View Full Version : Why Did We Give Doug MacArthur a Medal of Honor...?
It certainly wasn't leadership, he escaped and left others behind to fight.
Bataan surrendered on 9 April, and Corregidor on 6 May. George Marshall decided that MacArthur would be awarded the Medal of Honor, a decoration for which he had twice previously been nominated, "to offset any propaganda by the enemy directed at his leaving his command".
Eisenhower pointed out that MacArthur had not actually performed any acts of valor as required by law, but Marshall cited the 1927 award of the medal to Charles Lindbergh as a precedent. Special legislation had been passed to authorize Lindbergh's medal, but while similar legislation was introduced authorizing the medal for MacArthur by Congressmen J. Parnell Thomas and James E. Van Zandt, Marshall felt strongly that a serving general should receive the medal from the President and the War Department.
MacArthur chose to accept it on the basis that "this award was intended not so much for me personally as it is a recognition of the indomitable courage of the gallant army which it was my honor to command". Arthur and Douglas MacArthur thus became the first father and son to be awarded the Medal of Honor.
The citation read:
"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."
His father won his Medal of Honor under equally dubious conditions.
First Lieutenant, and Adjutant, 24th Wisconsin Infantry. Place and date: At Missionary Ridge, Tenn., November 25, 1863. Entered service at: Milwaukee, Wis. Birth: Springfield, Mass. Date of issue: June 30, 1890.
Citation:
Seized the colors of his regiment at a critical moment and planted them on the captured works on the crest of Missionary Ridge.
Using that criteria every man who raised a flag in Iwo Jima should have received a Medal of Honor.
Additionally given Doug's participation in the attack on WWI veterans at the Bonus March should have precluded him from ever receiving such an honor. Believing it wrong for the Army's highest-ranking officer to lead an action against fellow American war veterans, he strongly advised MacArthur against taking any public role: "I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there," he said later. "I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff." Despite his misgivings, Eisenhower later wrote the Army's official incident report that endorsed MacArthur's conduct.
Over 1,000 veteran protestors and their families were injured, including a pregnant woman who miscarried and two veterans were shot by police.
About the only thing MacArthur did effectively is serve as the last TRUE Emperor of Japan.
ThirdWatcher
11-25-18, 04:51
Another question: Why did our Country go with a “Europe First” strategy after being attacked by Japan? A lot of good soldiers were sacrificed (and I knew two Bataan Death March survivors) thanks to this decision.
My guess is Germany was more a threat to nation loss than Japan. I'm certain our attention would've shifted quickly if it wasn't. I think militarily speaking technological advances by Germany was a big factor and they were fielding some serious hardware. I do think we are lucky from the standpoint of leadership pitfalls and manufacturing difficulties, otherwise we would've had a tough go.
Triage of wounds/threat one could say.
Moose-Knuckle
11-25-18, 06:10
Another question: Why did our Country go with a “Europe First” strategy after being attacked by Japan? A lot of good soldiers were sacrificed (and I knew two Bataan Death March survivors) thanks to this decision.
The European banking cabal of course.
Averageman
11-25-18, 08:52
Why Did We Give Doug MacArthur a Medal of Honor...?
I'm pretty sure at that point it was a political move. The Mac Arthur's being a .mil legacy and the possibility that Mac Arthur would pursue a political career he could have become a political juggernaut against the Democrat party after the war. So I would guess this was some sort of appeasement, or an olive branch of sorts.
All of that would later mean nothing when Mac Arthur openly questioned Truman's leadership abilities when he called for Nuking the Chinese in North Korea.
If there were General Officers worthy of the CMH for Leadership alone, I would guess Marshall, Eisenhower, even Bradley or Patton were more worthy by a full measure.
Patton though perhaps a much better Field Commander than all of those listed above, would have never earned the CMH under such conditions because of his unpopularity due to incidence of insubordination with Superiors and an assault on a subordinate.
Little did they know Eisenhower would become a Republican and step up to take up the political reins.
A little before my time, but both my parents served in the PTO for two years under MacArthur - my dad was an Army Captain and my mom was a Army nurse (that's how they met). One or the other was in New Guinea, Hollandia, Layte, Luzon, Okinawa and Korea. A few more places I can't remember. They all HATED MacArthur. With a passion.
