A Report Card on US Admirals of WWII | Former Navy Captain Bruce Janigian | WYL Ep.125
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2024
- A Report Card on the US Admirals of World War II
The Speaker: Bruce Janigian, Former Navy Captain, Historian, International Lawyer, Diplomat and Author
The Talk: While a few military academics and historians politely complain that American Generals should not have allowed Russia to occupy eastern Europe at the end of WWII, they all agree that America’s Admirals soundly won the battle of the Pacific. If such is true, by what criteria should we measure and how would we rank those US Admirals? On December 14, 1944, with the advice and consent of the Congress, four officers were appointed by the President to the rank of Fleet Admiral. Yet, only one had a seagoing career that encompassed all three communities, surface, submarine and aviation branches. With decades of hindsight, how should we rank the WWII performance of William Leahy, Ernest King, Chester Nimitz and William Halsey, Jr.?
Fletcher is criminally underrated by historians.
Absolutely.
Some say King was livid over the loss of his former command on Lexington at Coral Sea and never got over it. Fletcher was outstanding.
Especially when considering he was a tin can officer only before the war without any carrier service.
@@brucejanigian3396 Yeah, King's grudge against Fletcher torpedoed Fletcher's career and condemned him in the eyes of historians for 70+ years. It's good to see that Fletcher is getting his due credit in the 21st century
Naval politics not naval battles cost Fletcher, he deserved better.
Especially given what Halsey got away with, though it will be noted King wasn't happy about that either.
Never forget 'Ching' Lee, Dan V. Gallery and Lockwood.. DBF!
I agree with a prior comment. Fletcher was and is criminally underrated by historians. He fought the cream of japanese naval aviation to a standstill at three of the five carrier on carrier battles of WW2. These were Coral Sea, Midway(Fletcher was in charge, not Spruance) and Eastern Solomon's. He did this with inferior aircraft, ships and antiaircraft weaponry; and essentially without reliable radar. He is the guy who held the line in the pacific in 1942 until the industrial might of the US could come on line.
I agree. I feel that he was exactly the right man for the job, and cringe to think of Halsey in his place during those critical battles.
Fletcher was not part of the "flying club" and gave zero thought about anything other than doing the best job possible. After the war, he moved on with his life and didn't care about getting credit or glory, so Morison, with help of others, turned Fletcher into a caricature. There is a great two part article if one Googles "Frank Jack Fletcher Got a Bum Rap"
There is also a great video on RUclips covering his achievements.
Well said!
@@wellsbengston4132 lookup Frank Jack Fletcher: Unsung Hero from the Dole Institute of Politics here on RUclips. It explains how Fletchers name was tarnished.
IIRC Adm Fletcher went to the Battle of Midway under the recommendation of Adm Halsey. The provision being Fletcher have Halsey’s staff. In particular in air operations Cdr Miles Browning.
@@Idahoguy10157 No! Spruance was recommended to Nimitz by Halsey because he, Spruance, would have Haley's staff. Fletcher had his own staff on the Yorktown. When Fletcher arrived at "Point Luck", being senior to Spruance, Fletcher gave the orders. By the way, Haley's staff and air crews performed terribly: The Enterprise was so bad at launching that Spruance had to overrule the air staff and order the squadrons away piecemeal and the Hornets' air staff (with the exception of Torpedo 8 led by Waldron who committed a court-martial offense) sent all their planes on a flight to "nowhere". In contrast, the staff and aircrews of the Yorktown performed almost flawlessly.
Wait nothing about Admiral Lee?
Frank Jack Fletcher was senior at Midway and relinquished his command to Spruance after Yorktown was out of the Battle. Dougout Doug was lucky Nimitz was around to make the battle go USA's way. Spruance was a great Admiral. Halsey was great early on not so much later. The missing Admiral is Willis A "Ching" Lee.The best without question Battleship/capital ship Commander in US history. Fletcher was a great Admiral. Mitscher was suspect because of the the "Flight to nowhere" during the Battle of Midway.
All Halsey did was have his battleships bombard some islands and talking big to the press.
Halsey was instrumental during the Solomons campaign.His aggressiveness and inspiration to the men were exactly what we needed at the time. Unfortunately by 1944 the massive scale of or fleet and modern carrier tactics had passed him bye. His approach to staff his micromanagement of the fleet and unwillingness to listen to his more experienced subordinates like Mitscher and Lee were his undoing.
Raymond spruance was not the overall commander at Midway. The overall commander was Fletcher, Fletcher passed command to Spruance after his flagship the yorktown was crippled by a japanese counterstrike, but by that time, three japanese carriers were burning, and the strike to cripple the forth had just been launched.
