Anyone one that dislike General Douglas MacArthur?

Question:why was general Douglas MacArthur a bad general?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: why was general Douglas MacArthur a bad general?

MacArthur had talent, did some good work (for instance his service in WW-1 is vastly under-rated). There is much to like about his Island hopping campaign in the Pacific.

On the other hand...
1. US forces in the Phillippines were woefully unprepared for Tamashita's offensive. MacArthur was embarassed in that campaign (even though the Japanese did not outnumber the US and Fillipino troops--a basic prereq for most offensive battles, that you outnumber the defenders).

2. I don't know where you got the data about his troops having a lower mortality rate. I suspect that is a function of how you measure the number of troops or it's just a comparison against casualty rates in the Central Pacific which saw some horrific fighting. I frankly suspect that the fighting in North Africa produced a significantly lower casualty rate for US troops than the Pacific. He displayed tremendous ego in how he conducted himself in the Phillippines campaign in an attempt to enact revenge against Tamashita. On the other hand, MacArthur's operations in New Guinea were outstanding and generally regarded as a classic case of manuerver warfare at its best.

3. He was insubordinate to his Commander in Chief as well as the Joint Chiefs. He treated the President of the United States with disrespect, he repeatedly ignored orders and requests from Truman.

4. When North Korea invaded the South and US troops were introduced to halt the attack, the US forces were fat, untrained, poorly equipped, uninformed and mostly poorly led. I don't hold all of that accountable to MacArthur but surely the military commander of those occupation troops is responsible for at least some degree of force readiness. But the readiness of our troops at the beginning of the Korean conflict was shockingly bad.

5. Inchon was brilliant. But the rest of the Korean war that MacArthur fought was terrible. Tactically he showed little understanding for the war (as the US insisted upon a fighting doctrine that put us on the roads and in the valleys, making us vulnerable to ambush and too dependent on vehicles). Ridgway corrected all of this when he took command from MacArthur. MacArthur was egotistical, convinced that he knew the 'Asian Mind" and was positive that the Chinese would never intervene in Korea, ignored all evidence to the contrary, placed Army, ROK and Marine units in insecure positions in weather they were not prepared for, divided his forces and is directly accountable for the disasters that fell upon UN forces when the Chinese intervened. He surrounded himself with syncophants and "'yes-men" on his staff, they were far from the battlefield and badly uninformed about what was going on in Korea. His performance in Korea, other than Inchon, has to rank as among the poorest among US senior officers in modern warfare (ie: post WW-2) on record.

Finally, if one looks at the post-war records of Germany and Japan, one sees in Germany a country that has publicly acknowledged their mistake with Nazism, apologized to the world. In Japan, we see a country that accuses us of inhumane acts by using the atomic bomb, teaches that they didn't start the war in the Pacific and that Pearl Harbor was justified, denies that the "Pleasure Women" were sex slaves (insists that they all volunteered) and has never apologized to any nation for the approximately 30 million civilians they killed during the war. I put some of this to MacArthur due to how he conducted the reconstruction and occupation of Japan.

Edit: as to the last post about "if we'd listening to MacArthur we might never have had a communist china..." the PRC existed before the Korean conflict happened. Mao et. al. took control because of an incompetent and corrupt Chiang Kai Shek regime that was easily toppled. MacArthur was convinced that if only we allowed Chaing's troops to invade the mainland that the PRC would be toppled (we now know that was wrong). He was also convinced that the PRC would never intervene in Korea (he was wrong). And he was convinced that US troops would easily beat the PRC troops in Korea (he was wrong). When it comes to MacArthur and his analysis of China, he was consistently wrong.

i don't know where you got that information but you or whoever asked you this, are very wrong. macarthur is one of america's best generals- ever. his strategies and his planning are nothing short of brilliance. the forces that served under him had the lowest casualty rate of any general in ww2. he was revered by his troops and other area commanders. his daring and knowledge led the u.n. forces under his command to storm an area that according to the joint chiefs would be a disaster. that place is inchon, south korea. his island hopping campaign in the western pacific was also pure brilliance- bypass the strongholds and hit the enemy where they least expect it, effectively cutting off their supplies and letting them die on the vine. a bad general?? i don't think so.

His actions were considered as military insubordination in some circles. However, those same actions won him the admiration of others. As has been said, "One man's hero is another man's traitor."

I think you're wrong, Douglas MacArthur was one of the best generals in our history.

Harry Truman had a problem with him, but had we listed to MacArthur, and not Truman, there may have never been a Communist China. MacArthur wanted to wipe them out.