Talk:Douglas MacArthur/Archive 1

MacArthur's height
Someone listed MacArthur's height as 5' 8". I have a photo of him standing next to my father, who was the Dean of Instruction at Lyceum University in Manila and who awarded him an Honorary PhD during his last visit to the Philippines in 1961. My father was 5' 7", and even at age 81 General MacArthur was at least 4 inches taller than my father. (Please see [].)

Lyle F. Padilla

Major, Armor, USAR (Retired)

Operation YO YO Not Mentioned
A huge strategic blunder after the landing at Inchon was not mentioned. Bob Hope's USO show actually beat MacArthur's troops to the second landing in northern in North Korea because of the poor planning.

Question about phrasing
Hi,

I noticed the phrase "MacArthur lost the Battle for the Philippines" in the Biography section of the article. I'm afraid I don't know much about World War II; was there a single large battle or campaign called the "Battle for the Philippines", that we can link to? Or should it be decapitalized, to "the battle for the Philippines"?

Thanks! -- Creidieki 00:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, MacArthur was involved in the "Battle of the Philippine Sea" not the "Battle for the Philippines", that was before the "Battle of Leyte Gulf" -- (peads 03:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)).

Macarthur had absolutely nothing to do with the Battle of the Philippine Sea. That engagement was a purely naval one and was part of the Central Pacific advance, a theater of operations where macarthur had no authority.

Douglas MacArthur's middle name
Moved from Reference desk

The Douglas MacArthur gives his middle inital as "B." What did that stand for? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:44, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ugh. I thought this was going to be a quick answer, but it isn't.


 * After a little digging, I've turned up sources that variously give his middle initial as A, B, C, D, M, and S! -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The only quasi-authoritative source I can find for a middle name is his IMDb entry, which gives it as "Arthur", his father's name. I'm not trusting them on this one because it doesn't show up anywhere else online. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * So his dad was called "Arthur MacArthur"? Is that possible?.... --Menchi 05:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Not only was his father Arthur MacArthur, he was Arthur MacArthur, Jr.! -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of this Homer quote: "Uh...I'm the piano genius.." --Menchi 06:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hehe..."From this day on, Homer J. Simpson shall be known as Homer...Jay...Simpson" -- Ferkelparade &pi; 02:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It could be that he had no middle name, and instead just used random letters, like Harry Truman whose S. standed for nothing. GeneralPatton 13:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As the article on Harry S. Truman says, the letter was not "random". It is true that it didn't stand for any single name, though. My middle "R" truly doesn't stand for anything (or alternatively, for anything you like... but that's scary.) JRM 14:24, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)


 * I've just checked the entry in the American National Biography, the standard reference, and there is no middle name listed for him. That probably means he didn't have one as they always give a complete name for people whenever possible. I will go home and check my copy of William Manchester's biography of him, American Caesar.  And not only was his dad Arthur McArthur, so was his son.  Ave!  PedanticallySpeaking 15:21, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * ''Arthur McArthur the THIRD"? Woa.... --Menchi 15:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * William Manchester's biography makes no mention of a middle name, nor do any sources I checked last night. I did that last night before seeing User:Cyrius's reply below.  Oh, and there are four Arthur MacArthurs.  Douglas's grandfather, father, brother and son.  And his brother Arthur's son's name?  Douglas.  Ave!  PedanticallySpeaking 16:44, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

End moved

I just got a response from the archivist at the MacArthur Memorial:


 * MacArthur had no middle name. He wasn't given one at birth.  We have all baptismal, official school and Army records, he never put a middle name or initial on anything.  However, I have seen pictures where he is wearing a monogrammed handkerchief and there is an "A" where the middle initial spot is.  I think he chose that for his father's name, but official he had none.


 * J.W. Zobel
 * Archivist
 * Mac Mem

And that solves that. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 15:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have returned to the Philippines
According to a story I heard many years ago, a Marine Lieutenant in the Philippines in the final days of the war put the following sign on his hut and was court-martialled for it:

With the help of God, And a few Marines, I have returned To the Philippines.


