I have the immense pleasure of knowing one of Admiral Nimitz's bodyguards during the last two years of the war. His accounts of Adm. Nimitz are congruent with those presented here. He characterized him as a calm, decisive leader whom he never heard raise his voice or use a curse word. He was considerate of his bodyguards and was respectful of them. He told several stories where Nimitz would be considerate of them. He was in the room with Macarthur and Nimitz during a meeting to discuss strategy. He never mentioned any animosity between the two. He related a story where he accompanied the Admiral on a hike in Guam. The bodyguard was tall and he felt like he needed to relocate his sidearm (.45) from his waist to more of a cross body fashion so that he could access it more easily if needed. A Marine reported him for this and the Admiral squashed the complaint and told them to get lost. When the Admiral left for the signing of the peace treaty, this bodyguard accompanied him to the airfield. After saluting him and starting up the gangplank, the Admiral turned around came back down and shook his and thanked him for his service. This man added "I would have taken a bullet for him in a heartbeat".
That he included “Henry’ in his meeting with McArhur and Halsey. and even spoke to him so familiarly, seems totally consistent with the Admiral’s character. What a decent man he was!
I believe Craig studied in Annapolis. His technology and skill would not be shaped except institutional curriculum. The vivid film is remarkable throughout the lecture.
As an 11 year old boy, I had a fifteen minute visit wth Chester Nimitz. That meeting had a permanent effect on me....thats how impressive this man was.
I think that the entire issue of Nimitz vs. MacArthur could be summarized with one simple question: Who would YOU prefer to work for? A modest, soft-spoken but highly skilled leader or for a megalomaniac?
Grandiloquent McArthur was, but he was not known to abuse people the way King did. and my guess is that very few generals and admirals in the armed services behaved like Nimitz toward their subordinates. He was, I gather, one of those few great men who was also a great man to his valets. His grandfather deserves our thanks for the way he raised him.
Thank you for this wonderful video. In my declining years I have learned more about Adm Nimitz, and have become an admirer. It seems to me that he is one of the most underappreciated leaders of WWII.
The Japanese mindset then, like the dilemma we face today with Islamic extremists, made it extremely difficult to defeat an enemy that is so willing to needlessly sacrifice himself that made it so difficult to defeat the Japanese. It defies all logic. Living to fight another day was not in the Japanese lexicon. It is a tribute to Nimitz who for so long tolerated the giant ego and egocentric behavior of MacArthur for the greater good. Truman's legacy was firing MacArthur before the General could engage us in another world war and sacrifice the lives of so many American soldiers and others in Korea who had already sacrificed so much. Excellent presentation. Thank you.
The museum is far and away one of the very best gems in Texas worth visiting with the entire family. Fantastic exhibits that will strain your mind and move your heart, many authentic and to full scale, and many interactive and fully engaging. I would not want to spoil the surprises for you by detailing them. Plan on spending up to several hours to enjoy this museum. Many things to also include in your trip are: Fredericksburg with its German vibe and fun (tourist/non-tourist) shopping and dining; the Texas Hill Country vistas and its beautiful wildlife and natural features, and Enchanted Rock with its state park.
I grew up in the Philippines, and MacArthur was a legend who could do no wrong. I studied history and political science in college and combined with years of listening to old friends of my father as they sat around and played balut, I have a completely different picture of the general now. As a military commander he was at best acceptable, and at worst incompetent. As a person he was an absolutely self absorbed, narcissistic son of a bitch. He was also a pedophile, which shocked me. He is not fit to serve as an example to cadets in our military academy, and cannot be included in the pantheon of intelligent and capable leaders that won the war for us eighty years ago. I can confidently state that THANK GOD he wasn’t given overall command of the Pacific theater, and thank god Nimitz had most of the responsibility for the Pacific War. Splitting the command was a courageous decision, and I believe saved us all. Thank you, Dr. Symonds for your brilliant writing and lectures, so very informative and intelligently presented.
My father had a confrontation with MacArthur in 1937 that left a bitter loathing and hate for the man he never got over. Dugout Doug was a contemptible narcissist, and, yes, he was a pedophile.
those of us who served in generations after Admiral Nimitz revere him and admire his example. I served in Japan 1995-1998 and I saw the positive aspects of Nimitz leadership even then.
All I knew about Admiral Nimitz was his name, and his role in the War in the Pacific. After watching this presentation, I now know that he was also a very decent human being. Thank you for this bit of context that is typically left out of the history books. Very well done!
Pres. Roosevelt didn't have much choice but to give McArthur his own command. He could have tried to retire him, but better to use him. Nimitz was a great commander!