Only 6 months into the war all 6 of the Japanese carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor were either sunk or out of action compliments of Frank Jack Fletcher. More enemy carriers were sunk under Fletcher's command than any other admiral. Fletcher sank 6 out of 21 enemy carriers that Japan lost.
@@Theearthtraveler And somehow he's seen as no good. I don't think any other admiral coud have bettered his performance, and most would have done worse.
@@Theearthtraveler yeah, history has not been kind to Fletcher. He held the USN together during its darkest days and found ways to win.
I have studied WWII for many years, yet I learned a lot from this video that I had never heard before ! Well done !
Uh Fletcher was the tactical commander during Midway, not Spruance. Admiral Fletcher, more than any other commander, was the man who really held the line against the Japanese Navy during 1942.
Admiral Fletchers record: 3 wins 0 losses. Sunk 6 while only losing 2 of his own. All of this in the darkest days of the USN during WWII. History has not treated Admiral Fletcher kindly.
Look up Frank Jack Fletcher: Unsung Hero by the Dole Institute of Politics here on RUclips for insight on how his career was unfairly tarnished.
Edit: This by no means is meant to take away any credit due to Spruance. I believe he was a brilliant Admiral as well.
Spruance is my favorite USN Admiral of World War II. Quiet, unassuming and always calm in battle, he realized how important sleep was for a naval commander. I recommend the description of him in Ian W. Toll's book on the USN in World War II, "Twilight of the Gods."
Thank you for this recommendation.
Its an excellent trilogy of on the Pacific theater starting with "Pacific Crucible".
Thank you all for your very thoughtful comments and corrections. There was a comment about the Doolittle Raid being an unnecessary use of two carriers at a critical time. I would differ. The Raid shifted Japanese resources to home island defense and split the attack on Midway to include raids on Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians, since the Japanese were unsure where the raid originated. But more important, it was an incredible boost to the home front whose support was essential and whose war production and bond drives really united the country to victory.
I disagree. That raid was a stupid idea from the beginning and splitting up the carriers led to their destruction as they were each barely lost in turn. Obviously additional carriers would have very likely prevented the loss of any of them. Didn't their loss hurt morale at home? Why is that so difficult to admit?
The Doolittle raid did little, at great risk to the bomber crews. It was a dumb, childish and shortsighted idea formulated by self absorbed buffoons.
..
@@MrDavePedEnterprise and Hornet at Coral Sea makes it a true ambush.
If one is measuring the Doolittle raid by physical damage infĺicted you are missing the true result. The Japanese, especially Yamamoto, were shocked to their cores, and Doolittle and his men were made instant and loud, legitimate heroes, of which the country was in desperate need. FDR as the keaser of a republic ķnew that the people need to be brought along, or you lose. The Doolittle raid quieted the Pacifist resistance in the country and importantly, the Congress. And it was accomplished at a vanishing small loss in the scheme of later developments. You would be better off pointing out that daylight bombing doctrine was really dumb costing us our best men and a lot of them, caused
incalculable collateral damage in friendly as well as axis nations, and achieving no measurable shortening of the war. The intelligence geniuses, and the British SOE and OSS were at least as important and did focus the war effort.
For one example consider the frustration and eventual destruction of the German heavy water effort. The Doùhet doctrine of "the Bomber as fortress, and always gets through was disproved at great cost and dubious result.
I thought the comment on the Doolittle Raid ignored the tremendous psychological uplift
that it afforded the American people, and the crushing effect it had on Yamamoto and the command thinkers. They were humiliated by the astonishingly small number of bombs they had vowed would never strike their homeland. As a propaganda success it was huge. And we know how the Axis governments depended on propaganda for their very survival. In a republic its no less important as a tool to involve the people. In the present day we are seeing its destructive potential
In the USA.
@@flparkermdpc We are in full agreement. Please also have a look at my recent presentation on December 8, 1941. Thank you and all for comments.
Not quite sure on Kelly Turner. His decision to not let Norman Scott lead the first naval battle of Guadalcanal arguably led to a complete nightmare. He owns the blame for Savo island as he set that defense up. And he did not have the character to own his mistakes. Rather he blamed others and took it out on his own liver.
Nimitz, Spruance, and Fletcher we’re fantastic and we’re uniquely talented. Turner was a cog and was not unique or special. He did his job, and failed a few times. His close ties with EJK and his scapegoating of good admirals are the only reason for him having a generally favorable perception.
Agreed and Amen. I would add to the King connection, that Nimitz friendship was instrumental in keeping him in top command.
@@flparkermdpc and add Spruance as well.
What historians “ complain that US generals should not have let the Russians take over eastern Europe?“ This is a silly statement.
The US army was at the end of a 6,000 mi supply line and barely had enough fuel and transport to take western Germany.
How were they supposed to beat the Russians who were virtually on their home ground with an enormous highly experienced and hardened army?