 * Don't know about the court-martial, but heard about the sign from my dad who served there....--Pmeisel 02:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

addition re prostitutes and suicide
In over 30 years of reading about MacArthur I have seen nothing about his hiring of prostitutes or threatening suicide. I would like to know the source material for this. It does not seem credible to me.--Pmeisel 02:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't find it credible either, there is no documentation for it, and the user who added it left no comments about it. I removed it, but if someone can find credible sources for this information, they are more than welcome to put it back. Jrkarp 17:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is in here:

Stanley Weintraub. MacArthur's War: Korea and the Undoing of an American Hero. New York: The Free Press, 2000. 385 pp. Maps and Photos, Notes, Index. $27.50 (cloth), ISBN 0-684-83419-7.

This all sounds like more of MacArthur's ex wife's bullshit.

"Hell hath no fury....."

Paul Marks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.63.48.48 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 31 May 2006.

Again, just because someone has a Title and or has written a book, neither confirms that the person is an expert or unbiased. There are so many biographer's and Critic's trying to Rewrite History when it comes to the General. Many have an agenda politically motivated, and others slam him for alleged comments he made about FDR etc... The Article on the whole is Negative and there is a high amount of Hearsay. This medium is discredited when the facts are not confirmed, and when opinion and jaded memories of past enemies are accepted as truth. The contributers trying to destroy the General have a personal vendetta and are over exaggerating so-called defeats, and discarding true acheivements. Did your relative die in the War? Are you politcally motivated? Go and get some Meds!

MacArthur's mistress
Was she 16 in 1929, or was she 27? The article lists her age as 16 under "McArthur's Mistress", and as 27 under "Military career". Also, his name is spelled wrong under that section, and there's a period missing at the end of that snippet. Derumi 04:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)Derumi

Most Decorated?
This article states that Douglas MacArthur "is the most decorated soldier in the history of the United States military". I may be mistaken, but isn't Audie Murphy the most deocorated soldier in the U.S. military?--SOCL 9 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)


 * Murphy was the most decorated of World War II, MacArthur may have received more decorations that Murphy over his career, but some of those were from World War I, Korean War and other career accomplishments outside of WW II.--Rogerd July 9, 2005 16:06 (UTC)


 * MacArthur was a five star general, George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower never even held that rank. Nobs01 9 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. See General of the Army. Also see Fleet Admiral (U.S.) for the equivalent United States Navy Rank.  When the military refers to decorations they are talking about medals, not rank.  See Awards and decorations of the United States military.  A Private can be highly decorated, and a General who has spent most of his/her career behind a desk may have few decorations.  --Rogerd July 9, 2005 19:05 (UTC)


 * Right, DDE held the 5 star rank, it did not exist in George Washingtons time. Jokem 03:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * MacArthur's rank as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Pacific (SCAP) surpassed any Commander in the European theatre, because of divided commands. There was no Supreme Allied Commander over all Allied Forces, English, American & Soviet.  Germany was divided up under several commanders, whereas MacArthur solely Commanded a conquered and occuppied nation. Nobs01 21:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The question was about decorations, not rank. His rank was General of the Army (5 star General). SCAP was not his rank, but the position (job) he held from the end of the WWII and until he was relieved by Truman during the Korean war.   He wasn't made SCAP until after the war, until then he was SC of SW Pacific.  He was still subordinate to the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, George Marshall, later Dwight Eisenhower, then Omar Bradley, all of whom were also 5 star generals.  In the ETO, because of politics, Eisenhower was only over US and British forces, not Soviet.  He was also subordinate to the Chief of Staff.  I am afraid you are confusing the concepts of position and rank.  It is like on a Navy ship.  On a large ship like an aircraft carrier, you might have several officers holding the rank of Captain, but only one is the Captain of the ship.  Likewise, on a smaller ship, you might have a Commander who has the position (job) of Captain of the ship.--Rogerd 22:12, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Roger is correct. From mid-42 there were four Allied commands in the Pacific War: China (Chiang Kai Shek), Pacific Ocean Areas (Nimitz), South East Asia Command (Wavell/Mountbatten) and South West Pacific Area (MacArthur). The title of SCAP was not created until after Japanese surrender. Grant65 (Talk) 12:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"Douglas MacArthur is the most highly-decorated officer in history." then "One of the most decorated soldiers in the history of the United States military," - so which is it to be?