I don't remember the details, and it's too late now to ask, but one story I remember was when we retook Manila, our forces were ordered to not destroy certain areas or propeties due to MacArthur's financial interest in them, and this caused many US casualties.
They felt he was a showboat with more interest in his own image and reputation than with his men.
Because MacArthur was a “safe” General. He wasn’t “problematic” like Patton who had to be murked to keep the Allies from wiping out Communism from Leningrad to Beijing or Smedley Butler who could have no joke started an armed insurrection against the New Deal Democrats who lied about the “bonuses” and wooden nickels they’d been sold to fight for monopolies in shithole countries.
Can’t have the sheep knowing what’s up.
So some dude who smokes a corncob pipe and tries to rock Ray Bans has to be made a hero. His only “saving grace” is that ‘thanks’ to him; Japanese smut is a lot tamer than it would have been.
Weeeee
HardToHandle
11-25-18, 15:23
Another question: Why did our Country go with a “Europe First” strategy after being attacked by Japan? A lot of good soldiers were sacrificed (and I knew two Bataan Death March survivors) thanks to this decision.
Grandpa invaded Luzon in the liberation. He then got called up for Korea in 1950, both were McArthur commands. My Grandmother had nothing good to say about McArthur.
As for the Europe first, the UK was teetering in 1941-42. The cross channel reach for the Nazis was 20 miles from France and the U Boats had the food stocks in Britain down to a matter of days. Alternatively, the closest to Australia was 350 miles for Japanese in 1942 and still nearly 3000 miles to the Mainland USA.
The undoing of the Axis Powers would ultimately be oil. The Pacific War was effectively triggered by the US oil embargo and eventually the Japanese war machine faltered due to fuel starvation, mostly by submarines and mines. The war against German oil was much more difficult because of the Axis domination of European land mass and internal transport of oil. The Germans invaded Russia mainly to control oil, which cost the Germans the war.
Why is that important? Because the Germans were much more of a threat. It was clear in 1940 that the distances in the Pacific and Indian Oceans were more than the Japanese could handle. That is why Churchill was reinforcing Singapore and India in Fall 1941, to provide just enough deterrence. The Brits had Rommel in North Africa and the fear of a second Sealion at the same time.
I have read several books on the Pacific theatre it is appalling the way our troops were lied to and abandoned in the early days post Pearl Harbor.
The rules and significance of the Medal of Honor changed between the Civil War and WWII. Awarding the medal to his father MAY have been appropriate.
I did not know Douglas McArthur was awarded the MoH.
Andy
Another question: Why did our Country go with a “Europe First” strategy after being attacked by Japan? A lot of good soldiers were sacrificed (and I knew two Bataan Death March survivors) thanks to this decision.
We needed Russia and Russia wasn't at war with Japan.
I have read several books on the Pacific theatre it is appalling the way our troops were lied to and abandoned in the early days post Pearl Harbor.
Yes it is. Perhaps the only thing worse is MacArthur giving Japanese war criminals a pass in numbers too large to understand. The names people could remember and pronounce (Tojo, Homma, etc.) stood trial and were executed but many went onto prominent post war careers including government positions unlike their German counterparts.
The only true justice served in Japan was at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the fire bombing of Tokyo. But the people mostly responsible for the war and related atrocities often lived much better than your average Japanese citizen, especially in post war Japan.
ThirdWatcher
11-25-18, 19:29
The European banking cabal of course.
I suspect there is a lot of truth in this statement.
In my informal studies of WW2, I’ve come to think that I would rather have served in Admiral Nimitz’s command than Dugout Doug’s (not that the average soldier had a choice). I suspect that FDR gave the MOH to MacArthur to avoid unnecessary conflict with him. FDR strikes me as a “big picture” guy and 1942 was not the time to clean house (the Bonus March debacle should have been enough though).
President Truman was right in firing him.
As far as the medals go till WWI there wasn't all of the others. Purple Heart, MOH. The various crosses were regularly given for service, Navy Cross for salvage divers. In the Civil War there was only one medal for valor or service. I think they also looked at the award somehow raising morale back home as we needed heroes to support the war effort.
As far as the medals go till WWI there wasn't all of the others. Purple Heart, MOH. The various crosses were regularly given for service, Navy Cross for salvage divers. In the Civil War there was only one medal for valor or service. I think they also looked at the award somehow raising morale back home as we needed heroes to support the war effort.