Such an excellent Presentation on Admiral Chester Nimitz and his Leadership role in the Pacific Theatre during WW2. He had tremendous wisdom, knowledge, a decisive calm temperament and firm resolve in his Military Leadership role. Thankful to God for such great insights of Commander Nimitz!
I did not know the painted barge story (for the surrender). That MacArthur would reject/dismiss out of hand such a classy gesture by Adm. Nimitz only confirms that MacArthur's self-absorbed reputation was well-earned.
One of my grandfather's served in the Pacific for the duration. The other served in Burma in '44-'45. One was working class. The other was a Yale Educated Surgeon. Both absolutely despised MacArthur. Leave it to MacArthur to unite Americans from different backgrounds and who served in different theaters in their hatred of him.
I LOVE the video at 1:43: In a professional military, a subordinate doesn't just walk anywhere relative to someone who is senior. In the U.S. Army, the junior person walks to the left of the senior, harkening to the phalanx where the senior commander who fought in the front right corner of the formation. Hoplite shields, held with the left arm and sword in the right, protected everyone in the phalanx except the front right person, which is why the king/commander/centurion positioned himself there. MacArthur, for whatever reason, possibly because he was on a ship, didn't focus on where he was relative to Nimitz, or thought because it was Navy, they wouldn't "get" that. Nimitz professionally but physically moves MacArthur to the right to the position of honor as the senior officer. I really love that clip.
I lived on Guam for three years. Our house was just down the street from the Nimitz House. He lived there in the last year of the war. When the CBs built the place he had them make all exits face Japan. Everyone leaving the building knew exactly where they were going.
It is unlikely that King would have acquiesced to having MacArthur as the sole theater commander in the Pacific. And having been an Assistant Secretary of the Navy the President would probably not have subordinated the Navy to the Army in a theater where naval power would be more important.
In general, having a divided command structure is frowned upon. However, in the Pacific it certainly seemed to work better than anyone could have possibly foreseen (even MacArthur)
Dr. Symonds' question, having studied both MacArthur and Nimitz, leads me to express that Admiral Nimitz was an essential element in the Pacific and Gen MacArthur was in over his depth. I am still amazed that the General did not face dereliction charges for his mishandling of the Air Corps in the Philippines following the head's up of Pearl Harbor. Having read the 'Graybook' in its entirety I am certainly a fanboy of the great man. Many thanks to the Museum of the Pacific War for these seminars.
I was familiar with quite a bit of the info. here. However, you've presented a not insignificant number of important smaller details I did not know. Thank you for that. God bless the memory of Adm. Nimitz. In late 1941, FDR saw/knew things about Nimitz the rest of us couldn't see.
Actually Nimitz spent a large part of his early life ahd education in Kerrville although his family ties were strong in Fredrksburg. Several teachers in his hight school learned that he would have to leave before he had finished high school so they worked overtime to tutor him in math and science.
Nimitz and Grant IMHO are the two best flag officers this great country ever produced. I only wish that after the war and once Nimitz had become CNO he would have revisited the DSM for Joe Rochefort. Rochefort was simply done dirty by King and the Redman brothers and Rochefort deserved much much better for the critical role he played in the Battle of Midway.
There are far too many superb Pacific War historians for me to be able to pick a favorite. But Dr. Symonds is, in my view, something like the dean of them all. For that reason, he holds a pre-eminent position among them. Coincidentally, I have never seen a presentation of his that was not most severely excellent.
Answer to question 2: Since reading about the holodomor in 'Red Famine' by Anne Applebaum, I would think that a widespread siege would have been far less compassionate, than a relatively quick resolution to the conflict.
japan was utterly loath to consider surrender,all face lost unless they die for the emperor,,,kids and teachers drilled with broomsticks marched and drilled to fight to the last their atrocities spoke of utter contempt for human life anywhere anytime,,utterr destruction was the language they finally understood
The scope of the Pacific Theater and multi service cooperation pretty much assured a multiple command. The smart move would have been to look at how much water and how many enemy occupied islands would fall more to the Naval branch than that of the Army.
In your book, Nimitz at War, describing the battle of Peleliu, you said,”Those losses were especially tragic in light of the fact that due to the changes in the strategic timetable, the island did not need to be taken at all.” You also said, “Peleliu was the one island conquest that Nimitz did not immediately visit afterward.” Of course Nimitz was a great leader and accomplished so much, but this was a really painful mistake not to give the men who fought on Peleliu the recognition they deserved by visiting there after the battle, particularly under the questionable conditions they had to fight. I’ve heard more than one veteran of Peleliu say this was the toughest battle they fought but no one has heard of it. I resent Nimitz not giving these men the respect they deserved as much as anyone ever.