Who in their right mind thinks the American people would have tolerated such a vast expansion of a war far beyond its Stated objective?
This idea that we should’ve gone forth to defeat the Russians is beyond ridiculous.
In any case, it wasn’t the decision of US generals. They had no authority to extend the war, and those in authority in Washington were not about to extend them that authority.??!!
I disagree with the Captain’s choice of Admiral Turner as the three best. He was a good commander when circumstances were going well, when others had the laid the preparatory steps for his amphibious forces to deploy. When things went south, as they did in the initial phase of the Guadalcanal campaign, specifically the defeat of the USN at the Battle of Savo Island, Turner unraveled, blaming everyone and everything other than himself for the disaster. He unfairly blamed the loss at Savo Island on Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher when it was Turner’s own ships that failed to defend themselves and nearly allowed the Guadalcanal invasion effort destroyed.
Personally, I would replace the Captain’s choice of Turner and instead nominate Admiral Willis (Ching) Lee in his place.
and also look at Turner's actions in the leadup to Pearl Harbor.
I'm with you 100% about what you said about Dugout Doug MacArthur.
There is a whole piece about the MK 14 Torpedo by Drachinifel - incompetence and especially the office in charge of torpedos covering it own ass over creating proper weapons. A true lesson in politics
Drachinifel does outstanding videos.👍👍👍👍
+1 for Drachinifel. Excellent content!!!
I'll watch this entire video, but I may or may not make further comments, as I'm now only six minutes into the video. In Admiral Kimmel's defense, which I suspect the good Captain knows, he was ordered to let the Japanese "commit the first overt act." This was part of the Basic Army-Navy war plan, Rainbow 5 (WPL-46), and also part of the Pacific Fleet's version of that plan, WPPac-46. This is a more complicated matter than I'll go into here. That said, I've had a life-time interest in Pearl Harbor going back to the mid-1950's when my late father was first stationed at submarine base, Pearl Harbor. We lived on Oahu again in 1959-1961. I've been seriously researching Pearl Harbor since late October 1983. I'm still researching this today, 1922 Hawaiian time, 7 July 2021. Andy McKane IV, life member of the U.S. Naval Institute. Thank you for this presentation.
10 X times more interesting and meaningful to anyone with a taste for WW2 history than I had expected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Many T(h)anks!!!
Thank you so much for this presentation and discussion Capt. Janigian. Well done - particularly your comments on those torpedos.
Halsey: I’m drunk enough to fight this typhoon.
You mentioned that Admirals Callaghan and Scott were killed at the Battle of Savo Island, which occurred on August 8-9, 1942. They were actually killed in the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, which occurred on November 1, 1942.
Correct you are!
@@brucejanigian3396 And thank you, Captain Janigian for not buying Richard Newcomb's book on Savo and blaming that defeat on RKT. RADM Ernest M. Eller in the foreword to The Amphibians Came to Conquer called turner "one of history's ablest military leaders." (My late father was a young Navy doctor in 1944-1945, served aboard USS ONEIDA (APA-221). In the mid-1950's he got into the nuclear submarine program. He was a plank owner of USS SWORDFISH, SSN-579. The principal speaker at 579's commissioning was retired Vice Admiral John L. McCrea. I was ten years old and seated in the front row of spectators that day at Portsmouth. Thank you, Captain!
It was actually Friday November 13.
Thanks for this nice presentation. What do you think of Admiral Lee? And...I always wonder what might have happened had TF34 remained on station near San Bernardino Straight during the massive Japanese attack on the Leyte landing forces.
Halsey played down the significance but I think deep down he realized he made an error...recalling the famous message from Nimitz "where is TF 34?" An ensign added "the world wants to know."
Admiral Lee has to follow his boss Halsey in chasing the Jap fleet up north which was a decoy Japanese force during the battle of Leyte gulf…
King hated Fletcher. Nimitz and others turned their backs. This man is a hero. Plus, Turner was a drunk. He was always drunk on his ship with his buddy howlin mad smith!
This video is well intended but researched at high school level. Very basic, lacking any real insight, and with errors in the details (eg Vincennes was not sunk in the same battle where Scott and Callahan were killed, Spruance’’a Forces did not sink 3 carriers at Philippine Sea.). One mention of Fletcher? None of Lee? None of Kinkaid? Criticism of MacArthur was not well done factually and missed his many great uses of naval forces. It was well presented, but below average in fact and knowledge.
You never mentioned Admiral Lee.
This was a very interesting discussion. It appears that the most highly rated generals and admirals of WWII shared a common characteristic - humility. I think of Eisenhower, Marshall, King, Nimitz, and Spruance.
King was far from humble.