First Wife
If we mention MacArthur's mistress, should we perhaps include mention of his first marriage?
 * The whole business of wife/mistress/wife needs a bit of attention. See the edits at [Revision as of 16:56, 11 April 2005] and after, where the article changed from including marriage / divorce / mistress / marriage to the present situation where someone has made the mistress the lead item of the Inter-war years and the first wife has disappeared? Love and hate definitely have their place in an article about MacArthur. ;-)  Shenme 02:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

RE Blunders not mentioned
Now, blaming General MacArthur for the "worst defeat" in US military history is not justified. Actually, being born in that counrty and having relatives who fought under his command, MacArthur and his forces fought the Japanese land forces to a standstill and even pushing them back and shaming the Japanese commanding officer. The mass surrender was not mainly his fault, lack of supplies and reinforcements caused the loss of the Philippines. In Korea, he should not be judged primarily of his retreat, facing a numericaly superior enemy and wielding an exhausted force, it was wise to reposition his army.

A contrarian point of view would say that MacArthurs' forces despite being numerically superior to the Japanese were defeated in only 6 months. On the other hand, the Japanese were still fighting in the Philippines at the end of the war.


 * Yeah, well. I also had relatives that fought on Kokoda trail, and I doubt they would have been very happy with their treatment from HQ in Australia. MacArthur was not a military genius. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "lack of supplies and reinforcements caused the loss of the Philippines"? On what planet? Before Pearl Harbor, the Philippines had the highest priority in the Pacific theatre, higher than Hawaii. They were getting B-17s when Short could only dream, & when the Brits had first call on them. And Rainbow 5 called for the Philippines to be abandoned as indefensible, & MacArthur knew it. Trekphiler 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Retreat
It would have been foolish to reprimand MacArthur for Philippine's fall given the condition the US military in the East is in. Losing him to the Japanaese had he not tetreated to Australia would be a blow militarily and phsycologically.

RE: On the contrary. If you are in charge, you are the one responsible no matter what happens. And if MacArthur was such a military genius as some are posting, then why did the disaster happen?


 * Sure you can be "held responsible" but that doesn't mean there was much, with in his powers, that he could have done. He made mistakes but looking at them and saying do this, do that is only easy in hind sight.    As for the loss of the Phillipines, even the best military commander can't over-come a lack of supplies and ammunition, grinding attrition, and an enemy willing to keep coming at you.  MacArthur was not the best out there but he was not some hack either.

Sentiments
It's quite inaccurate to simply claim that MacArthur's ground forces were "crushed". In fact, they put one hell of a fight before losing due to lack of supplies. Saying that the average Filipino do not even know who MacArthur is is ludicrous.

Here is the official US Army version if you have any questions: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-PI/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.233.233.180 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 April 2006.

Victor's Justice
No mention of the war crimes tribunal in Manila after the war. MacArthur appointed the judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers. Then MacArthur put his war opponents on trial in a media show trial spectacle.
 * I agree. PBS states the following about them:
 * The Tokyo trials began on May 3, 1946, and lasted two and a half years. Although an improvement over the hasty Manila trials, which were also organized by MacArthur and resulted in the executions of Generals Yamashita and Homma, the Tokyo trials have been criticized as another example of "victors' justice." One of the more authoratative studies condemns them strongly: "We have found its foundation in international law to be shaky. We have seen that its process was seriously flawed. We have examined the verdict's inadequacy as history."
 * The Tokyo War Crimes Trials (1946-1948), PBS
 * We should document this. Perhaps a good start might be Yamashita Tomoyuki. Another good reason for the tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually many people held that MacArthur was too soft on the Japanese (not putting the Emperor on trial and so on). This is not my position, but in putting the case about nasty show trials one must remember that was not a common view at the time.

As for legality: How were the Nurenburg trials any better? They even had judges from the Soviet Union (a regime that had murdered tens of millions of people, and was murdering vast numbers of people during the trials, - and had been an ally of Nazi Germany till the Germans invaded Russia in 1941). Classic victors justice.