When I was a kid I got a book about the Congressional Medal of Honor and it listed every recipient as well as the circumstances and I was always stunned by the arbitrary way they were awarded in the Civil War for things that probably wouldn't merit a Bronze Star w/ V device in the second World War. Seems it wasn't until WWI that it started to be reserved for the likes of Alvin York and it became a BFD award.
I just think of all the people who truly did "above and beyond" actions from Jack Lucas to Audie Murphy and I still wonder WTF were we thinking giving one to such a pompous ass as MacArthur for doing nothing more than bugging out and leaving more than a few guys behind. Had he stayed in the Philippines, or at least stayed until the last possible moment, directing the resistance and evacuation I could understand it. But he was never in any real danger and didn't do too damn much to advance the war in the Pacific.
Nimitz is the one who was in harms way at Coral Sea and Midway and won. He's the one who kicked the Japanese Navy asses all the way back to the home islands allowing Marines to take island after island finally landing at Okinawa, but no MOH for leadership for him.
I find it hard to see the justification for awarding anyone above O-6 the MOH. I have seen and read of good soldiers who earn the MOH, then later reach O-7 and above. In my opinion, the award should be reserved for anyone in the fight, not someone commanding the fight remotely.
Some of the general staff I have worked under (not all) deserve nothing more than a Laurel and Hearty Handshake for their leadership. One exception was "The Bear", Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. IMHO, he was a general who felt more at ease shooting the shit with his subordinates. Rank didn't matter to him.
Doug MacArthur had a bigger ego than Patton and Montgomery combined. He was a pompous ass. Everything was always about him. He used his position for financial gain. A lot of what he was doing in Korea was positioning himself to run for President. Truman torpedoed that. He was the last true emperor of Japan. Again, setting himself up financially. To this day, one can spot his silhouette all over Japan, on the sides of vending machines with the "Boss" label. "Boss" being what he liked to be called while in Japan.
I find it hard to see the justification for awarding anyone above O-6 the MOH. I have seen and read of good soldiers who earn the MOH, then later reach O-7 and above. In my opinion, the award should be reserved for anyone in the fight, not someone commanding the fight remotely.
Some of the general staff I have worked under (not all) deserve nothing more than a Laurel and Hearty Handshake for their leadership. One exception was "The Bear", Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. IMHO, he was a general who felt more at ease shooting the shit with his subordinates. Rank didn't matter to him.
Would depend, if they lead from the front that is a different thing. Patton put his ass in harms way more often than MacArthur, and as much as Patton was another ego driven ahole who participated in the attack on the Bonus Army, I could live with him getting the MoH as his leadership was decisive and ultimately saved lives. But I'd have hated to serve under him.
MountainRaven
11-26-18, 00:57
Would depend, if they lead from the front that is a different thing. Patton put his ass in harms way more often than MacArthur, and as much as Patton was another ego driven ahole who participated in the attack on the Bonus Army, I could live with him getting the MoH as his leadership was decisive and ultimately saved lives. But I'd have hated to serve under him.
Interestingly, Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (son of President Theodore Roosevelt) was the only general officer to land at Normandy with the first wave of the amphibious assault, the only general officer who had a son also land at Normandy with the first wave of troops, and the oldest man to participate in the assault. He was 56, had a heart condition, and arthritis, and had to walk with the assistance of a cane. And it was a heart attack that did BrigGen Roosevelt in, in July of '44.
He was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor:
For gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 6 June 1944, in France. After two verbal requests to accompany the leading assault elements in the Normandy invasion had been denied, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt's written request for this mission was approved and he landed with the first wave of the forces assaulting the enemy-held beaches. He repeatedly led groups from the beach, over the seawall and established them inland. His valor, courage, and presence in the very front of the attack and his complete unconcern at being under heavy fire inspired the troops to heights of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Although the enemy had the beach under constant direct fire, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt moved from one locality to another, rallying men around him, directed and personally led them against the enemy. Under his seasoned, precise, calm, and unfaltering leadership, assault troops reduced beach strong points and rapidly moved inland with minimum casualties. He thus contributed substantially to the successful establishment of the beachhead in France.
(Of note: BrigGen Roosevelt did not get along with Patton, as Roosevelt was unfond of Patton's spit-and-polish approach to appearance in the field.)
What's with all the hate against Supreme Allied Commander -General Douglas MacArthur?
What's with all the hate against Supreme Allied Commander -General Douglas MacArthur?