As I recall reading, General Short and the Army were in charge of air defense over Pearl Harbor at the time of the raid. Before the war, four stars went with certain command positions in the navy. The Battle Force Commander ( before the war there was no Pacific Fleet. ) wore four stars. Kimmel's predecessors Richardson and Pye and all other commanders reverted to two stars when relieved. That is partly why flag pay remains the same after two stars. Also before the war Chief of Naval Operations was a beans and bullets type of job. The highest force commander was Commander in chief U.S. Fleet, shortened to CinCUS. Admiral King was the last CinCUS before also being appointed CNO. King didn't like the term CinCUS and had it eliminated. ( Too close to "sink us.") King also refused to promote anyone who had run their command aground. This affected Spruance aide Captain Charles Moore. He had run his battleship aground. Spruance was entitled to a flag officer for an aide but King refused. I guess he hadn't heard Nimitz had run his destroyer command aground in the Philippines. None of these guys were perfect including General MacArthur.
MacArthur although he was a SOB has held up consistently well as one of our greatest Generals, when you measure him in the context of today's world. Q: Why are the Navy & Marine Corp willing to ignore the contributions the Army made at all of these horrible places in the Pacific??? He talks about Guadalcanal I did not even know there was Army on Guadalcanal until the "the thin red line" [Thank God for James Jones] yep you guys Can certainly suck all of the Air out of the room and then hurl insults at MacArthur who while - it has previously been confirmed was a high quality SOB. He demonstrated an ability that was superior in many ways to the Navy. Certainly west point does produce a special kind of SOB. Can we not agree there was plenty of blame to circulate around around at the beginning of WW2? Down through the grade of Lieutenant. Is the stove piping evident in today's military? [siloing if your GEN-Z]. My personal experience in the military is that Pearl Harbor can happen again and probably will.
King regarded Nimitz as a "fixer" and Spruance as one of, if not, the best commander and thought he should have been awarded a fifth star. Halsey sailed into two typhoons and, IMHO, should have been relieved. Instead, he was given a fifth star. The army was delegated to protect Pearl Harbor, not the navy. The head of the navy, Stark, was demoted and sent to the Atlantic. His counterpart, Marshall, did not suffer any such demotion and King thought that incorrect.
Halsey was also responsible for the high loss of life and ships at Leyte (sp), he went after the Japanese carrier force and pulled the ship off of one the entrances to the gulf. This allowed the Japanese navy to sail into the rear of US navy ships. Navy intell had shown that the Japanese aircraft carriers had no aircraft left. After the war the high command of the Japanese navy stated that Spruance would have never have fallen for so obvious a ploy, but they knew Halsey was a fool and would sail his fleet away from Leyte Gulf. Halsey actively and shamelessly campaigned for the fifth star in the press and Congress. Halsey was a murderer and nothing else.
We wouldn’t have won the war without Marshall.
My godmother was an Army nurse stationed in the Philippines... she NEVER had a kind word for him. He's dinning off regimental china using silver flatware, & living in a mansion. Troops were sleeping in pup tents eating cold C rats.
I believe Fletcher was in command at Midway not Spruance.
Best not mention Douglas MacArthur to Australians like me either - interesting talk
I think it could be argued Willis Lee saved the US Navy at Guadalcanal. Leaving him completely out of this discussion is a major omission.
A missed opportunity. On a report card gold stars make you feel good but red check marks pinpoint what needs improvement. I missed discussion about Adm. Hart's performance at the ABDA, Adm. King's decisions for USA east coast defense at the start of the war and Adm. Halsey's conduct at Leyte.
With 32 minutes into your presentation, and speaking of U.S. submarines, WPPac-46 had planned to station two submarines each off of Wake and Midway prior to the outbreak of war. On 7 Dec. 1941 CinCPac had two submarines in operation off Wake, Tambor and Triton, and two off Midway, Argonaut and Trout (see JCC exhibit 180, PHA21, pp. 4564 & 4565). A. McKane IV.
Superb job with this entire presentation! Thank you both very much. "Well done," as EJK would have said!
Thanks
Great brief, Thank you.. BUT!!, time stamp 24:23.. you mentioned Admiral King's belt. Actually Admiral King is wearing, if you look closely Gray trousers and Gray cap. (The Gray Navy uniform for Officers and CPOs was short lived.) So the black belt is appropriate to his uniform. As I remember reading, shortly after Nimitz became CNO he recinded King's gray uniform ensemble, which was never very popular.
What won WWII was the industrialists and engineers in the US. It goes out to the millions working in industry as well. Most all the generals and admirals in the US during WWII were of dubious capabilities. Many of them looked great because of the massive logistics they got. Modernly if you fire 70% of the generals and admirals you will increase the lethality and effectiveness of the military by well over 40%.
you are my historian. you recognized how little Mac offered.
Really good.
