11.
Underwood has nothing good to say about Benson. "Reactionary" is the kindest description.
My complaint with this "gentleman" was that he was an atavistic 'jingoistic egotistical racist bastard' who made things "difficult" with the British and who first demonstrated his incompetence at Tampico, Mexico; where he practically guaranteed that incident would spiral into a near open war crisis with Mexico. On the plus side, once he saw a British aircraft carrier, he said; "I want that!" American naval aviation regards him as one of their first champions.
The Percy Scott of the USN, but only much much better. Wrap Jellico, Fiske, Fisher, and the ghost of John Paul Jones and season with a little of Alfred Thayer Mahan and you get a Sims.
Competent is a relative term. Remember this man championed that idiot, John Pershing, and he staunchly supported Wilson.
I have two words to describe, "Black Jack"; "incompetent idiot."
I like him a lot. Competent artilleryman and he hated Woodrow Wilson's guts. Also had little use for Pershing, so I am amazed he became Army CoS under those two idiots. Must have known where the bodies were buried. More importantly, he started implementing the WWI lessons learned he reformed the right way in the American army, before the 1920 National Defense Act and Pershing came in and screwed it all up.
Old guy was a bit long in the tooth when he was the US representative on the Allied Supreme War Council. Butted heads with Pershing, Foch and Haig and Wilson. SOB. Love the guy. He had no use for:
Pershing
Foch
Haig
and he hated Wilson's guts. (TR man.)
Solidly competent and universally disliked.
Douglas MacArthur... reckless.
George Patton... arrogant.
George C. Marshall... learning the ropes.
Fox Connor... possibly the best of the US Army pre-WWII generals and arguably a general as good as Winfield Scott.
Over the last few months, I've been reading a number of books on US military history following the Span-Am War. I'm more of a readable "popular history" reader, rather than the deep-detail kind. I read several books on the Pancho Villa Expedtion and the prior Tampico/Veracruz interventions. I'm more recently working my way up through WW1. As I had found Eisenhower's "Intervention" to be interesting as it gave some context for both sides, I read "Yanks" and was less impressed. Eisenhower seemed to believe the de-centralized Bureau set-up for the Army to be a good thing in war-preparation, and that idea made no sense to me... I'm currently reading Coffman's 1968 "The War to End All Wars", which spends a fair amount of the first half of the book on US war prep for WW1. He dances the "don't gore any sacred cows" line, but just listing pluses and minuses of various individuals and the actions they took, I gather he's not to much a fan of Wilson (I'm halfway through and only oblique mentions) and not keen on Daniels. A good deal of print is spent (so far) on how the Army was so woefully prepared for everything: manpower, enlisted and officer training, bases, uniforms, weapons, etc. etc.Wilson re-segregated the government, limited the duties and privileges of african american units, and committed u prepared troops to Russia with limited rules of engagement.
Basically he put his ego about 200 spots above everything else on his priority list, surrounded himself with some questionable people, and knew how to play the press. He changed the solid plan to defend only Bataan to trying to run the Japanese out of Luzon, and we can see for ourselves the results, isn't remembered fondly by the Australians after his time there, led a pretty winnable campaign across the Pacific (that's where the positive light comes from), and ignored all the warnings about the Chinese intervening in Korea, which led to that war being a stalemate instead of an overwhelming victory.Why is MacArthur seen negatively on this forum? Was he a bad general?
My most vivid memory of any of my high school classes was when my history teacher said the RAF was about done for before the Luftwaffe switched to bombing cities, then used that and the fact that the Heer had 'kicked everyone else's butts in 1940, so it would take over Great Britain pretty easily too' to tell the class that Sea Lion would've been successful. I also recall a history textbook crediting MacArthur for inventing island hopping. Point being most high school history classes are good for adding some background knowledge but not really as primary sources.but the way he was taught in my school put him in a positive light.
Yeah I went to school in the south. So I grew up hearing in history that the Germans were noble warriors fighting under an evil man. And that the commies were the real villains of the war. Oh and that the USA won both worlds wars singlehandedly with a blindfold on.Basically he put his ego about 200 spots above everything else on his priority list, surrounded himself with some questionable people, and knew how to play the press. He changed the solid plan to defend only Bataan to trying to run the Japanese out of Luzon, and we can see for ourselves the results, isn't remembered fondly by the Australians after his time there, led a pretty winnable campaign across the Pacific (that's where the positive light comes from), and ignored all the warnings about the Chinese intervening in Korea, which led to that war being a stalemate instead of an overwhelming victory.
My most vivid memory of any of my high school classes was when my history teacher said the RAF was about done for before the Luftwaffe switched to bombing cities, then used that and the fact that the Heer had 'kicked everyone else's butts in 1940, so it would take over Great Britain pretty easily too' to tell the class that Sea Lion would've been successful. I also recall a history textbook crediting MacArthur for inventing island hopping. Point being most high school history classes are good for adding some background knowledge but not really as primary sources.
For a 1940s boxing themed hero what would be the most utilitarian gloves to use?
I was primarily referring to both weight and will allow the use his hands with the least amount of interference.Everlast? And apparently before the 1950s they would be plain brown leather not red, that was added to make them show up better on television.
everlaster would be a sick hero name nglEverlast? And apparently before the 1950s they would be plain brown leather not red, that was added to make them show up better on television.