I am only writing about this because it keeps coming up in Second World War literature. I first learned about this issue in an undergrad college course I took on World War II several years ago. Douglas MacArthur comes across as a capable commander in both the Second World War and the Korean War. Regardless, any conversation about MacArthur has to reckon with his ego, which was more than just an unsavory character-trait. MacArthur's ego seems to have been a major driving force in US military policy and strategy in the Pacific theater of World War II. I would hate to think the lives of American soldiers were wasted on a strategy grounded on ego rather than military necessity. With that in mind, this discussion question is worth examining.
MacArthur's record in the battles of the South Pacific is on the whole exemplary, but the question is, did those battles have to be fought in the first place? Did the bloody fighting on Peleliu and the Philippine islands help shorten the war against Japan?
The answer is no.
MacArthur proposed a Philippines campaign to the president after the Mariana islands were secured in July 1944. Consider this passage from Antony Beevor's book on the war,
"Marshall and the air force chief ‘Hap’ Arnold, on the other hand, knew that MacArthur’s pet project would not hasten the end of the war in the Pacific in any way. With the Marianas secured, they now had their air bases for attacking the Japanese home islands." (Underline Added)
In July 1944, MacArthur was the only top-tier military official who advocated a campaign of liberation in the Philippines. Marshall, Nimitz, and many others preferred a more direct path to Japan via the Marianas now that Saipan and Guam were secured. This Central Pacific strategy offered a bee-line to Japan, by-passing all the Japanese-occupied strongholds in the South Pacific.
MacArthur's motive was personal. He had been the commander of US and Filipino armed forces in Manila when the Philippines was attacked by the Japanese in December 1941. In early 1942, he abandoned the remnants of his garrison on Bataan, leaving them to suffer the 'death march' without him. MacArthur left on a presidential order, but the defeat and the manner in which he departed the Philippines stung his ego and threatened his reputation as a commander. Besides, who could forget his highly dramatic broadcast in which he vowed to return?
MacArthur ultimately prevailed in making the case to President Roosevelt that the US had an obligation to liberate the Philippines as a matter of honor if for nothing else. MacArthur's argument was grounded in the fact that the Philippines had been a US protectorate and therefore the Americans had a moral duty to honor its security commitment to its ally.
1944 was an election year. Perhaps the timing of MacArthur's lobbying for a South Pacific campaign swayed the president because in July, Roosevelt was concerned that his lead over his challenger was slipping in the polls. FDR may have thought it imprudent to make an enemy of a media darling like MacArthur. Whatever the case, MacArthur got his way. Antony Beevor writes,
"the joint chiefs of staff agreed at the Octagon conference in Quebec that MacArthur could go ahead. He should start with the island of Leyte in the eastern Philippines in October. All preliminary operations were cancelled, with one exception, the capture of Peleliu in the Palau Islands some 800 kilometres to the east of Leyte."
It was decided that the campaign would kick-off with a landing on Peleliu on September 15, 1944. The idea was to knock out the Japanese airfield in four days of combat and then move westward to the Philippines with the rear cleared of major enemy activity. Admiral Nimitz believed, mistakenly, that the island was lightly defended. Instead of a four-day mop-up, it took nearly a month to end major combat operations and another month for the island to be deemed secure.
During my college course in 2006, I was required to read E.B. Sledge's memoir of the Pacific war as a soldier in the Marines. Unfortunately, I do not have the book in front of me for direct quotation, but his description of the combat scene on Peleliu will never leave me.
In With the Old Breed Sledge describes his landing craft being hung-up on coral reef and having to bail-out under a hail of gunfire. Sledge and his comrades had to crawl across the razor-sharp coral to get to the beach. He describes the experience at Peleliu as an absolute hell. Antony Beevor explains,
"Peleliu, less than eight kilometres long and less than three wide, looked on the map like the skull of a crocodile’s head with its jaws slightly open. It consisted of a hilly spine of sharp coral along the north-west shore, a flat centre on which lay the airfield, and mangrove swamps on the south-east shore. The island was ringed with coral reef which made the use of landing craft impossible. Only the amtracs could get over them."