Like most Americans I had relatives that participated in WWII in one capacity or another. My uncle Joe, who was a compassionate person, served in the Army. He was in for the duration; starting in 1942 with the invasion of North Africa. At the end of the war in Europe he was in a military hospital in Germany. He, and so many others, were given orders to ship out to the pacific. They were to participate in the invasion of Japan. He told me that the atomic bomb actually saved many lives. It was estimated that the Americans would lose one million lives and the Japanese 10 million. The bomb stopped this madness. President Truman made the right decision.
The public unfortunately admires the large military egos and diminishes the quiet, competent ones.. In Japan's defeat, Nimitz played a huge role, larger than MacArthur's. Roosevelt was right to keep their command's separate.. It helped to keep a big Army ego in check - a concern in both theaters of the war.
Admiral Nimitz is my favorite military historical figure. I loved his demeanor and leadership style....very counter to my least favorite, General MacArthur.
Maybe I'm wrong but McArthur's entitlement cost lives. He was a Washington swamp guy always social climbing. Nimitz was a country boy for Texas serving his country?
I don't think McArthur was jerk at all he wanted to drop nuclear weapons on China during the Korean conflict maybe that wasn't a great idea however he was a great general and today's politicly correct military leaders are not fit to shine the mans boots I'm referring to the Pentagon who left Afghanistan with tail tucked between their legs we don't have too many fighting men left at high levels
He probably was still a jerk even AFTER he retired. PS: This was an excellent bit of oratory . Mr. Symonds is an excellent historian and he gives an equally excellent lecture. Anchors Aweigh, Mr. Symonds. WELL DONE.
Re: could Japan have been compelled to surrender without using the Atomic bomb? Perhaps, but it would have meant continued suffering of Allied POW’s, as well as additional combat fatalities of sailors and airmen. Honestly, which other country in WW2 would have hesitated using a weapon that might achieve quick victory? None of them. And surely not our enemies!
The Pacific is the main beneficiary of the US Navy's dedicated men and women, starting with Dewey but confirmed by Nimitz. US provided security and freedom has led to one of the most amazing improvements in living standards ever
The surrender happened on the Battleship USS Missouri on September 2, 1945- because President Turman not only because he was from the state of Missouri, but also his daughter Maraget was the one who had christened the Battleship Missouri.
If we had blockaded Japan it seems probable that Japan would have sensed our reluctance, which was part of their strategy to make happen and use. Given the state of Japanese food resources a blockade that lasted through the winter might well have been tantamount to genocide.
I suspect that the number of Japanese casualties from a prolonged conventional campain would end up being at least as large and horifying as the number produced by dropping the nuclear bombs. I guess this should be a consideration in any argument for or against.
Thanks for this great program on a pivotal period in WWII. I'm curious as to whether or not you’ve heard of recrnt accounts I've heard that in the last stages of planning Olympic, before Hiroshima, the King absolutely refused to have the Navy participating in the landings once he learned we would not have an overwhelming superiority of manpower in the invasion. He instead said the if the government didn’t surrender, we should continue blockade and bombardment.
As for who was best put in command between Nimitz and MacArthur, one need only look at a map to realize with much more ocean than land, a war in the area would be a largely navel venture and that by a navy's proper use, land war could be minimized. Concerning the bomb, without it there would likely have been no surrender and a protracted campaign which would have killed both military and civilians one hundred fold, either by direct conflict, or more likely starvation. Even after Covid, few of us understand how big a role supply chains make in keeping us alive.
I realize I’m coming to this comments section many months after the question of “divided command, and is it a good idea” is asked, but I just wanted to add that if you go back into antiquity to the late republic (BC) ? period the Roman army, as a regular governmental policy, they put the legions under the control of two equal-authority commanders. Those two officers would alternate calendar days, or periods of days under one then the other’s leadership. Apparently this was successful for quite a period of time. ( 2:17 )
Since the bulk of the heavy lifting in the Pacific (at least in the first years) would be by the navy, and you could not put Nimitz over McArthur, It was a good compromise. No one new what to expect in the beginning. No one new how to prepare troops for combat with the Japanese, who had many combat experienced commanders and troops. I think a lot of the feelings for McArthur are a bit tainted by how things ended in Korea. Neither commander made a major blunder, and the only issue they could not resolve with each other was whether to invade the Philippines or Formosa and now that we know how the Japanese occupation went I think we can all agree that millions more civilians would have died there without the invasion. So that too turned out right. Both of those men lead a desperate fight that at the beginning was against an undefeated enemy who seemed to win everywhere, regardless of odds. Give them both their due.
