This past weekend, Wall Street Journal books editor and WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor Robert Messenger reviewed MacArthur at War in the pages of WSJ. This latest history by Walter R. Borneman focuses strictly on the Pacific theater during the Second World War and reappraises the actions of the legendary general.
Messenger opens by contrasting the treatment of British general Arthur Percival, who “was resoundingly condemned in Britain” for surrendering Singapore to the Japanese and MacArthur, who escaped from the Philippines in March 1942 under President Franklin Roosevelt’s orders, and given the Medal of Honor. (MacArthur was, of course, also given the nickname “Dugout Doug.”) Meanwhile, it was General Jonathan M. Wainwright who was left behind and held out on the island of Corregidor until May. (Wainwright spent the rest of the war in various POW camps, ending up in Manchuria, where he was freed—by the Soviets—in August 1945.)
“There were nine hours between the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the appearance of the first Japanese planes over the Philippines,” writes Messenger, “but MacArthur failed to put his air forces on a war footing and suffered the destruction of his planes on the ground. In the ensuing months, he issued press releases touting his leadership but prepared little for the invasion to come.”
It’s a critical assessment by both Messenger and, by extension, Borneman.
Needless to say, the review has sparked considerable debate in the Journal comments section, much of it fierce, passionate, and informed, even some 70 years later. Messenger does agree with General MacArthur on the objective being the Philippines as opposed to Formosa. (And I agree with him as well, although for personal reasons—my parents had to live under that hellish occupation until MacArthur fulfilled his famous promise of “I shall return.”)