So picture Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan on the hell-zone at Omaha beach. Now, picture Tom Hanks having to crawl across jagged coral on his belly, bullets wizzing above and around him, just to get to the hell-zone on the beach. Beevor echoes Sledge by telling us,"For marines who had fought in most of the island battles, Peleliu was the worst." After securing the beachhead, the Marines had to "get to grips with the defenders , the marines first had to cross the airfield and deal with blockhouses and barracks, which had been turned into a concrete fortress. In the opinion of many, Guadalcanal now seemed like a holiday outing."
In a later passage, Beevor wraps up the damage as follows, "Clearing Bloody Nose Ridge was an arduous affair in which grenades and flamethrowers were vital tools. Its caves provided the Japanese with interlocking fields of fire, and the fighting was such that the bulk of the island was not cleared until the end of September. It was not finally secured until the end of October. By then the 1st Marine Division’s casualty rate had risen to 6,526 , of which 1,252 were killed. And the 81st Division, which had to be brought in as reinforcements, lost another 3,278. Yet Peleliu could have been bypassed altogether. It was one of Nimitz’s rare mistakes."
Folks, this is what it took for MacArthur's Philippines campaign just to begin!
World War II was perhaps the last war in which supreme generals were celebrities on par with movie stars. Bernard Montgomery even autographed pictures for his fans as his army made its way through Sicily. Perhaps the most sickening example of American ego trumping military necessity was personified by General Mark Clark, who diverted Allied troops away from the crucial opportunity of trapping the German armies in central Italy in order to capture Rome- a prize of newspaper- making value, but of no military value. How many more thousands of Allied troops had to die in Italy to pay for Clark's selfish pursuit of glory!
All told, the Philippine invasions cost the Americans more than 62,000 casualties with nearly 14,000 dead. What if those battles didn't need to be fought?
In the run-up to the landings in the Philippines, its desperate people chaffing under Japanese occupation were inundated with leaflets and buttons emblazoned with the picture of Douglas MacArthur and the words "I Shall Return!" Doubtless, the expectation to Filipino and American prisoners that MacArthur was on his way, gave them hope to hang on a little longer. Perhaps honor and commitment really were good enough reasons to divert American strength away from a speedy knockout of Japan in order to liberate populations dear to Americans, but the role personal glory played in the decision-making of placing American soldiers in harm's way has never been thoroughly known by the American people, a people so enamored with their triumph in the Second World War.
Welcome! This is a place where I like to discuss the books I read and share the nuggets of understanding gleaned from them. Your comments and book recommendations are welcome!
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Underappreciated History: Hitler's Biological War in Italy
Most of us World War II buffs know Hitler liked Mussolini and saved his neck after the Duce was deposed by his people. But what is less known is the terrible vengeance Hitler exacted on the Italians for doing away with Mussolini and surrendering to the Allies. As soon as King Victor Immanuel placed the Duce under arrest, Hitler poured panzers into northern Italy, sent paratroopers to break-out Mussolini from jail, and flooded the country with the unholy organ's of Himmler's SS. Jews were rounded up wherever found and shipped off to the death camps. Civilians were murdered for the slightest provocation, real or imagined. The Germans seized the population's food and starvation was rampant. For the Americans and British making the Anzio landings in January 1944, a special surprise was in store for them:
"Although the Germans had not prepared conventional military defences, they had deliberately wreaked environmental sabotage on the area. At vast expense in the 1930s, Mussolini had drained the Pontine Marshes and settled 100,000 Great War veterans to farm the reclaimed land. Mosquitoes, which had plagued the region, were virtually eliminated. After the Italian surrender, two of Himmler’s scientists planned revenge on their former ally. They had the pumps turned off to flood much of the area again and destroyed the tidal gates. They then introduced the malaria-carrying breed of mosquito, which could survive in brackish water. The German authorities also confiscated stocks of quinine, so that the disease spread. The inhabitants not only found their land and homes wrecked, but more than 55,000 contracted malaria the following year. It was a clear case of biological warfare."
