Re: MacArthur's War

[Marc James Small <msmall@infi.net>]

At 06:30 PM 6/2/02 EDT, Cfbernard@aol.com wrote:
> Please send me the sources that led you (others?) to your conclusions
>about this particular work. 

The sources?  Read, say, Blair's FORGOTTEN WAR or the standard MacArthur
and Marshall biographies (Clayton James, Manchester, Perrett, Pogue).
Compare the extensive footnotes in Blair and Perrett and Clayton James with
the work done by Weintraub to Weintraub's spare citation and rather
restricted use of sources.  Look for the Old Chestnuts Weintraub repeats
without question.  And, most of all, reread the book in light of what you
now know about the command relationship in the Pacific in 1948 until 1951.

Weintraub consistently ignores the political milieu in which MacArthur
operated and doesn't seem even foggily aware of the politics going on in
Washington or London.  He seems to believe that MacArthur and the President
were the only players in a game which did involve other major contestants
(the JCS, the SecDef, the CIA, the House of Representatives and its
leadership, the Senate and ITS leadership, the British PM, the British COS
Committee, NATO, the UN, the Japanese, the ROC, the PRC, &c &c).  He
credits MacArthur with far more power than he had on occassion and, on
others, doesn't seem aware of the real power MacArthur did have.  He seems
to believe that MacArthur received information that we now know wasn't
shared with him;  he seems unaware that MacArthur knew what he did know.

Weintraub insists on discussing the events in the Philippines on 8 DEC 41
as some sort of prequel to Korea.  He gets almost all of the facts wrong
there and his acid commentary falls flat, as it simply isn't based on what
we now know actually occurred.

This book was discussed on H-War when it appeared and was dismissed by the
professional historians there, though the initial review was neutral.  It
has also been discussed on a dozen other lists as well, to pretty negative
commentary.  It is probably fair to point out that Weintraub is not viewed
as a "distinguished professional historian" so much as a popular historian,
as all but his early works have been popular histories, such as his rather
spotty work on the events of 7 DEC 41 or his more accurate account of the
end of World War I.  His first book, on the George Bernard Shaw - TE
Lawrence correspondence, of course, WAS quite solid and plowed fresh ground
and remains a benchmark in Lawrence studies.  But his work since then has
slid more and more to the popular side, and his reputation today is more
that of a popularizer who has done good work in the past than as a
practicing professional historian.

When you posted your original remarks on the book, I sent you a private
e-mail offering to share the detailed notes I took when I read the book at
the time of its appearance.  As you never responded, I figured that you
were not interested.

Marc

msmall@infi.net  FAX:  +276/343-7315
Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!