MacArthur did make a major blunder. He allowed his bombers in the Philippines to be bombed by the Japanese, with full knowledge that Pearl Harbor had been attacked, a full day earlier. Those aircraft should have been defended, or disbursed to other fields.
By January/ February 1943, King, MacArthur, and Nimitz had succeeded in starting the fight back by victories at Kokoda/ Buna / Gona New Guinea and Guadalcanal.
The divided command was good only for FDR, and for FDR that was really all that mattered. He liked maintaining his personal final control over everything by pinaappling authority up wth all the separate strands having only one common node: himself. Consider his diplomacy, him personally and covertly sending Hopkins and Harriman all over the place collecting information and back door dealings, accountable only to him, with Sec'y Hull going around doing things clueless about their doings. FDR wanted nobody else to really know the entire landscape except himself, which only increased his control. In his gut, he never thought that he would die.
Rank seniority has nothing to do with position authority. I remember being promoted to 1SG over some more senior Master Sergeants. Their seniority in GRADE meant nothing. The 1SG is in charge. Period. This is important to the issue in this video. Macarthur may have been senior in GRADE, but not in rank and position. He should have known that given his time of service.
A key factor in the decision to invade the Philippines instead of Formosa was Spruance's determination that Luzon must be taken first to provide logistical support for and invasion of Formosa, per Twilight of the Gods.
Thoughts about dividing command... considering the sheer size of the the theatre, i think it was a good idea. And Nimitz was the perfect candidate to do that with MacArthur. MacArthur thought far too highly of himself, not that he was utterly inept - i don't believe he was, but the Army did have better people, and with Nimitz being a more low-key, less grandstanding type of guy, he was a great fit, they worked out fine together. Credit to Nimitz for that. As for strangling Japan into surrender... that would have been the worst scenario. They'd've held out for far, far longer than the Allies would imagine, all the deaths, starvation, ungh... it was either atom bombs, or a fall landing and invasion, and an invasion would have been unimaginably costly to both sides.
RE: "Split Command" -- This was a necessary compromise, and Roosevelt, the ultimate politician, was well aware of it. MacArthur had the PR people and the blind support of the media; but he was not especially competent as a military commander -- which he'd already demonstrated i n the 1942 Phillippines, and would do so again in 1952. He couldn't be shunted aside as he should have been, so he was given a sideline command dressed up as the major effort to re-take the Philippines.
Every time Craig Symonds gives a presentation, he hits it out of the park. This was great.
Exactly. He is a great teacher and presenter.
I have the immense pleasure of knowing one of Admiral Nimitz's bodyguards during the last two years of the war. His accounts of Adm. Nimitz are congruent with those presented here. He characterized him as a calm, decisive leader whom he never heard raise his voice or use a curse word. He was considerate of his bodyguards and was respectful of them. He told several stories where Nimitz would be considerate of them. He was in the room with Macarthur and Nimitz during a meeting to discuss strategy. He never mentioned any animosity between the two. He related a story where he accompanied the Admiral on a hike in Guam. The bodyguard was tall and he felt like he needed to relocate his sidearm (.45) from his waist to more of a cross body fashion so that he could access it more easily if needed. A Marine reported him for this and the Admiral squashed the complaint and told them to get lost. When the Admiral left for the signing of the peace treaty, this bodyguard accompanied him to the airfield. After saluting him and starting up the gangplank, the Admiral turned around came back down and shook his and thanked him for his service. This man added "I would have taken a bullet for him in a heartbeat".
That he included “Henry’ in his meeting with McArhur and Halsey. and even spoke to him so familiarly, seems totally consistent with the Admiral’s character. What a decent man he was!
He certainly was.
Thank you for being a care giver to our history. The museum is a treasure in the hill country. Thanks to all that make it possible
Excellent talk by Craig Symonds! I hope he can return for future webinars.
I believe Craig studied in Annapolis. His technology and skill would not be shaped except institutional curriculum. The vivid film is remarkable throughout the lecture.
As an 11 year old boy, I had a fifteen minute visit wth Chester Nimitz. That meeting had a permanent effect on me....thats how impressive this man was.
I think that the entire issue of Nimitz vs. MacArthur could be summarized with one simple question: Who would YOU prefer to work for? A modest, soft-spoken but highly skilled leader or for a megalomaniac?
Grandiloquent McArthur was, but he was not known to abuse people the way King did. and my guess is that very few generals and admirals in the armed services behaved like Nimitz toward their subordinates. He was, I gather, one of those few great men who was also a great man to his valets. His grandfather deserves our thanks for the way he raised him.
