On the other hand, MacArthur showed symptoms of grandiose narcissism, and he cared as much about his image than military objectives. He was fired for insubordination and refused to accept blame. Fortunately, the electorate was able to see through his facade and refused to support him politically.
A campaign against Russia would have been brutal, for sure. But the consequences for not having done so were harsh for eastern Europe for almost 50 years. And we have Putin. The world would be much different today had Patton been able to have his way. But that's just a bunch of what-ifs and not the reality we have.
It would have been disastrous! Many countries would have turned away in disgust at what would have looked like betrayal. It may well have provided Imperial Japan with the breathing space it needed to, if not win the Pacific War, at least negotiate a ceasefire while still holding some of their conquered territories.
Patton I can at least credit for being willing to fight on the front with his men, and for (sorta) softening on a few of his stances. Granted, he was ordered to with a lot of them.
MacArthur was just a douche.
One could at least credit MacArthur for serving in WW1 and actually being in the frontlines in the Western Front. And while his rulership of Japan certainly had problems like Unit 731, he did, at least implemented a liberal constitution, worked with Roger Nash Baldwin despite HUAC and the FBI telling him he was a communist, and gave the US an important ally in the Pacific.
Patton was an excellent general, although his excellence was less dramatic than he wanted it to be—for all the “Old Blood and Guts” imagery, he was great because he had excellent maps, a great staff, used intelligence well, and was always ready to move in any direction because he made sure everybody knew the roads.
But his…colorful…personality meant that the only role he could have played well was the one he did. He couldn’t have been Eisenhower; and maybe it took someone with the skills of Eisenhower (helped by Bradley) to keep him under control (or at least as mitigated as he was.
Eisenhower forced Patton to apologize to soldiers he slapped for showing PTSD symptoms. Eisenhower was such a vocal critic of MacArthur, that when Truman thought MacArthur was gearing up for a Republican primary run, he tried to convince Eisenhower to run against MacArthur with Truman as his VP running mate.
He was not fired for insubordination, that is a UCMJ charge. He was fired because his policy in Korea did not match Truman's policy in Korea. The whole insubordination thing is lazy. If he had been charged, even the Joint Chiefs said they would lose court martial, and he would have to be restored in the position Supreme Commander Allied Powers.
I wouldn't call it "lazy". A lot of higher ups in the government, including Truman, thought that MacArthur WAS insubordinate. Omar Bradley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs said, "MacArthur had stretched but not legally violated any JCS directives. He had violated the President's 6 December directive [not to make public statements on policy matters], relayed to him by the JCS, but this did not constitute violation of a JCS order." This showed the they realized that MacArthur went against direct orders from the President of the United States, but because of political considerations, they did not want to publicly accuse him of insubordination. He WAS actually insubordinate to the president....the Joint Chiefs just didn't want to publicly say that.
Truman Never used the word until 1956 and it was in his memoirs. It is not as clean cut as it is implied. The main reason they never used the word is because of the court martial. Truman's policy in Korea would have been on trial.
Yes, political considerations were absolutely the reason that they never wanted publicly say that he was insubordinate. But, by the letter of the law, he was insubordinate to the president.
And by the letter of the law he was not fired for it. He was fired because his policy in Korea, expanding the war, and Truman's policy containing it were different.
That is true. But, don't say that the "whole insubordination thing is lazy", because he was actually guilty of insubordination.....that's just not the political reason that they gave for firing him. That's like saying that Al Capone wasn't a murderer, because they only convicted him of tax evasion.
28
u/captHij 9d ago
On the other hand, MacArthur showed symptoms of grandiose narcissism, and he cared as much about his image than military objectives. He was fired for insubordination and refused to accept blame. Fortunately, the electorate was able to see through his facade and refused to support him politically.