He was a giant dick who attacked WWI veterans (literally), who bailed on a lot of guys and left them to their fate in the Pacific and then got a MoH for his efforts.
ramairthree
11-26-18, 18:41
Interestingly, Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (son of President Theodore Roosevelt) was the only general officer to land at Normandy with the first wave of the amphibious assault, the only general officer who had a son also land at Normandy with the first wave of troops, and the oldest man to participate in the assault. He was 56, had a heart condition, and arthritis, and had to walk with the assistance of a cane. And it was a heart attack that did BrigGen Roosevelt in, in July of '44.
He was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor:
(Of note: BrigGen Roosevelt did not get along with Patton, as Roosevelt was unfond of Patton's spit-and-polish approach to appearance in the field.)
He was awesome.
Used his own money to buy his men better boots in WWI.
Fought to get in on the Normandy landing with his son after already kicking ass in Africa.
Was both reviled by Patton because of his disdain for spit and polish, but also respected by Patton who respected his bravery.
He could have sat out WWII as a rich man getting even richer.
He hid his heart condition from the Army knowing the exertion alone would kill him off much sooner than staying home, let alone other combat risks.
Coal Dragger
11-26-18, 20:24
What's with all the hate against Supreme Allied Commander -General Douglas MacArthur?
Because he was an overrated, egotistical, marginally competent General Officer who was more interested in his own self aggrandizement than just about anything else.
There’s a reason FDR kept him in the Pacific: because FDR knew that MacArthur would bugger up Eupean Theater of Operations, and the US Navy and USMC were going to do the bulk of the important early campaign work.
Macarthur was already retired wasn't he? He served in WW1, was the Field Marshal of the Philippine army and in 1930, at the age of 50, he was the Chief of Staff. That means in 1941, MacArthur would have been 61 years old when he was given command over the Pacific. I don't think he was overrated by any means. This country is lucky to have had commanding officers like Macarthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz and Eisenhower. Im not going to say much about Eisenhower, but the others we are very fortunate to have had at the moment in time. We were at war with Japan, Germany and Italy and WW2 lasted 3.5 years for us. Early 1942 to mid 1945.
During the run up to WWII,MacArthur was the military advisor to the Philippine Government, he was brought back to active duty because he was in the right place at the right time, unfortunately for the Philipines.
It is true that hindsight is always 20/20, but if you read any history at all you should know that even after being forewarned by the attack on Pearl Harbor, MacArthur's command in the Philippines was caught with their knickers around their knees. Everything went downhill from there.
Despite his exploits in WWI, MacArthur performance in WWII was substandard.
Macarthur was already retired wasn't he? He served in WW1, was the Field Marshal of the Philippine army and in 1930, at the age of 50, he was the Chief of Staff. That means in 1941, MacArthur would have been 61 years old when he was given command over the Pacific. I don't think he was overrated by any means. This country is lucky to have had commanding officers like Macarthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz and Eisenhower. Im not going to say much about Eisenhower, but the others we are very fortunate to have had at the moment in time. We were at war with Japan, Germany and Italy and WW2 lasted 3.5 years for us. Early 1942 to mid 1945.
Patton was only 5 years younger and made far more significant contributions. And it's not really that I hate MacArthur, I just don't think he did anything to rate a MoH and nobody else on the list you mentioned got one.
During the run up to WWII,MacArthur was the military advisor to the Philippine Government, he was brought back to active duty because he was in the right place at the right time, unfortunately for the Philipines.
It is true that hindsight is always 20/20, but if you read any history at all you should know that even after being forewarned by the attack on Pearl Harbor, MacArthur's command in the Philippines was caught with their knickers around their knees. Everything went downhill from there.
Despite his exploits in WWI, MacArthur performance in WWII was substandard.
That's an important distinction. People always talk about how FDR knowingly sacrificed Pearl Harbor to get into the war. And while it's true that everyone knew the attack was coming, I don't think anyone thought it was coming to Pearl Harbor and I especially don't think FDR was astute enough to recognize the pretty advanced strategy the Japanese had come up with to try and take us out of the war with one strike.
By contrast, everyone and their mother should have expected the Japanese to move on the Philippines and anyone who didn't see that one coming was borderline incompetent. The only real difference is everyone expected the US fleet at Pearl to be able to defend the Philippines when called upon and of course that option ceased to exist on Dec. 7, but still a good commander should always have a Plan B and it seems MacArthur really didn't and as a result the Japanese had little trouble taking it.