You give Admiral King too much credit. Navy ordinance reported to Admiral King and he let them get away with blaming the crews for the defective torpedoes even tho the submarine crews reported hearing the torpedoes strike the ships and not detonating. The navy had two Japanese long lance torpedoes and as best I know the navy never evaluated their performance. It was a submarine crew that figured out the detonator tins would bend and disconnected the magnetic detonators. The navy had another long lance that beached on Guadalcanal and again never evaluated.
Believe it or not, King had very little authority over the Bureau of Ordnance, who was responsible for the torpedoes.
The comment that Turner, like King, was "brilliant, caustic, arrogant and tactless," see T.B. Buell's Master of Sea Power, p. 218. Tom Buell was quite a fan of "Kelly" Turner. In Buell's biography of Raymond Spruance, he wrote that Spruance believed Turner probably had the best brain in the Navy (of WWII). Great job with this review of these admirals. Thank you very much! I have a Facebook page, one under my own name, either Andrew or "Andy" McKane; the other is "Pearl Harbor McKane." Admiral Kimmel, as I suspect you realize, was not the "scapegoat" Edward L. "Ned" Beach and the USNI (in 1995) tried to make him out to be. As Admiral Stark wrote to Kimmel prior to 7 Dec. 1941 (I'm paraphrasing here from memory), "no one keeps a secret better than [Kimmel]." This is from a letter between Stark and Kimmel as published in the Pearl Harbor Attack Hearings, JCC's exhibit 106. I've read all 39 volumes of PHA.) A. McKane IV.
Both Spruance and Turner were brilliant...a cut above. Perhaps Turner would say the same about Spruance. I don't see King as being "humble"...he just avoided the press until well into the war and then he softened having his regular briefing in D.C.
After hearing about the Hornet problem during Midway, hoping Mitchner is covered!!
Half way through, where is Fletcher?
Have to disagree with respect to MacArthur and the Philippines. The decision to invade was as much of a political decision as a military one. We had been thrown out in 1941 and it was our duty to avenge that disaster. Besides, at the end of the day it was Roosevelt’s decision and not MacArthur’s. However, the rest of the criticism of MacArthur was spot on, his successful Southwest Pacific campaign notwithstanding.
If memory serves right the enigma code was broken by the British @ blechley park and a quite substantial base was coming from the polish that had been suspicious of the Germans from right after the first WW. The polish recorded all German communication they could get hold of and had broken the earlier enigma codes before WW II
Where was Admiral Ching Lee during Guadalcanal engagements? What command was he on..
Marc Mitscher 's name is spelled with an "s" - Mitscher. His last name was NOT spelled "Mitcher."
Thank you for catching this!
@@brucejanigian3396 No problem....a mistake anyone could have make.
Hmmm. So Halsey was not one of the best? Your view is skewered. Halsey was Nimitz' go to when it came to hardened battle and winning strategy. When Halsey was stricken he himself chose Spruance without hesitation. After Midway, of course, Halsey and Spruance exchanged 3rd and 5th Fleet. If Nimitz or King had decided Halsey wasnt one of their best, they wouldnt have had him as Commander of the South Pacific Forces and striking all the way to Tokyo Bay. Your questionable commentary and deluded conclusions would actually suggest that you know more than Nimitz, King, or anyone else who was better at fighting and winning a war. Spruance was criticized for being to cautious and slow acting, as was Fletcher as well. Halsey was criticized for being aggressive and impetuous. Both Spruance and Halsey were in Tokyo Bay at the end. All of the arm chair quarterbacking and loose facts dont do anything but tarnish the incredible leadership and winning spirit of the Pacific Fleet.
MacArthur most overrated American military officer in our history.
A little bit of a cheap shot on MacArthur, yes he had his faults but without a disclaimer to his brilliance .
HE WAS A WASTE OF MEN AND MATERIALS
You did not mention Vietnam had rubber plantations, I did not hear that.
IIRC Admirals King and Halsey were qualified at Pensacola as Observer rather than pilots
Better check again. King and Halsey were both qualified Naval Aviators.
@@dukeford8893 …. Naval aviation when they went to Pensacola needed senior aviation officers. No one expected they’d be flying actual missions. Unless they were really unsuited to aviation they wouldn’t have been failed there. Not as Navy Captains on the path to be Admirals. King also commanded submarine squadrons. I’m not criticizing either of them
Also omitted Willis Lee who is much under appreciated. I'm not sure Turner was at the same level as Spruance, Nimitz and King. Janigian seems to me at least to be overly critical of MacArthur.
Just my opinion.
well, war warnings don't allocate extra funds to send out scouts.
