Was General Mac Arthur famed more for his outspokenness or his generalship?

Answer 1

MacArthur was a highly controversial figure even at the height of his military career. The MacArthur controversy shows no sign of being settled, one way or the other.

The question “How good a General was he, as opposed to how good a self-publicist?” continues to be argued, fiercely.

In his lifetime, people were rarely neutral about MacArthur: they either worshipped him or detested him. That “gut reaction” continues to sway the Answers that your Question receives.

So, I should confess my own gut-feel about MacArthur before offering my version of an Answer to your Question. Overall, I don’t like him, don’t trust him, and don’t buy into his super-soldier image. I accept that he had talent, perhaps even flashes of genius. But his startling inconsistency tells me that this man had feet of clay. Enormous ego; absorption with image, not reality; considered himself to be the center of the universe.

- - - - - -

So, now that you know where I stand on the man himself, here are my views on his performance: -

[A] 1942 PHILIPPINES DISASTER:

In the Philippines in 1942, MacArthur suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of American foreign wars. The inadequacy of MacArthur’s preparations to defend the Philippines contributed hugely to that defeat. His dithering indecision over the B-17’s and then over the retreat into Bataan (especially the delay in stockpiling supplies in Bataan) made that defeat the more certain and the more tragically costly.

In adversity in the Philippines in 1942, MacArthur showed a surprising lack of resilience: surprising, because in France in 1918 he had on several occasions displayed great personal courage. I think that the explanation is that MacArthur was one of those characters who is brave when winning, but all too prone to crack under the strain when things look grim. Then, and in the SWPA before the tide turned, he was petulant and reproachful, constantly blaming his superiors in Washington, and his subordinate commanders and their troops.

In my opinion, the commander responsible for a chaotic débâcle such as in the Philippines in 1942 should never have been given another active command. MacArthur, however, was too eminent a figure to be sidelined without repercussions at home, and loss of national prestige. So, instead of sacking him, the US gave MacArthur the Medal of Honor and boosted his PR image as a hero.

[B] 1943 – 45 SWPA:

In his next appointment as commander of the SWPA for the return journey from Papua to Luzon, his judgments were sometimes right, sometimes ill-advised. The credit for their ultimate success rests as much on Admiral Halsey on the spot and on the Joint Chiefs in Washington as on MacArthur. The prescience with which he at times seems to have been endowed was generally the outcome of the cracking of the Japanese naval code before Pearl Harbor; even then his responses were often too slow or too cautious.

It is also questionable whether the resources poured into the SWPA offensive campaigns from 1943 onwards were dictated by any vital strategic need, or more by MacArthur’s self-centered insistence on recapturing the Philippines (“I will return.”)

In his operations in New Guinea and the Philippines, MacArthur had to rely on maneuver and overwhelming fire power from land, sea and air forces. It is to his credit that he used these assets intelligently. But, when in 1942-43 he had under his command some of the best infantry in the world, he was markedly distrustful of their performance: could this be because they were mostly Australian?

[C] KOREA:

MacArthur’s response to the Communist invasion of South Korea was as good as could be expected, given the paltry land-force resources at his immediate disposal --- and, for that matter, the lack of preparedness of the US Army in an overall sense to deal with such a crisis.

As had been the case in 1942 with the Japanese in the Philippines, MacArthur seriously overestimated the North Korean strength opposing him at Pusan (by a factor of 5 times!). But the perimeter was held.

With Pusan secure, and with full command of both air and sea, it was inevitable that MacArthur’s thoughts would turn to a replay of the amphibious landing encirclements that had carried him back from Papua to Luzon. And MacArthur was able to bring overwhelming strength into the Inchon landings: X Corps had 70,000 fighting men; the North Korean defense at Inchon mustered 2,500, with another 4,000 in Seoul. Inchon was certainly a good decision: but it was such an obvious choice under the circumstances that I have never been able to understand why it was hailed as a stroke of genius.

But, after Inchon and the initial pursuit of the North Koreans across the 38th Parallel, MacArthur seems to have been so convinced of his own genius that he ignored all the clear warnings about China’s military sensitivity; and furthermore allowed the UN troops to scatter into haphazard clusters that could only have been regarded as “secure” if their enemy was truly and utterly beaten.

After the Chinese intervention, it was all over for MacArthur, because he lost all sense of reality. Truman had no choice but to dismiss him.
-------

Throughout the last ten years of his military career, MacArthur’s insatiable appetite for adulation made him prey to devoted followers who flattered his conviction that he was infallible and that people in Washington were conspiring against him.

Bottom line? A general with far too high an opinion of himself. Quite talented as a tactician, but clueless about the “big picture”, thanks to his self-absorption. Much better at Press Releases and posed Photo Opportunities than at actually winning wars.
----------------------------
EDIT: to Max Smart.
Yes, Max, I quite agree that the Inchon tidal patterns were a major concern. But, in truth, that was ALL that MacArthur had to worry about at Inchon. Apart from the question of "can we get the troops ashore?", landing at Inchon was a no-brainer, given the resources by then at MacArthur's disposal. That's why I scratch my head when folks say "Oh! How brilliant!"

Answer 2

In my opinion, General MacArthur was a better politician than General.He was famous for the propaganda his staff put out. He was famous during WW2 for having the least amount of casualties. However it was proven after the war that wasn't true, his troops had more casualties than General Nimitz's troops and he fought battles that weren't necessary, for personal reasons.His best move was Inchon (Korean War) but then he disobeyed the Presidents orders ( about not crossing the Yalu River) and his outspokenness about China almost got us into WW3.
He was over-rated as a General and was famous because his outspokenness and disobedience got him fired by the President.

EDIT

See Gromm's answer.

Gromm, the thing about Inchon was that it was such a poor harbor to try to land an invading army, it had shallow channels, poor beaches and an infamous tidal range that restricted landing operations to a few hours a day. Back then no one thought you could land a large army there, it was a huge risk.

Answer 3

This vastly overrated general was responsible for two of the three worst disasters in US military history -- Bataan/Corregidor, due to allowing his air force to be destroyed on the ground and dithering on what strategy to pursue until it was too late; and the rout of the 8th Army in North Korea, due to his stubborn dismissal of intelligence that conflicted with his own notions of the situation. There was major evidence of massive Chinese infiltration a month before the attacks, and the First Marine Division might well have been annihilated as well, had not the Marines, knowing better, uncharacteristically dragged their feet.

It is doubtful that, once a Japanese descent upon New Guinea had been stopped and Australia secure, the rest of his push up toward the Philippines was at all necessary, except to his own ego.

For self-aggrandizement and pompous publicity, however, his only possible rival in WWII was Montgomery.

Answer 4

Robert E Lee StoneWall Jackson Geo Washington and Geo Patton,were better Generals than Mac Arthur ever was.
More of poltical person. and by world war II
he was and old man.

Answer 5

That and his public outspokenness against the army (because they often blocked ... MacArthur is the greatest general and best strategist the war produced. ...

Answer 6

His big mouth but in that war the good generals were the ones who never stop talking ( Patton)