Patton was only 5 years younger and made far more significant contributions. And it's not really that I hate MacArthur, I just don't think he did anything to rate a MoH and nobody else on the list you mentioned got one.
I agree with you that MacArthur didn't do anything glorious for a Medal of Honor. I actually didn't know he received one.
titsonritz
11-27-18, 11:00
By contrast, everyone and their mother should have expected the Japanese to move on the Philippines and anyone who didn't see that one coming was borderline incompetent. The only real difference is everyone expected the US fleet at Pearl to be able to defend the Philippines when called upon and of course that option ceased to exist on Dec. 7, but still a good commander should always have a Plan B and it seems MacArthur really didn't and as a result the Japanese had little trouble taking it.
Hell, it was laid out decades prior.
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/this-1925-novel-inspired-japans-attack-on-pearl-harbor/
As the United States commemorates the 76th anniversary of the Japanese surprise attack against the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 few people know that Japanese war plans were inspired by a 1925 novel titled The Great Pacific War, written by the British author Hector Bywater.
The novel predicted a Japanese surprise attack on U.S. naval forces in the Pacific, the Allies’ island hopping strategy used during the actual Pacific War, and the eventual U.S. victory over Japan. Bywater’s work of fiction is thought to have influenced Imperial Japan’s chief naval strategist and commander of the Imperial Navy’s Combined Fleet, Marshal Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto, when he was planning his naval campaign against the United States.
Hell, it was laid out decades prior.
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/this-1925-novel-inspired-japans-attack-on-pearl-harbor/
Thanks, for that link, it took me many places. Going to see if the library can get his works on inter-library loan.
Billy Mitchell is often credited with the general blueprint of the Pearl Harbor attack as well. Also in the mid 20's.
ETA: it was in his book "Winged Defense" in 1925. As early as 1910, Mitchell predicted that we would eventually go to war with Japan.
titsonritz
11-27-18, 13:07
Billy Mitchell is often credited with the general blueprint of the Pearl Harbor attack as well. Also in the mid 20's.
ETA: it was in his book "Winged Defense" in 1925. As early as 1910, Mitchell predicted that we would eventually go to war with Japan.
A little twist of interest, Major General Douglas MacArthur sat on Billy Mitchell's 1925 court martial.
Hell, it was laid out decades prior.
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/this-1925-novel-inspired-japans-attack-on-pearl-harbor/
As the United States commemorates the 76th anniversary of the Japanese surprise attack against the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 few people know that Japanese war plans were inspired by a 1925 novel titled The Great Pacific War, written by the British author Hector Bywater.
The novel predicted a Japanese surprise attack on U.S. naval forces in the Pacific, the Allies’ island hopping strategy used during the actual Pacific War, and the eventual U.S. victory over Japan. Bywater’s work of fiction is thought to have influenced Imperial Japan’s chief naval strategist and commander of the Imperial Navy’s Combined Fleet, Marshal Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto, when he was planning his naval campaign against the United States.
More importantly, the attack on Pearl Harbor was modeled on the British attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940 where torpedo bombers crippled the Italian navy. The Japanese were paying attention but we still considered Pearl Harbors waters to be too shallow for a similar attack.
ThirdWatcher
11-27-18, 18:50
It wouldn’t surprise me if Japan started planning the attack after the Great White Fleet visited them in 1908. There are always unintended consequences.
My Father was one of 16 children, his older brother and my namesake enlisted in the Ohio National Guard and ended up in the Philippines in a M3 Stuart
tank unit.
When the Japanese attacked his unit was sent to the front and were defeated in detail, their graves are unmarked, my Father enlisted in the Marine Corps
in 1942 because he knew he would go to the PTO, he never talked about it much.
platoonDaddy
11-28-18, 16:09
In my dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful mutter of the battlefield. But in the evening of my memory always I come back to West Point. Always there echoes and re-echoes: Duty, Honor, Country.
Today marks my final roll call with you. But I want you to know that when I cross the river, my last conscious thoughts will be of the Corps, and the Corps, and the Corps.
I bid you farewell
My Father was one of 16 children, his older brother and my namesake enlisted in the Ohio National Guard and ended up in the Philippines in a M3 Stuart
tank unit.