Historian Antony Beevor, excerpt from The Second World War
"Although the Germans had not prepared conventional military defences, they had deliberately wreaked environmental sabotage on the area. At vast expense in the 1930s, Mussolini had drained the Pontine Marshes and settled 100,000 Great War veterans to farm the reclaimed land. Mosquitoes, which had plagued the region, were virtually eliminated. After the Italian surrender, two of Himmler’s scientists planned revenge on their former ally. They had the pumps turned off to flood much of the area again and destroyed the tidal gates. They then introduced the malaria-carrying breed of mosquito, which could survive in brackish water. The German authorities also confiscated stocks of quinine, so that the disease spread. The inhabitants not only found their land and homes wrecked, but more than 55,000 contracted malaria the following year. It was a clear case of biological warfare."
Historian Antony Beevor, excerpt from The Second World War
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Endangered History Figure: Joseph Stalin
This is surprising to those of us who love history, but Stalin is in danger of becoming forgotten among the younger generations whose understanding of history is in many cases dim in general. The history channel, educators, and media culture have done a wonderful job of keeping the public informed of Adolf Hitler and his malignant role in the shaping of world history, but Stalin, the world leader who armies and weapons utterly crushed Hitler's empire, cast the iron curtain throughout Eastern Europe, and waged the Cold War, is underrepresented in the history education most of our youth receive.
This discrepancy was brought to my attention while reading a short and new bio on the Soviet dictator by Paul Johnson, called Stalin: The Kremlin Mountaineer. Johnson writes in his introduction:
"I have undertaken this short life of Joseph Stalin because I have discovered that among the youth, he is insufficiently known. Whereas Hitler figures prominently in the mass media, and Mao Tse-Tung's memory is kept alive in the continuing rise in power of the communist state he created, Stalin has receded into the shadows. I shall bring him forth and shine on him the pitiless light of history."
With that bang, Johnson kicks off his fast-paced and engaging short biography. I managed to knock out the audio version in two commutes to and from the school where I teach. I loved it so much, I started it over and listened to it again during the following two commutes. This gem of an extended essay can be bought cheaply on kindle and is a great resource in bringing the grand and merciless legacy of Joseph Stalin to our awareness.
This discrepancy was brought to my attention while reading a short and new bio on the Soviet dictator by Paul Johnson, called Stalin: The Kremlin Mountaineer. Johnson writes in his introduction:
"I have undertaken this short life of Joseph Stalin because I have discovered that among the youth, he is insufficiently known. Whereas Hitler figures prominently in the mass media, and Mao Tse-Tung's memory is kept alive in the continuing rise in power of the communist state he created, Stalin has receded into the shadows. I shall bring him forth and shine on him the pitiless light of history."
With that bang, Johnson kicks off his fast-paced and engaging short biography. I managed to knock out the audio version in two commutes to and from the school where I teach. I loved it so much, I started it over and listened to it again during the following two commutes. This gem of an extended essay can be bought cheaply on kindle and is a great resource in bringing the grand and merciless legacy of Joseph Stalin to our awareness.
Friday, July 10, 2015
History Update: Did Europe Sleepwalk Into World War I?
"What happened was not war by accident, but war by ill-conceived Austrian design with German support."
Max Hastings in Catastrophe 1914
There is a view that the royals and statesmen of 1914 stumbled blindly into World War I. Christopher Clark has written a book about the subject entitled Sleepwalkers. My own view is that the men of 1914 were not stumbling into war blindly, but rather, they made the war what it was out of the sum total of their foolish gambles. Austria gambled that German backing would deter Russia from intervening while the Austrians crushed Serbia. The Germans made the same gamble. The Russians gambled that they could put armies in the field before they were organized, trained, and supplied properly because they could count on the French to knock out the Germans from the west. The French made the reverse gamble. All of these gambles crashed and burned.
Hastings echoes my own view about the stakes involved in the defining conflict of the twentieth century. He's a British author who does not share the common view among his British peers that the war was for nothing. He seems to take aim at the Niall Ferguson thesis that Europe would have been better off if the British had sat back and watched the Germans conquer. Hastings writes that even though the Germans may have begun the war without specifically defined goals, they soon made clear how they intended to behave toward the vanquished once victory was achieved.