Hess was put in prison for life (he finally killed himself a few years ago) even though he was in Britian (where he had gone in a rather eccentric effort to make peace) whilst the six million Jews (or more or less that number) were being murdered, and Alfred Rosenburg (who did not support geneocide, and even argued against the terrible treatment that the Slavs recived from the Germans) was executed.

My father's cousins were murdered by the Germans, but why should the execution of Alfred Rosenburg (terrible writer though he was) be considered to be justice for that?

I doubt that MacArthur ever executed someone for being a minister (and a totally hopeless minister at that) in an evil government - or for writing bad books.

Paul Marks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.65.59.94 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 June 2006.


 * Victor's justice, indeed. By the standard applied to Yamashita, MacArthur, Kenney, & Blamey, among others, would certainly have faced execution for the butchery in the Bismarck Sea. And by the standard applied to Dönitz, Fife, Christie, Lockwood, Carpender, & Nimitz would have gone to prison. Nuremburg was a farce & a mistake in law. The Nazis should have been shot down like rabid dogs. Trekphiler 14:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible Corrective to US vs Australian Historical Chauvinism
As much of the discussion here has degenerated to the conduct of the war in PNG from OZ and US perspectives, I'm impelled to add some more kindling. I would clarify in this edited post that i too very much agree that the NPOV marker remain.

US and Australian military histories of the New Guinea campaign often emphasize the relevant segments of it to suit all kinds of national conveniences. Too many aspersions are cast by Australian sources on the putative mismanagement by the US SWPA command of Royal Australian units in the various operations that constitute the campaign that they tend to obscure what the joint command actually achieved together by the end of 1944. Not counting the campaign for the Solomons, which were under the Pacific-Ocean Areas (POA) command, the SWPA suceeded in reducing a combined Japanese garrison of more than 400,000. This was achieved through an economy of warfare that in the latter phases emphasized combined arms, manouvre and feint over brute force—and resulted in comparatively fewer casualties that the frontal assaults that typified the POA strategy as it advanced through the central Pacific. Clearly, the role McArthur played in all of this is still hotly debated, but his subordinates (Bob Eichelberger, Walter Kruger, George Kenney, et alia.) clearly displayed a remarkable degree of competence, initiative, and cohesion.

This unity of command was certainly imposed by the self-aggrandizing MacArthur, but in spite of himself, their collective effort limited allied losses to approximately 35,000 battle casualties (KIA + WIA) in nearly three years of land warfare, as opposed to the oft-cited figure of 50,000 total allied casualties from the Okinawa Campaign of March-July 1945. Stephen R. Taaffe in MacArthur's Jungle War: The 1944 New Guinea Campaign, 1998 [pp. 232+] cites that American losses in the SWPA for much of 1944 amounted to 11,300 casualties. In contrast, the POA's two-month invasion of Peleliu cost the Marines as many dead and wounded, when the understrength Japanese division defending it could have been left to whither on the vine, as the Imperial Navy (IJN) would have been unable to evacuate the atoll successfully.