When the Japanese attacked his unit was sent to the front and were defeated in detail, their graves are unmarked, my Father enlisted in the Marine Corps
in 1942 because he knew he would go to the PTO, he never talked about it much.
The untold stories of those brave men abandoned to fight on their own in those first days of WW2 would be amazing to hear.
The untold stories of those brave men abandoned to fight on their own in those first days of WW2 would be amazing to hear.
Was really disappointed that HBO's "The Pacific" didn't start there.
HardToHandle
11-28-18, 20:48
My Father was one of 16 children, his older brother and my namesake enlisted in the Ohio National Guard and ended up in the Philippines in a M3 Stuart tank unit.
When the Japanese attacked his unit was sent to the front and were defeated in detail, their graves are unmarked, my Father enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1942 because he knew he would go to the PTO, he never talked about it much.
The M3s in the defense of Luzon are one of those unfortunate stories, especially since they were the first large loss of National Guard units in the war, wiping out a generation of young men from small towns. The units had only arrived weeks before the Japanese invasion but they at least had the state of the art U.S. tank for the period. True heroes that fought unwinable odds.
A lot of criticism of McArthur focuses on the loss of air assets in the initial Japanese attack and the ineffectual attempt to defend the initial land beaches. Realistically, the resources to defend the Philippines simply did not exist, but with six more months, the U.S. defenses might have been more impressive. The Japanese landing forces were battle hardened and when you read the land defense put up by the Filipino Scouts, U.S. sailors turned into infantry and other ad hoc units, the delaying tactics paid off.
The B-25 Tokyo Raid was pulled off just days after Bataan fell to the Japanese. The Navy effectively lost nearly the entire Pacific battleship fleet but were bombing the Japanese homeland six months later. That was cold comfort to the survivors on the Bataan Death March, but the delaying defense was nothing short of epic.
McArthur’s personal failings were many. The Bataan defense was masterful and strategically vital to delay the Japanese, even if MG Wainwright and the soldiers on the ground deserve the credit.
Every drop of U.S. blood spilled in Luzon in 1941-42 was paid back in full. The June 1942 Battle Of Midway marked the high tide of the Japanese Empire. Only a few months later in August, the U.S. landed on Guadalcanal and began to roll back the Japanese. The Europe first talk did not mean the Pacific War was quiet, but quite the opposite.
sundance435
11-30-18, 12:01
Another question: Why did our Country go with a “Europe First” strategy after being attacked by Japan? A lot of good soldiers were sacrificed (and I knew two Bataan Death March survivors) thanks to this decision.
Germany was always seen as the bigger threat by FDR and others (and probably rightly so). Japan, in its antebellum state, would never be capable of actually achieving supremacy over the U.S. That was far from given with Germany. Whether the U.S. would've supported a preemptive declaration of war against Germany was a real concern, but it was rendered moot when Hitler declared war first on Dec. 11th.
My guess is Germany was more a threat to nation loss than Japan. I'm certain our attention would've shifted quickly if it wasn't. I think militarily speaking technological advances by Germany was a big factor and they were fielding some serious hardware. I do think we are lucky from the standpoint of leadership pitfalls and manufacturing difficulties, otherwise we would've had a tough go.
Triage of wounds/threat one could say.
That's always been my understanding. Germany was perceived as the longer-term threat (and rightfully so). Plus, even on Dec. 8th 1941, the Soviet Union was very much in danger of falling to the Germans, which would've effectively been the end of the European war for several years. Imagine if, with the Soviets out of the war, the Germans had 50-100 divisions waiting for an Allied landing instead of an understrength 4. We would've needed 3 simultaneous D-Day landings to achieve the same effect. That's if an invasion of England didn't happen in the meantime. The Japanese were never really in a position to defeat both the Nationalist and Communist Chinese, especially after stretching themselves past the breaking point by taking Indochina.
sundance435
11-30-18, 12:20
It wouldn’t surprise me if Japan started planning the attack after the Great White Fleet visited them in 1908. There are always unintended consequences.
I'm trying to get through "The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945". Honestly, Japanese names become confusing and hard to remember and the book itself is a bit of a slog. What I've learned is that Japanese politics prior to the war were complete chaos, with coups being commonplace. Eventually, the military filled the political void, but even then war with the U.S. was not a foregone conclusion. There were two camps in the Japanese army (the army always dominated the navy on political matters): One wanted to abandon Manchuria and allow Japanese industry to catch up to a point where it could sustain a large war (seen as late 40's at the earliest). The other wanted to conquer all of China and Indochina preemptively, in part out of their temerity towards the West's political will and fighting spirit. You can probably guess which faction won out.