"The aim of the war is to provide us with security guarantees from east to west for the foreseeable future through the enfeeblement of our adversaries." -Bethmann Hollweg, German chancellor, September 1914. Hastings goes on to provide the itemized list of annexations and reparations the chancellor outlined in his draft on war aims. Much of it involved the disarmament of France, German control of Belgium and Holland, vast areas of Eastern Europe added to Germany, a customs union designed as a vehicle for German dominance of Europe, etc.
Max Hastings in Catastrophe 1914
There is a view that the royals and statesmen of 1914 stumbled blindly into World War I. Christopher Clark has written a book about the subject entitled Sleepwalkers. My own view is that the men of 1914 were not stumbling into war blindly, but rather, they made the war what it was out of the sum total of their foolish gambles. Austria gambled that German backing would deter Russia from intervening while the Austrians crushed Serbia. The Germans made the same gamble. The Russians gambled that they could put armies in the field before they were organized, trained, and supplied properly because they could count on the French to knock out the Germans from the west. The French made the reverse gamble. All of these gambles crashed and burned.
Hastings echoes my own view about the stakes involved in the defining conflict of the twentieth century. He's a British author who does not share the common view among his British peers that the war was for nothing. He seems to take aim at the Niall Ferguson thesis that Europe would have been better off if the British had sat back and watched the Germans conquer. Hastings writes that even though the Germans may have begun the war without specifically defined goals, they soon made clear how they intended to behave toward the vanquished once victory was achieved.
"The aim of the war is to provide us with security guarantees from east to west for the foreseeable future through the enfeeblement of our adversaries." -Bethmann Hollweg, German chancellor, September 1914. Hastings goes on to provide the itemized list of annexations and reparations the chancellor outlined in his draft on war aims. Much of it involved the disarmament of France, German control of Belgium and Holland, vast areas of Eastern Europe added to Germany, a customs union designed as a vehicle for German dominance of Europe, etc.
Heated Perspectives: FDR
Most of my friends are conservatives - there are a few liberals here and there but most are right-leaning. Those friends who are into history tend to despise FDR with a passion. One such friend emailed me in response to my post about the FDR book by Jean Edward Smith and wrote,
"The first one here on FDR would not get a nice comment as I can’t think of a thing he did beneficial to the country. His New Deal was a disaster prolonging the Depression and then sneaking us into WWII and his racism –I’ll stop there."
I won't name the author of that comment even though he's the kind of friend who probably wouldn't mind being named. In fact, he would probably wear that quote with pride. That comment didn't bother me in the slightest but it provoked this post because over the years I have struggled to get a grip on FDR and I must say, after reading quite a bit on him, he's a total mystery. The guy never wrote anything. No one could get a straight answer out of him on most subjects. The people closest to him didn't understand him or have any idea of where they stood with him. People talk about Richard Nixon being sneaky and secretive, but Nixon wore everything on his sleeve! He was an open secret! Not so with FDR. Despite having a remarkable story of combating polio and becoming president in spite of it, one has very little understanding of what made FDR tick. Biographies on him tend to be kind of dull and tedious because the very man is missing in the narrative!
Conservative hatred of FDR stretches back to conservative-leaning authors. Paul Johnson's Modern Times and A History of the American People are incredible books. Great stuff. However, every time the author mentions FDR, he never misses an opportunity to beat him with a stick - even going so far as blaming him for the onslaught of communism in East Asia. I mean, I get Yalta...but East Asia too? Johnson won't give FDR an ounce of credit for anything positive.
Despite this intense hatred of FDR, he continues to be ranked among the top three greatest presidents of all time. Liberal propaganda? If so, than how come George Washington and Abe Lincoln are just as often ranked in the number 1 and number 2 positions? Is George Washington adored by modern day liberals? The same ones who complain about his slave-owning and so-called capitalistic greed? How about Lincoln? I've heard plenty of liberals tear into him for his supposed cynical motives for ending slavery.