Best = Spruance, Worst = MacArthur. And let’s not pass over HaulAss Halsey’s duper during Leyte
The dry-docks and fuel storage at Pearl Harbor weren't part of the original plan as laid out by Captain Minoru Genda. Nagumo brought it up for discussion with the Kido Butai Captains and probably made the right decision against it based on not knowing the whereabouts of our carriers.
.
It's a lucky break for us that Mikawa didn't know that Fletcher had taken his carriers out of range the night of the Battle of Savo Island or our first offensive of the Pacific might've been a disaster considering our sparse resources allotted to the Pacific at that early time of the war. As it was Guadalcanal and especially the Naval Battles were the attrition that bled the IJN of it's crack veteran aircrews. I still wouldn't second guess Mikawa for not capitalizing on his victory by going after our supply vessels based on what he knew. I'm sure he wished he had the benefit of hindsight after learning our carriers had bugged out the day before that night battle. I might .second guess Fletcher's decision though
.
I rate our worse losses at sea as the Battle of Java Sea, Savo Island and Tassafaronga in that order. I didn't include Santa Cruz due to the aforementioned attrition to the last of their veteran Naval aircrews.
And I think the over-hyped and over-praised Stillwell deserves special mention as an incompetent commander. Pretty good call on everything else especially the undersung Submarime Blockade of the home Islands.
Adm Fletcher was blamed for Easter Solomon debacle and was relieved of command and was relegated to a backwater command…
I’m confused Battle of Eastern Solomon’s was a tactical and strategic victory for Fletcher.
Are you confusing Eastern Solomans with Santa Cruz maybe?
Santa Cruz would be the first time the US came the looser as at a carrier battle, also was the first time Fletcher wasn’t in command of the US Carrier Forces in a battle.
God bless
IMHO Spruance not Halsey deserved that 4th star. Reasons: Halsey's "Bull's Run" at the Battle of Samar left the entire Amphib force unguarded. His vanity to see Admiral Lee's TF34 FAST BBs destroy the last of IJN's CV force was too much for him to resist and entirely unnecessary. Add the his two disasters with typhoons with the avoidable deaths of hundreds of sailors and you have an admiral undeserving of a fourth star. Spruance deserved that 4th star.
Do you mean a 5th star? I actually agree...I think national politics played heavily into the decision to move Halsey up to Fleet Admiral. King ordered Halsey back to Washington after the typhoon fiasco and according to an aid, got a dressing-down from King that was legendary. The aid stated he never heard a 4-star get a chewing out of the likes Halsey got from King.
Halsey’s actions at leyte Gulf are consistent with his orders, the mission and the task organization and command relationships. I agree with King that Kinkaid should have used his own aviation assets to pick up Kurita’s main body coming round Samar. Halsey did break contact with ozawa and returned to help Kinkaid when ordered to.
Sounds like this must be interesting, but the audio is bad - probably a computer built-in microphone. They sell microphones for like $5 and they make ALL the difference.
I always thought Mccarthur was severely overrated
WWI respectable, if unspectacular. Fall 1941/Dec 1941 Idiocy. Plenty of other WW2 campaigns well done. Governor of Japan, well done. Beginning of Korean War, blind to what was developing. Inchon Genious. Yalu/Chosen... refused to see intelligence.
Gen of The Army Douglas MacArthur possessed physical and moral courage. His idea and execution put together an Army Division out of disparate National Guard Regiments In WW I which earned him a promotion to Brigadier Gen. That rank was conferred upon him by others.
I opine that SW Pacific was next to the bottom of the supply chain only CBI got less. Inchon was a stroke of military genius. The Naval amphibious commander opined that it wasn’t impossible. Gen Bradley would not have come up with a more audacious plan.
The General’s benign administration of occupied Japan was masterful.
His academic career at West Point stellar his military career - two CMOH.
The man was singularly unique. Funny I compare him to contemporary leaders and find contemporary leaders wanting.
People seem to love him or hate him. He's an extremely complex leader. He deserves to be looked at for both his accomplishments and failures, but few manage that.
@@jtnelson4579 yet he is also responsible for the single greatest defeat in American history and chose to ignore all intelligence and warning in Korea leading to the Chinese entrance to the war and the lost of thousands of American soldiers who he had ordered spread out all along the front in isolated pockets.
However his governorship of Japan was brilliant and I doubt anyone else could have done it anywhere near as successfully, but his generalship was mediocre at best.
Should have been relieved and court martialed for his actions in Korea.