More interesting to me, though, was the very real belief by some at the top of Japan's leadership (including, to some extent, Tojo) that peace could be achieved with the U.S. There were startling missteps on our part in the handling of peace negotiations (mainly by SoS Hull) with the Japanese. Add that to warped interpretations of the Emperor's will on the Japanese side and war was the only outcome. Our perception today is that peace negotiations were just a ruse, but contemporary Japanese accounts indicate that they weren't. I would say it was close to an even split among the top echelons of the Japanese government over peace or war, with maybe a bare majority favoring war. Even Tojo was warily hopeful that peace could be achieved as late as the end of October of '41.
My Father was one of 16 children, his older brother and my namesake enlisted in the Ohio National Guard and ended up in the Philippines in a M3 Stuart
tank unit.
When the Japanese attacked his unit was sent to the front and were defeated in detail, their graves are unmarked, my Father enlisted in the Marine Corps
in 1942 because he knew he would go to the PTO, he never talked about it much.
I just finished "The Things Our Fathers Saw" and I highly recommend it for a soldier's take on what happened in the Philippines, both the battle and the brutality of the Bataan march. It really opened my eyes to an aspect of the war that is often overlooked. I can't even fathom the special hell our guys went through on Corregidor after the Japs had them completely cut off and under nonstop artillery and naval gunfire, and then the march to Bataan.
I'm trying to get through "The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945". Honestly, Japanese names become confusing and hard to remember and the book itself is a bit of a slog. What I've learned is that Japanese politics prior to the war were complete chaos, with coups being commonplace. Eventually, the military filled the political void, but even then war with the U.S. was not a foregone conclusion. There were two camps in the Japanese army (the army always dominated the navy on political matters): One wanted to abandon Manchuria and allow Japanese industry to catch up to a point where it could sustain a large war (seen as late 40's at the earliest). The other wanted to conquer all of China and Indochina preemptively, in part out of their temerity towards the West's political will and fighting spirit. You can probably guess which faction won out.
More interesting to me, though, was the very real belief by some at the top of Japan's leadership (including, to some extent, Tojo) that peace could be achieved with the U.S. There were startling missteps on our part in the handling of peace negotiations (mainly by SoS Hull) with the Japanese. Add that to warped interpretations of the Emperor's will on the Japanese side and war was the only outcome. Our perception today is that peace negotiations were just a ruse, but contemporary Japanese accounts indicate that they weren't. I would say it was close to an even split among the top echelons of the Japanese government over peace or war, with maybe a bare majority favoring war. Even Tojo was warily hopeful that peace could be achieved as late as the end of October of '41.
Congratulations, you actually understand more about this subject than probably 90% of the US population.
You'll want to read about the Black Dragons which were basically a political mafia that ran things behind the scenes but also harbored world views with strong parallels to the German SS. Then you will want to research Unit 731.
Kind of bringing this back from the dead. There was a link to an article about the Troops unleashed on the Bonus Army in the This Is How Civil Wars Start Thread, it included this gem:
The veterans fled across the Anacostia River, and (President) Hoover ordered the assault to stop. But MacArthur saw the protesters as communist agitators intent on overthrowing the U.S. government, and continued the operation.
More than 1,000 injured veterans ended up in area hospitals. One veteran died and a veteran’s wife miscarried.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was then MacArthur’s junior aid. He didn’t approve of the action. “I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there,” he said during a later interview. “I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff.”
Ike was a bright boy, wasn't he?
Kind of bringing this back from the dead. There was a link to an article about the Troops unleashed on the Bonus Army in the This Is How Civil Wars Start Thread, it included this gem:
The veterans fled across the Anacostia River, and (President) Hoover ordered the assault to stop. But MacArthur saw the protesters as communist agitators intent on overthrowing the U.S. government, and continued the operation.
More than 1,000 injured veterans ended up in area hospitals. One veteran died and a veteran’s wife miscarried.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was then MacArthur’s junior aid. He didn’t approve of the action. “I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there,” he said during a later interview. “I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff.”
Ike was a bright boy, wasn't he?
Look a little deeper and you will find George Patton was also there that day attacking WWI vets.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.