I know with certainty which man I'd trust.
Thank you for this wonderful video. In my declining years I have learned more about Adm Nimitz, and have become an admirer. It seems to me that he is one of the most underappreciated leaders of WWII.
All I can say is thank god we had him
And that he didn’t go to West Point.
It's equally amazing to me that FDR recognized Nimitz' potential for greatness. Great call on POTUS' part. (*Even with FDR being "a Navy guy".)
The Japanese mindset then, like the dilemma we face today with Islamic extremists, made it extremely difficult to defeat an enemy that is so willing to needlessly sacrifice himself that made it so difficult to defeat the Japanese. It defies all logic. Living to fight another day was not in the Japanese lexicon. It is a tribute to Nimitz who for so long tolerated the giant ego and egocentric behavior of MacArthur for the greater good. Truman's legacy was firing MacArthur before the General could engage us in another world war and sacrifice the lives of so many American soldiers and others in Korea who had already sacrificed so much. Excellent presentation. Thank you.
There is a reason for the neologism 'islamakazee'.
The museum is far and away one of the very best gems in Texas worth visiting with the entire family. Fantastic exhibits that will strain your mind and move your heart, many authentic and to full scale, and many interactive and fully engaging. I would not want to spoil the surprises for you by detailing them. Plan on spending up to several hours to enjoy this museum. Many things to also include in your trip are: Fredericksburg with its German vibe and fun (tourist/non-tourist) shopping and dining; the Texas Hill Country vistas and its beautiful wildlife and natural features, and Enchanted Rock with its state park.
I grew up in the Philippines, and MacArthur was a legend who could do no wrong. I studied history and political science in college and combined with years of listening to old friends of my father as they sat around and played balut, I have a completely different picture of the general now.
As a military commander he was at best acceptable, and at worst incompetent. As a person he was an absolutely self absorbed, narcissistic son of a bitch. He was also a pedophile, which shocked me. He is not fit to serve as an example to cadets in our military academy, and cannot be included in the pantheon of intelligent and capable leaders that won the war for us eighty years ago.
I can confidently state that THANK GOD he wasn’t given overall command of the Pacific theater, and thank god Nimitz had most of the responsibility for the Pacific War. Splitting the command was a courageous decision, and I believe saved us all.
Thank you, Dr. Symonds for your brilliant writing and lectures, so very informative and intelligently presented.
Then they gave MacArthur command all force in Korea unbelievable
My father had a confrontation with MacArthur in 1937 that left a bitter loathing and hate for the man he never got over. Dugout Doug was a contemptible narcissist, and, yes, he was a pedophile.
I totally agree. My grandfather 11th airborne 1943 1946 hated MacArthur
This could be another Bilious Biography of MacArthur? No another hack job wack job!
@derrickcochran4180 Mark Clatk Right? Any idea of what your musing about! NO
those of us who served in generations after Admiral Nimitz revere him and admire his example. I served in Japan 1995-1998 and I saw the positive aspects of Nimitz leadership even then.
The spices flow
Oil is the spice
Fantastic content and context, using source materials of the day to deliver and thoroughly nuanced presentation. Well done!
Thank you sir, that was a wonderful presentation.
All I knew about Admiral Nimitz was his name, and his role in the War in the Pacific. After watching this presentation, I now know that he was also a very decent human being. Thank you for this bit of context that is typically left out of the history books. Very well done!
Outstanding presentation! Another masterpiece of research and analysis by Mr. Symonds.
Pres. Roosevelt didn't have much choice but to give McArthur his own command. He could have tried to retire him, but better to use him.
Nimitz was a great commander!
Yes!
Excellent presentation, thank you.
What an outstanding historian and superb presentation, thank you!
Considering the size of the battlefield, I think that splitting the work was a smart.
Thank you. I much appreciate this excellent presentation.
Such an excellent Presentation on Admiral Chester Nimitz and his Leadership role in the Pacific Theatre during WW2. He had tremendous wisdom, knowledge, a decisive calm temperament and firm resolve in his Military Leadership role.
Thankful to God for such great insights of Commander Nimitz!
I really appreciated your video and a great summation of two distinct US military commanders. Thank you.
Anything that put Dougout Doug in the corner so the adults could fight Japan was a stroke of pure genius.
I did not know the painted barge story (for the surrender). That MacArthur would reject/dismiss out of hand such a classy gesture by Adm. Nimitz only confirms that MacArthur's self-absorbed reputation was well-earned.
One of my grandfather's served in the Pacific for the duration. The other served in Burma in '44-'45.
One was working class.
The other was a Yale Educated Surgeon.