Captain Janigian has confused the Battle of Savo Island with the first naval Battle of Guadalcanal, which is easy to do as all these naval battles in and around Guadalcanal were fought in or around "Iron Bottom Sound" with the lonely silhouette of Savo Island always lurking in the background. Still, it would be nice if a naval expert got it right. At said Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, the first failure of Callaghan was the arrangement of his radar capable ships. Not only was Callaghan in command over the more senior Norman Scott, but Callaghan's ship, the San Francisco, reflecting it's sick namesake city from more recent times, managed to fire on Scott, killing him. He then proceeded to attack an enemy battleship, which led to his own death, although the battleship sank late. Still, Callaghan managed to take a totally favorable situation, throw away his advantages, kill the senior admiral and turn a needed victory into a TIE. This was not a genius. I DO however, keep some metal scrapings from the rusting bridge memorial in San Fran, that I picked up from the neglected spot where it then stood, and which lay on the floor. Such is the truth of Callaghan and the continuing sad disgrace of the city that bears the name of a once proud ship.
Thanks for joining others who pointed out my confusion. As far as San Francisco is concerned, sorry to say my old hometown could sure use a power washing with disinfectant!
Callaghan also refused to allow his ships to open fire on the Japanese ships for fear of their hitting their own ships. The US had seriously neglected to practice night engagements , something the Japanese navy were very good at.
It was still a strategic victory for the us he did stop the bombardment of Henderson field. I do wish Scott would have been in charge though.
King humble? Just because he felt ill at ease with reporters I would not think his ego would allow him to be called humbles.
There is no question that Adm Spruance deserved the Fifth Star that Adm Halsey received. There is great coverage of Raymond Spruance in James Hornfischer‘s superb treatment in The Fleet at Flood Tide.
The good four striper is somewhat sloppy in his details.
Mostly regurgitating what has been written for years. No new real information. If Halsey was so bad, he would have been pulled and retired. King was no nonsense. If he really thought the chasing of the IJN Northern Fleet was a wrong decision, Halsey would have been relieved. All of this arm chair quarterbacking is ridiculous.
Pretty good whitewash of the admirals with a spot on appraisal of MacArthur. Admiral King was an incompetent of huge proportion. One of his many blunders was not dousing the lights of the east coast costing many a sailor his life to German U boats added to this was his refusal to utilize the experience of the British in convoying merchant vessels with destroyer escorts. His refusal cost many hundreds of ships and thousands of lives because of his shear ego and hubris defined by his hatred of all things British. Later his refusal to back his admirals' plans for waging the Pacific war against MacArthur's ego trip costly "island hopping" campaign tipped Roosevelt into splitting the attack and using both plans. He was more than prepared to veto MacArthur's plan but was playing politics and needed King's support to squelch MacArthur. He didn't get it and lives were lost by the tens of thousands. In reality the conduct of the Pacific war was abysmal and needlessly costly. Examples of the failure of torpedoes, and five inch naval rounds but more glaringly the refusal to correct the problems or even recognize them at flag rank cost many a sailor his life to pay for the megalomania of the flag ranks. These weren't oversights but rank failure of top command when apprised of horrible equipment failures. Simple common sense would have sufficed in the absence of talent but it too was sadly lacking. The tradition of regarding and treating these upper ranks as some kind of royalty is self defeating in real terms of ability to defend this country. All the soft soap and public relations cannot change that basic fact.
Incompetent Army radar operators and lax communications among officers could have prevented or different result of Pearl Harbor..
I'll just chalk it up to Navy vs. Army bias that lead to your pronouncement on the performance and capabilities of General MacArthur. There is no doubt that Gen. MacArthur had huge shortcomings in his ability to adequately manage his equally huge ego. However, Gen. MacArthur was demonstrably a brilliant military tactician and proved to have leadership qualities at a level beyond waging a world war when he became the single person responsible for bringing Japan back from near total destruction of the country governed by an absolute monarchy to emerge as a modern industrial power governed by a constitutional democracy. In this regard MacArthur demonstrated leadership capabilities beyond all other military officers of WW2.
MacArthur is hit and miss at best. There is not much good executing a brilliant manoeuvre if you blow it with a bone headed one.
While he deserves credit for is ability as a civil administrator however it should be remembered that Germany was put back on it's feet quite quickly too and unlike Germany, Japan never went though an equivalent to "denazification".
@@somethinglikethat2176 There is a one word answer to anyone who fails to see MacArthur as a true military genius .... Inchon. Furthermore, I am convinced that MacArthur was very aware of the machinations of the International Banking Cabal and knew the true danger of Communist China and he would have ended the Communist Threat at a time when it still could be done. This would have changed the fate of the world in a way that would have been good for almost everyone on the planet, except for the Globalist Cabal, hence he was fired and an attempt was made to denigrate and vilify his legacy as the globalists do when the create the narrative of history.
@@sfranger50 You obviously do not know how many soldiers there were in China there were at that time, also Russia had said they would support China if MacArthur crossed and certain point. I agree about Inchon , it was a brilliant idea that one of MacArthur's staff came up with.
History is funny, just like people. You have to study to find the truth. You’re wrong about MacArthur.
