Reddit mentions of American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880 - 1964

American Caesar by William Manchester is an excellent book about MacArthur. Certainly the man had his flaws and even made grave mistakes, but he was a brilliant general and I've actually never read a single source or "serious historian" that says he wasn't or even disputes this. The Inchon landing alone has been consistently praised for its boldness and daring, as was his entire campaign in the South Pacific. He greatly improved up on the theories of triphibious warfare and had immense insight into logistics.

The Central Pacific had a few good victories, but also suffered from horrible casualties; among the worst in American history. In the South Pacific the Americans were actually fighting more battles, against greater numbers, across more territory with fewer casualties. MacArthur's strategy of letting Japanese garrisons "wither on the vine" saved tens of thousands of American lives.

It's not easily thought of that New Guinea would stretch from New York to the Rocky Mountains. Yes, the South Pacific covered a lot of ground. Check out the maps because it's almost impossible to imagine the scope of the military campaigns. In the South Pacific attacks were launched which were comparable to landing in Berlin from London. The distances are almost mind boggling.

MacArthur certainly had his flaws, but they were mostly from arrogance and a lack of diplomacy, not from poor generalship. Yeah, he was kind of a pompous asshole a lot of the time, but he got away with it because he was brilliant. People like Roosevelt don't put up with that behavior unless you're brilliant. MacArthur was basically the Gregory House of the Pacific War.

As for our armchair strategical on the Philippines vs. Formosa, I can only say that I think the US was right in choosing a Philippine strategy. Certainly MacArthur favored this for personal reasons, but I doubt Roosevelt or Nimitz did. Certainly control of the Philippine Sea prevented the transport of resources from now-Indonesia to the Home Islands (again I must give plenty of credit to the US submariners). I think the US did have an important political goal in liberating US territory from Japanese control. After all the goal wasn't only to defeat Japan, but also to set up a good political situation in the Pacific for the post-war.

Whether an invasion of Formosa would have lead to a quicker US victory is pure Monday morning quarterbacking. I think the political objectives, at that stage in the war, were highly important. Americans and subjects of America were being held captive by a foreign power and at that time we were still looking at a victory in 47 or 48, so liberating them was important. I see it as comparable to the liberation of France; yes, the Allies could have invaded Germany proper and defeated the Nazis without liberating France, but there were political as well as military considerations.

Really, I'm not going to convince you and I doubt much can be made from discussion in this form. I've provided you with a few good books that I think, once read, would back up the points I've made. I would enjoy it if you could provide me with the sources upon which you've based your opinions. The Pacific War seems to be of interest to both of us and I never tire of reading about it, so please send me some books you think bolster your version of events. I'll be happy to read them.

I do think Machester's biography of MacArthur is a great read. He doesn't pull any punches on criticizing MacArthur and presents a good portrait of the man as well as the General. It's worth a read if its a subject you're passionate about.

Please let me know if you have any suggested reading on the topic.

lol. Good point.

The origin, if anyone cares: https://www.amazon.com/American-Caesar-Douglas-MacArthur-1880/dp/0316024740

EDIT: Decided to change my flair in the face of infallible logic. Don't worry, I won't have you lashed to a cross like the rest of these degenerates. It's useful that you happened by.

MacArthur's landing at Inch'on was perhaps the second greatest achievement in American military history, second only to Winfield Scott's Battle of Veracruz. Both are regularly studied today at military institutions. Yes, MacArthur overstepped his bounds, but Truman is often forgiven because people tend to look at Europe rather than Asia in the post-WWII era. Truman did fantastically well in Europe but completely ignored Asia. Yet, MacArthur predicted the U.S.'s inaction in Korea would have consequences generations later.

Sources: William Manchester's [American Caesar] (http://www.amazon.com/American-Caesar-Douglas-MacArthur-1880/dp/0316024740) and Daniel Howe's What Hath God Wrought.

lots of people hate him for whatever reason, but strong rival for best with napoleon i think is Douglass MacArthur, from a guy who came from black powder wild west type combat and thinking growing up with his army officer dad fighting indians when combustion engines and smokeless powder werent even invented yet let alone aircraft, to going to conceptualizing and waging super effect air-land-sea combat in the pacific, i think is pretty amazing. no reddit post can justify him or discredit him, so read this book and make your own judgements, it tells it all the good and the bad https://www.amazon.com/American-Caesar-Douglas-MacArthur-1880/dp/0316024740/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0/135-2867325-0853746?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=B17184XHBDZTNXK8R1TQ

American Caeser