Specific Military Charges versus General MacArthur

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
User avatar
Galahad
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 30 Mar 2002 00:31
Location: Las Vegas

Specific Military Charges versus General MacArthur

Post by Galahad » 16 Jan 2005 10:45

David seems to lock threads JUST before I see them! And when I've got An Answer, too! So, lemme open this one, to respond to the question as to what charges could have been brought against General MacArthur concerning his actions in the Philippines in 1941-1942.

First, shortly after Pearl Harbor was attacked, General MacArthur was ordered by his superior, General Marshall, US Army Chief of Staff, to immediately execute all provisions of War Plan Rainbow 5. For General MacArthur, among other provisions, this called for the conducting of air operations against Japan, as well as taking all measures to put his command in a full state of readiness for all eventualities. It's patently obvious that General MacArthur did NOT immediately begin air operations against Japan, nor was his command placed in a state of readiness. This was a willful disobedience of orders from his lawful superior. The direct result of this was the effective loss of the air forces under his command.

General MacArthur was thus subject to charges under Article 63 of the Articles of War: Assaulting or Willfully Disobeying A Superior Officer....."Any person subject to military law who, on any pretense whatsoever.....willfully disobeys any lawful command of his superior officer, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial shall direct."

His actions here were further chargeable under the provisions of Article 74 of the Articles of War: Misbehavior Before the Enemy......"Any officer or soldier who misbehaves himself before the enemy......shall suffer death or other such punishment as a court martial shall direct."

They were also chargeable under the provisions of Article 83 of the Articles of War: Military Property, Willfull or Negligent Loss....."Any person subject to military law who, willfully or through neglect, suffers to be lost, spoiled, damaged, or wrongfully disposed of any military property belonging to the United States shall make good the loss and suffer such punishment as a court martial may direct."

Assuming the powers-that-be wanted to be considerably vindictive towards General MacArthur, with specific reference to his specific orders to neither confiscate nor destroy rice owned by Japanese nationals, but to leave it untouched to fall into enemy hands, they could have made a case for charging him under Article 81: Relieving, Corresponding With, Or Aiding the Enemy: "Whoever relieves the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other thing.....shall suffer death, or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct."

Lastly, with specific reference to the loss of his air force, General MacArthur could have been charged under Article 96 of the Articles of War: General Article....."Though not mentioned in these articles, all disorders and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the military service, and all offenses or crimes not capital, of which persons subject to military law may be guilty, are to be taken cognizance of by a general or special or summary court martial, according to the nature of the degree of the offense, and punished at the discretion of such court."

For General MacArthur's conduct in trying to prevent General Wainwright's being awarded the Medal of Honor--which conduct included deliberate lies and various slanders against General Wainwright, MacArthur could have been charged under Article 95 of the Articles of War: Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman....."Any officer or cadet who is convicted of conduct unbecoming a gentleman shall be dismissed from the service."

Lastly, for his actions and comments with relation to his superiors during his period of supreme command in Korea, General MacArthur could have been charged under Article 61 of the Articles of War: Disrespect Towards the President....."Any officer who uses contemptuous or disrespectful words towards the President.....shall be dismissed from the service or suffer such other punishment as a court-martial may direct", AND Article 62: Disrespect Towards Superior Officer....."Any person subject to military law who behaves himself with disrespect towards his superior officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Given General MacArthur's actions, and his inactions, I think it's pretty clear that there were considerable grounds for charging him with various violations of the Articles of War, had his superiors in Washington chosen to do so.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Post by Peter H » 16 Jan 2005 12:53

Unless another Moderator wishes to respond I think this topic should be given a rest for now.

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”