Look him up and learn.
You have the right to your own opinion, and I mean no offense. But since you mentioned it, MacArthur was a glory hound who tried to become "King of the Orient". The press loved him, but numerous members of my family who served in the Pacific in WW2 & Korea LOATHED him. My subsequent, personal study of his military actions revealed numerous examples of "Dugout" stabbing ppl in the back to get ahead & claiming credit for others' actions to his superiors (& the press). Even worse.... his "successes" regularly meant callously wasting Australian, British & US lives (especially Marines & Navy)... just to grab glory.
EVEN SO, I wish the Captain would not have criticized MacArthur so "energetically". To me, it was mostly a distraction from an otherwise solid presentation. "The Sins of WW2" should/could be a separate discussion, and should include specific, detailed, documented evidence of the acts of the transgressors.
BTW The Gibraltar of The Pacific Singapore surrendered in February 1942. 86,000 Empire ( British) vs. 36,000 Imperial Japanese. US and Filipino forces held out until May.
Most men talk a good game but can’t walk the walk MacArthur did both. That’s why he’s hated so. On the other hand he is revered in both The Philippines and Japan. Reflect upon your own career. Have you accomplished 10% what MacA did?
Dr a lot of good points.
I think MacArthur was similar to most great generals of history. Domineering, yet brilliant. Boastful, yet soft of heart about the people he served. What we know is that ALL the allied generals of WW2 were rascals to be sure, but we needed those rascals. It was the fight in them that made them the clear choice generals for the worlds largest conflict ever. MacArthur should have been finished and retired, but the war could not do without him. That’s what fascinates me about him as a historical figure, and a man.
JT that’s a great way to put it.
By the time he had ‘retired’, he had done more than most 10 generals could do in their whole career.
He was a legend before WW2 had even started!
His governorship of Japan was brilliant however his generalship in WW2 and Korea was extremely lacking, especially at the strategic level in Korea. He is responsible for the single greatest defeat in American history but was loved by the media who protected him politically. The majority of his fellow officers couldn't stand him with Eisenhower going so far as agreeing to run for president just so MacArthur wouldn't get the nomination.
Your bias against MacArthur is evident. While he certainly had his many issues, to end with the summary "dug-out" Doug does in no way reflect his personal courage. We needed him in WWII and later in Korea.
MacArthur should have been relieved and court martialed in Korea. His arrogance killed alot of Marines.
@@tjschakow even before that ! his political medal of honor is the least deserved in history.
Wretched talk. Axe-grinding. Totally lightweight.
3:21)The Congressional Medal of Honor is a CIVILIAN award created by President Kennedy.
3:44)Admiral Kimmel took command of Pearl a few weeks before.
Admiral Leahy was retired and recalled. He was more a hatchet man for FDR and Truman.
I disagree. My understanding is that Leahy was a major influencer for the Combined Chiefs.
@@brucefredrickson9677 He bitched about dropping the A bombs.
@@brucefredrickson9677 Leahy was a facilitator and a mediator. I don't get the impression that he had much influence over Marshall or King.
Admiral King is the architect of success for the USN in the pacific. All others followed.
The Doolittle Raid was a very bad idea executed very well.
It left Enterprise to fight the Japanese without Lexington and Yorktown for many many of the most critical months of the war. The Doolittle Raid risked very much to accomplish very little and substantively lost two thirds of our carrier forces.
..
Sorry, I don’t follow your reasoning.
@@brucejanigian3396 The carriers were destroyed because they were separated. They were sunk in turn because they were one or two carriers lacking in concentration of force. All for what? A hit against Japan's morale? The Doolittle raid might have been more effective against a different nation but Japan wasn't morale dependent like Western nations.
@@brucejanigian3396 I think what he might be getting at (although not clearly) is that if the US had pulled back the two carriers from the Doolittle Raid, then 4 carriers would have been available for the Battle of the Coral Sea giving the US a strong superiority of force there and quite probably saving the Lexington from sinking and possibly the Yorktown from serious damage. Also, the Shokaku at least could have been finished off and who knows what would have happened to the Zuikaku. It is 20/20 hindsight but given the US code-breaking and knowledge by early April that something big was up for that area , it was a lost opportunity.
The raid was about building up the morale in the US, it had nothing to do with Japan's morale. Arm chair opinions are worthless, just my opinion.
@@MrDavePed The morale had to do with American morale.
Just to add a superficial question, why did it take the British to invent the Enigma machine to break German codes but the United States did not require a computer because they did it with pure brain power. Does that mean the German codes were that much Superior than Japanese codes that they required computer augmentation to break? I never hear any comparison of the technical abilities and effectiveness of Japanese versus German codes.
It wasn’t the British that invent Enigma , it was the Polish. They smuggled it out of Poland to the British.