Both absolutely despised MacArthur.
Leave it to MacArthur to unite Americans from different backgrounds and who served in different theaters in their hatred of him.
listening to some youtube other day,mcarthur had dozens of press people around him,nimitz,3.
Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz was a good, decent, smart man. And one of the greatest military strategists this country has ever known.
I LOVE the video at 1:43: In a professional military, a subordinate doesn't just walk anywhere relative to someone who is senior. In the U.S. Army, the junior person walks to the left of the senior, harkening to the phalanx where the senior commander who fought in the front right corner of the formation. Hoplite shields, held with the left arm and sword in the right, protected everyone in the phalanx except the front right person, which is why the king/commander/centurion positioned himself there. MacArthur, for whatever reason, possibly because he was on a ship, didn't focus on where he was relative to Nimitz, or thought because it was Navy, they wouldn't "get" that. Nimitz professionally but physically moves MacArthur to the right to the position of honor as the senior officer. I really love that clip.
I lived on Guam for three years. Our house was just down the street from the Nimitz House. He lived there in the last year of the war. When the CBs built the place he had them make all exits face Japan. Everyone leaving the building knew exactly where they were going.
It is unlikely that King would have acquiesced to having MacArthur as the sole theater commander in the Pacific. And having been an Assistant Secretary of the Navy the President would probably not have subordinated the Navy to the Army in a theater where naval power would be more important.
I visited the IJN ship Mikasa, famous for Tsushima Strait, in 2023. There were exhibits on Nimitz's role in saving this historic ship.
In general, having a divided command structure is frowned upon. However, in the Pacific it certainly seemed to work better than anyone could have possibly foreseen (even MacArthur)
Dr. Symonds' question, having studied both MacArthur and Nimitz, leads me to express that Admiral Nimitz was an essential element in the Pacific and Gen MacArthur was in over his depth.
I am still amazed that the General did not face dereliction charges for his mishandling of the Air Corps in the Philippines following the head's up of Pearl Harbor.
Having read the 'Graybook' in its entirety I am certainly a fanboy of the great man. Many thanks to the Museum of the Pacific War for these seminars.
I was familiar with quite a bit of the info. here. However, you've presented a not insignificant number of important smaller details I did not know. Thank you for that.
God bless the memory of Adm. Nimitz. In late 1941, FDR saw/knew things about Nimitz the rest of us couldn't see.
Absolutely a good idea. Land: McArthur. Sea: Nimitz, ONLY Nimitz!
Actually Nimitz spent a large part of his early life ahd education in Kerrville although his family ties were strong in Fredrksburg. Several teachers in his hight school learned that he would have to leave before he had finished high school so they worked overtime to tutor him in math and science.
Nimitz and Grant IMHO are the two best flag officers this great country ever produced. I only wish that after the war and once Nimitz had become CNO he would have revisited the DSM for Joe Rochefort. Rochefort was simply done dirty by King and the Redman brothers and Rochefort deserved much much better for the critical role he played in the Battle of Midway.
Ian Toll’s trilogy on the Pacific War went into detail on the people and their decisions. I appreciate Nimitz much more.
Late to this but wanted to say your museum videos are excellent. TY
Thank you for this wonderful information!
MacArthur would’ve shown an even greater level of incompetence than he had by being put in charge of naval operations in the Pacific.
Excellent! Thank you.
Very well done! Thank you.
Great author, great lecturer!
Dividing command, one of the best decisions of the war.
There are far too many superb Pacific War historians for me to be able to pick a favorite. But Dr. Symonds is, in my view, something like the dean of them all. For that reason, he holds a pre-eminent position among them. Coincidentally, I have never seen a presentation of his that was not most severely excellent.
The museum is amazing, a must see if near the area. Especially the Japanese mini sub display
Answer to question 2: Since reading about the holodomor in 'Red Famine' by Anne Applebaum, I would think that a widespread siege would have been far less compassionate, than a relatively quick resolution to the conflict.
japan was utterly loath to consider surrender,all face lost unless they die for the emperor,,,kids and teachers drilled with broomsticks marched and drilled to fight to the last
their atrocities spoke of utter contempt for human life anywhere anytime,,utterr destruction was the language they finally understood
Absolutely true.....
Well done. Thank you.
Anything that limited dugout Doug's maniac command was a good idea!
A collared shirt and a jacket, this man has class and a good message too
It's bad enough when you have to fight a hostile enemy, but really bad when the hostile enemy is supposed to be on your side.
Wish we had Fleet Admiral Chester W Nimitz Today
The scope of the Pacific Theater and multi service cooperation pretty much assured a multiple command. The smart move would have been to look at how much water and how many enemy occupied islands would fall more to the Naval branch than that of the Army.