The official Australian battle histories states that "by mid–1944 Australia’s military strength was, for the time being, almost spent, having borne the main burden of the fighting on land in the South–West Pacific from the outset" only acceded its responsibilities to Kruger's 6th Army in early 1944 (see David Dexter, Australia in the War of 1939-45: The Army: The New Guinea Offensives, 1961). This is true but a somewhat misleading statement. Australian forces, particularly the four forward divisions, did incur two-thirds of all the losses from the attritive phase of the campaign, from the Papuan defense to the seizure of Saidor in January 1944. But to imply that the second "manouvre" phase, from late February 1944 to the end of major mopping-up operations in 1945—where American units absorbed most of the losses—was somehow less decisive is incorrect, as the strategic isolation of much of the Japanese garrison, including that of Rabaul in New Britain, was only fully achieved during this period. Australians saw the Papuan phase as a war of national survival. The United States saw its operations in New Guinea and the Solomons in strategic terms, namely to check and stem the southern advance of the Imperial Army and IJN as part of a much larger cross-Pacific strategy. However reductive and "unfeeling" this perspective is, and however much it contributes to the perception that MacArthur (and the entire Joint Chiefs) treated Australians with contempt in the field, the SWPA certainly contributed far more to the defense of Australia and New Zealand than the more fatalistic posture London resigned this part of the Commonwealth to, which I might add was far more interested in finding scapegoats for the collapse of the British Empire in Southeast Asia. Pottersville 16:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but a good deal of this is missing the point entirely. Certainly American troops did an amazing job in a considerable number of offensives. However, have another look at the way MacArthur conducted himself during the Kokoda Track battles. Find me once instance I cite above that is untrue. One thing your comments show me, however, is that there are disputes as to MacArthur's command competence. None of these are addressed in the article. According to NPOV, they must be addressed. As they are not, this article now sports an NPOV tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, i completely agree that the NPOV tag should be left in the article. I am furthermore not challenging the veracity of your scholarship. i meant to dispute a number of claims, because MacArthur was responsible for a lot that should cast doubt on his historical legacy, but it is done, often at the expense of the general conduct of practically everyone else in the SWPA. Its clear that the Kokoda campaign has a mesmeric hold over the Australian consciousness, but is it merely because it was attritive? If, as in the landings at Hollandia, Aitape, Noemfoor etc, where concentrations of Japanese troops were neutralized without the kind of knock-down-drag-out fight that, let's say, the US Marines engaged in in Tarawa or Makin, does that make the success of the US SWPA's military operations in Irian Jaya less meaningful? The opposite is of course true. Pottersville 17:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article, something else occurs to me: shouldn't the Japanese POV get a say? (As if things weren't complicated enough...) I mean, just for instance, the timing of the Kokoda Trail attack, coming after the failure of MO, was a disaster, as Willmott points out in The Barrier & the Javelin. Surely there are other cases. Trekphiler 14:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just tell the freaking truth
This article isn't about how you feel about MacArthur and his actions. It's not about whether you think his decisions were successful or efficient. If you know a fact to be true, put it in here, otherwise keep your worthless opinions to yourselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.110.199.159 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 May 2006.

Good Advice
The foregoing offers very good advice. Having said that, I'd suggest a short paragraph on MacA's prewar confidence (obviously badly misplaced) that Japan would need half a million men and three years to conquer the Philippines. (Manchester, 184+). Considering that the Japanese accomplished the task with c. 100,000 in five months, his opinion seems ample reason for censure. The Medal of Honor, IMO, was disgraceful, but even moreso was his objection to Wainwright's MoH. (MacArthur played fast & loose with medals: he gave Lyndon Johnson a Silver Star for taking an airplane ride.)

Q: Was MacArthur indispensable to the US war effort? Considering the huge disparity of forces from late 43 onward, probably any competent general could have done his job. It may be that Inchon was a more important contribution than anything he did in WW II. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.2.139.236 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 May 2006.


 * This is a value judgement that is better left unelaborated, in the interests of the spirit of "keeping your worthless opinions to yourselves," as it were. You might as well question the command of most every allied field officer and speculate till the cows come home. The US effort in the Pacific War (and the ETO) was characterized by competing commands, and despite the inefficiencies this condition engendered, ultimately forwarded American national conveniences. (Stillwell was Marshall's first choice to run the War in Europe. Let's hypothetically ask if managing Chiang Kai Shek was worth having him stuck in mainland China.) Seriously, the proper decision to append a NPOV marker, and the deliberative processes that led to the revision of this biography, like it or not, was dependent on competing interpretations of the facts of MacArthur's career. MacArthur is one of the most controversial figures from the last century, and the structural contradiction of the last post (which demands objectivity insofar as it addresses a specific POV) only confirms this. There are enough factual citations from Manchester, and especially from Geoffrey Perret, that can alternately hang or lionize MacArthur's conduct of the war and his later role as SCAP. Interpretative complexity is alternately the gift and the curse of Western historiography, and the same goes for this bio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.155.139.73 (talk • contribs).


 * Hi folks, can I remind everyone (including anonymous editors) to sign their posts with the following: ~ . This wikicode will leave you name/ip address and the date you posted the comment. It helps us in working out who said what. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever..everyone's post is identified.

Ribbon Bar Depiction
The interesting recreation of MacArthur's ribbon bar seems to be incorrect.