Could there be another reason FDR is ranked so highly despite the strong negative conservative feelings? The guy must have done something right. Maybe not everything, but something. The best I can come up with is that FDR played a huge role in bringing America into its modern-day role as world superpower during the Second World War. His lend-lease policy forced the British to transfer the basis of their ocean-going dominance of the world to the Americans. He played a role in the Bretton Woods conference which tied world currencies to the American dollar, paving the way for America's postwar prosperity. His G.I. bill prevented returning servicemen from swamping the job market and made a college education possible for an entire generation. I could go on, but I want to keep this post brief.
The New Deal had its share of failures, but the FDR legacy is both wide and deep. All efforts to tear him down in the historical rankings will be futile. I think a more fertile ground for criticism is in the New Deal programs themselves rather than an over-arching attack on FDR as a president.
"The first one here on FDR would not get a nice comment as I can’t think of a thing he did beneficial to the country. His New Deal was a disaster prolonging the Depression and then sneaking us into WWII and his racism –I’ll stop there."
I won't name the author of that comment even though he's the kind of friend who probably wouldn't mind being named. In fact, he would probably wear that quote with pride. That comment didn't bother me in the slightest but it provoked this post because over the years I have struggled to get a grip on FDR and I must say, after reading quite a bit on him, he's a total mystery. The guy never wrote anything. No one could get a straight answer out of him on most subjects. The people closest to him didn't understand him or have any idea of where they stood with him. People talk about Richard Nixon being sneaky and secretive, but Nixon wore everything on his sleeve! He was an open secret! Not so with FDR. Despite having a remarkable story of combating polio and becoming president in spite of it, one has very little understanding of what made FDR tick. Biographies on him tend to be kind of dull and tedious because the very man is missing in the narrative!
Conservative hatred of FDR stretches back to conservative-leaning authors. Paul Johnson's Modern Times and A History of the American People are incredible books. Great stuff. However, every time the author mentions FDR, he never misses an opportunity to beat him with a stick - even going so far as blaming him for the onslaught of communism in East Asia. I mean, I get Yalta...but East Asia too? Johnson won't give FDR an ounce of credit for anything positive.
Despite this intense hatred of FDR, he continues to be ranked among the top three greatest presidents of all time. Liberal propaganda? If so, than how come George Washington and Abe Lincoln are just as often ranked in the number 1 and number 2 positions? Is George Washington adored by modern day liberals? The same ones who complain about his slave-owning and so-called capitalistic greed? How about Lincoln? I've heard plenty of liberals tear into him for his supposed cynical motives for ending slavery.
Could there be another reason FDR is ranked so highly despite the strong negative conservative feelings? The guy must have done something right. Maybe not everything, but something. The best I can come up with is that FDR played a huge role in bringing America into its modern-day role as world superpower during the Second World War. His lend-lease policy forced the British to transfer the basis of their ocean-going dominance of the world to the Americans. He played a role in the Bretton Woods conference which tied world currencies to the American dollar, paving the way for America's postwar prosperity. His G.I. bill prevented returning servicemen from swamping the job market and made a college education possible for an entire generation. I could go on, but I want to keep this post brief.
The New Deal had its share of failures, but the FDR legacy is both wide and deep. All efforts to tear him down in the historical rankings will be futile. I think a more fertile ground for criticism is in the New Deal programs themselves rather than an over-arching attack on FDR as a president.
Thursday, July 9, 2015
History Update: Was Germany To Blame For World War I?
I've written about this in greater detail in an earlier post, but my mind has drifted back to the issue because I'm listening to the audio version of Max Hastings' new book Catastrophe 1914. It seems when Germany's kaiser gave Austria the so-called 'blank cheque' to do what they saw fit in punishing Serbia over the archduke's assassination, the Germans were thinking the balkan crisis would be a local war. The Kaiser didn't start freaking out until the Russians started mobilizing their armies. That's the stage when the Kaiser started having second thoughts. Max Hastings characterizes Serbia as a rogue state that couldn't contain the violence radiating out from it.