In your book, Nimitz at War, describing the battle of Peleliu, you said,”Those losses were especially tragic in light of the fact that due to the changes in the strategic timetable, the island did not need to be taken at all.” You also said, “Peleliu was the one island conquest that Nimitz did not immediately visit afterward.” Of course Nimitz was a great leader and accomplished so much, but this was a really painful mistake not to give the men who fought on Peleliu the recognition they deserved by visiting there after the battle, particularly under the questionable conditions they had to fight. I’ve heard more than one veteran of Peleliu say this was the toughest battle they fought but no one has heard of it. I resent Nimitz not giving these men the respect they deserved as much as anyone ever.
FWIW, my grandfather was under Nimitz's command before WW2 in subs out of San Diego.
I'm putting you in charge of this operation. Your country has confidence in you to succeed.
These are the objectives.
Go win this for America.
I love your museum, (I am a proud member). Roosevelt made the right decision.
Great video thank you!
Like most Americans I had relatives that participated in WWII in one capacity or another. My uncle Joe, who was a compassionate person, served in the Army. He was in for the duration; starting in 1942 with the invasion of North Africa. At the end of the war in Europe he was in a military hospital in Germany. He, and so many others, were given orders to ship out to the pacific. They were to participate in the invasion of Japan. He told me that the atomic bomb actually saved many lives. It was estimated that the Americans would lose one million lives and the Japanese 10 million. The bomb stopped this madness. President Truman made the right decision.
He saw it as the opportunity to end that horrific war right *NOW.*
Great presentation
Excellent.
Excellent. 👍
Yes but because Admiral Nimitz had a calm demeanor which was asset.
'now see here'. funny. that was when he was pissed.
Excellent
Yes.
A warrior and a gentleman.
The public unfortunately admires the large military egos and diminishes the quiet, competent ones.. In Japan's defeat, Nimitz played a huge role, larger than MacArthur's. Roosevelt was right to keep their command's separate.. It helped to keep a big Army ego in check - a concern in both theaters of the war.
Excellent video
Admiral Nimitz is my favorite military historical figure. I loved his demeanor and leadership style....very counter to my least favorite, General MacArthur.
Maybe I'm wrong but McArthur's entitlement cost lives. He was a Washington swamp guy always social climbing. Nimitz was a country boy for Texas serving his country?
You're correct.
McArthur was a jerk throughout his career until he was fired by Truman. Today's military would not put up with a McArthur temperament.
I don't think McArthur was jerk at all he wanted to drop nuclear weapons on China during the Korean conflict maybe that wasn't a great idea however he was a great general and today's politicly correct military leaders are not fit to shine the mans boots I'm referring to the Pentagon who left Afghanistan with tail tucked between their legs we don't have too many fighting men left at high levels
He probably was still a jerk even AFTER he retired.
PS: This was an excellent bit of oratory . Mr. Symonds is an excellent historian and he gives an equally excellent lecture. Anchors Aweigh, Mr. Symonds. WELL DONE.
Amphibious Ops are always commanded by the Task Force Cmdr. until land forces ashore are consolidated and a HQ is establish for these forces.
Re: could Japan have been compelled to surrender without using the Atomic bomb? Perhaps, but it would have meant continued suffering of Allied POW’s, as well as additional combat fatalities of sailors and airmen. Honestly, which other country in WW2 would have hesitated using a weapon that might achieve quick victory? None of them. And surely not our enemies!
The Pacific is the main beneficiary of the US Navy's dedicated men and women, starting with Dewey but confirmed by Nimitz. US provided security and freedom has led to one of the most amazing improvements in living standards ever
I think Halsey's flagship wad the USS New Jersey.
The surrender happened on the Battleship USS Missouri on September 2, 1945- because President Turman not only because he was from the state of Missouri, but also his daughter Maraget was the one who had christened the Battleship Missouri.
If we had blockaded Japan it seems probable that Japan would have sensed our reluctance, which was part of their strategy to make happen and use. Given the state of Japanese food resources a blockade that lasted through the winter might well have been tantamount to genocide.
Interesting video
MacArthur has an all time comb over.
I suspect that the number of Japanese casualties from a prolonged conventional campain would end up being at least as large and horifying as the number produced by dropping the nuclear bombs. I guess this should be a consideration in any argument for or against.
720p in 2021?? Surely you can afford at least a 1080p camera or a 4k camera by now.
Big theater, Multiple axsis of advance; good reasons
Thanks for this great program on a pivotal period in WWII.