Just at first glance: the Distinguished Service Cross is missing, the Distinguished Service Medal has the wrong number of oak clusters, the Silver Star is placed after the Distinguished Flying Cross contrary to its precedence, the Purple Heart is missing it's oak leaf cluster, as is the Presidential Unit Citation, the Philippine Campaign Medal is missing, and I'm tired of looking now. A comparison can be seen at this site: http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-leaders/ww2/macarthur.htm.

There are several sites that will let you "build" a ribbon bar by checking off the appropriate decorations, but I do not know how copyright status would come in to play.

As well, I have no direct knowledge of MacArthur's deserved decorations, I am just comparing the list currently in the article with the image directly opposite that list.

67.187.79.15 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

MacArthur and the presidency
A small odd thing I noticed in the article- the first mention of MacArthur and any kind of presidential role is under the title secition of "Return to America" and states:

On his return from Korea, after his relief by Truman, MacArthur encountered massive public adulation, which aroused expectations that he would run for the US presidency as a Republican in the 1952 election. However, a U.S. Senate Committee investigation of his removal, chaired by Richard Russell, contributed to a marked cooling of the public mood and MacArthur's presidential hopes died away. (MacArthur, in his Reminiscences repeatedly stated that he had no political aspirations.)

In the 1952 Republican presidential nomination contest, rumors were rife that Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio offered the vice presidential nomination to MacArthur. Had a Taft-MacArthur ticket defeated Democrat Adlai Stevenson in November, the general would have become President upon Taft's sudden death eight months later in July 1953. Taft, who was initially favored to win the GOP nomination, lost the nomination to Dwight Eisenhower. MacArthur later became head of the Remington Rand Coporation.

Meanwhile, under the heading of the "Later life section" the article states:

1952: Runs for President on the Republican platform. Is distraught when his former aide, Dwight Eisenhower secures the Republican nomination and later becomes President of the United States. He could still have conceivably won nomination at the convention after he delivered the keynote address, except that Senator Robert Taft of Ohio would not transfer his delegates to him.

I'm no historian, and was actually just interested in reading about this guy. But I figured I'd throw this into the ring for the smarter minds of this community to figure out. If I'm missing something- please let me know. --Bear
 * I deleted the false info and speculation. Rjensen 08:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

DelistedGA
This article is sufficiently unbalanced and POV to be worthy of delisting as a Good Article. The main area of POV involves Macarthur after his flight from Bataan and while in Australia. All criticism of Macarthur during his time in Australia - one of the three most significant times of his miltary career - have been edited out. This is despite referenced and verifiable comments having been added by numerous authors. The article as it stands is hagiography rather than biography, so should be delisted. I would, but since my contributions and those of others have already been edited out, I feel the best approach is delisting. RichardH 06:41, 5 September 2006

Sectioning
I'm restoring some early sectioning because it makes no sense to start the main body of the article out with the Interwar years and to include his early life in the introduction Jztinfinity 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

While I am not up to speed with any of the contraversy about MacArthur, it does seem worthy of a contraversy section. Just give a give and take on the main points of the contraversy with some idea of how well accepted the criticism is and that should improve the article a lot. As it is the article does seem over complimentary to McArthur Jztinfinity 03:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur 1925
Did (Major) Douglas MacArthur visit Yugoslavia in 1925? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nenad Seguljev (talk • contribs).

What about his exceptionally close relationship with his mother - surely an important biographical detail? And his father? Also - no mention of him as the 'Viceroy of Japan' and corrresponding lifestyle (paid for by whom, oh American tax payer?).

What about his role in determining the emerging cold war?

I've not links for this, but draw it from a historical fictional novel 'Under Fire ' by military obsessive WEB Griffin. And yes, I know this isn't hard Wiki as we know it, but can it be qualified?--TresRoque 10:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes I wish authors (like WEB Griffin and Tom Clancy) would put in bibliographies in their books, if for nothing else to do further reading.

Dougie, Call Home
If anybody cares, if you called BRisbane 3211, you'd reach his HQ (which, given what he called his personal airplane, might be said to be calling Bataan). Trekphiler 13:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)