I'm curious as to whether or not you’ve heard of recrnt accounts I've heard that in the last stages of planning Olympic, before Hiroshima, the King absolutely refused to have the Navy participating in the landings once he learned we would not have an overwhelming superiority of manpower in the invasion. He instead said the if the government didn’t surrender, we should continue blockade and bombardment.
As for who was best put in command between Nimitz and MacArthur, one need only look at a map to realize with much more ocean than land, a war in the area would be a largely navel venture and that by a navy's proper use, land war could be minimized. Concerning the bomb, without it there would likely have been no surrender and a protracted campaign which would have killed both military and civilians one hundred fold, either by direct conflict, or more likely starvation. Even after Covid, few of us understand how big a role supply chains make in keeping us alive.
I realize I’m coming to this comments section many months after the question of “divided command, and is it a good idea” is asked, but I just wanted to add that if you go back into antiquity to the late republic (BC) ? period the Roman army, as a regular governmental policy, they put the legions under the control of two equal-authority commanders. Those two officers would alternate calendar days, or periods of days under one then the other’s leadership. Apparently this was successful for quite a period of time. ( 2:17 )
Hind sight has jaded me. Anything to mute McArther influence was necessary. Nimitz was the right man in the right place at the right time.
Since the bulk of the heavy lifting in the Pacific (at least in the first years) would be by the navy, and you could not put Nimitz over McArthur, It was a good compromise. No one new what to expect in the beginning. No one new how to prepare troops for combat with the Japanese, who had many combat experienced commanders and troops. I think a lot of the feelings for McArthur are a bit tainted by how things ended in Korea. Neither commander made a major blunder, and the only issue they could not resolve with each other was whether to invade the Philippines or Formosa and now that we know how the Japanese occupation went I think we can all agree that millions more civilians would have died there without the invasion. So that too turned out right. Both of those men lead a desperate fight that at the beginning was against an undefeated enemy who seemed to win everywhere, regardless of odds. Give them both their due.
MacArthur did make a major blunder. He allowed his bombers in the Philippines to be bombed by the Japanese, with full knowledge that Pearl Harbor had been attacked, a full day earlier. Those aircraft should have been defended, or disbursed to other fields.
By January/ February 1943, King, MacArthur, and Nimitz had succeeded in starting the fight back by victories at Kokoda/ Buna / Gona New Guinea and Guadalcanal.
The divided command was good only for FDR, and for FDR that was really all that mattered. He liked maintaining his personal final control over everything by pinaappling authority up wth all the separate strands having only one common node: himself. Consider his diplomacy, him personally and covertly sending Hopkins and Harriman all over the place collecting information and back door dealings, accountable only to him, with Sec'y Hull going around doing things clueless about their doings. FDR wanted nobody else to really know the entire landscape except himself, which only increased his control. In his gut, he never thought that he would die.
In 1945 the USAAF was compelled to use B-29’s dropping naval mines in all Japanese home waters.
Rank seniority has nothing to do with position authority. I remember being promoted to 1SG over some more senior Master Sergeants. Their seniority in GRADE meant nothing. The 1SG is in charge. Period. This is important to the issue in this video. Macarthur may have been senior in GRADE, but not in rank and position. He should have known that given his time of service.
A key factor in the decision to invade the Philippines instead of Formosa was Spruance's determination that Luzon must be taken first to provide logistical support for and invasion of Formosa, per Twilight of the Gods.
In retrospect I see it as a very good idea as these places were very far from each other.
McArthur was a crackpot. Nimitz is the kinda man for any job.
Why, on earth, is Macarthur has been revered by history, as much as he has?
Thoughts about dividing command... considering the sheer size of the the theatre, i think it was a good idea. And Nimitz was the perfect candidate to do that with MacArthur. MacArthur thought far too highly of himself, not that he was utterly inept - i don't believe he was, but the Army did have better people, and with Nimitz being a more low-key, less grandstanding type of guy, he was a great fit, they worked out fine together. Credit to Nimitz for that.
As for strangling Japan into surrender... that would have been the worst scenario. They'd've held out for far, far longer than the Allies would imagine, all the deaths, starvation, ungh... it was either atom bombs, or a fall landing and invasion, and an invasion would have been unimaginably costly to both sides.
RE: "Split Command" -- This was a necessary compromise, and Roosevelt, the ultimate politician, was well aware of it. MacArthur had the PR people and the blind support of the media; but he was not especially competent as a military commander -- which he'd already demonstrated i n the 1942 Phillippines, and would do so again in 1952. He couldn't be shunted aside as he should have been, so he was given a sideline command dressed up as the major effort to re-take the Philippines.
Of course.