notice - this is a private site intended for personal and academic use only (I am an adjunct professor with an online university) - any copyrighted material on any of these pages is used in "fair use," for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis only, and will be removed at the request of copyright owner(s). No material benefit or profit is sought or gained. Titles are links to sites or documents.
When does an army become an "Old Army"?
Officer/Historian Clarence C. Clendenen tells us of one:
"The years from the Spanish-American war to the Mexican Punitive Expedition of 1916 marked a transition that amounted almost to a revolution within the United States Army. During this era the "Old Army" gave place gradually to the new, without any break or convulsion. It was a change that was almost unnoticeable while it was taking place. In the incredible confusion of the Spanish-American War the anachronistic command system of the "Old Army" broke down - the system whereby the Commanding General of the United States Army, had no authority over the
entrenched bureau chiefs, and the actual administrative authority, under the Secretary of War, was not the Commanding General, but was the Adjutant General." p. 139 - BLOOD ON THE BORDER - The United States Army And The Mexican Irregulars,(Macmillan Company Collier-Macmillan Ltd., London, 1969) -
Here then are some vignettes on some key characters from the first half of the 20th century. While few would bet, upon a reading of his "Old Army" career, that Grant would have made it in today's Army...consider these three more recent gentlemen.
Cole C. Kingseed, Dark Days of White Knights. Military Review 73:67-75 January 1993.
"Fifty years after World War II, the military achievements of Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower and George. S. Patton are still remarkable. Together, these leaders were members of the most successful generation of American military officers in this century. To historian Martin Blumeson, the World war II commanders were the most formidable array of warriors in our history.1 Other historians have echoed his assessment. Writing in the dark days following Pearl Harbor, Douglas S. Freeman, Robert E. Lee's and George Washington's foremost biographer, predicted that the conflict would produce its own Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson.2 More recently, Eric Larrabee stated that American senior leadership was truly impressive for the matching of individual to task and for its sloughing off of militaristic vainglory. Somehow the right leaders emerged, and it seems asking too much of coincidence to suppose their selection was mere happenstance.3
Contrary to the popular perception that the giants of World War II led charmed careers and were early destined for military success, the recent declassification of the official records and personal 201 files of MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton suggests an alternative to the thesis that successful military leaders are born with the innate qualities to guarantee future success.
Each of the commanders examined in Edgar F. Puryear Jr.'s superlative study in military character and leadership stumbled badly on his path to greatness.4 Indeed, America's most successful battlefield commanders often ran afoul of their superiors and had to overcome serious obstructions in their careers.
MacArthur was no stranger to controversy, and his career was anything but ordinary. Consumed by insatiable ambition and possessing a unique flair for personal flamboyance, MacArthur served brilliantly in both world wars and the Korean conflict. En route to an unparalleled career that spanned half a century, macArthur earned a record seven Silver Stars in World war I, the Medal of Honor in World War II and became the Army's youngest brigadier general (1920) and chief of staff (1930). Moreover, MacArthur served 33 of his 48 years of commissioned service as
a general officer.
MacArthur's early career, however, was not alwyas characrterized by glowing endorsements from commanding officers. As a junior officer, he frequently demonstrated a reluctance to undertake assignments he did not like.5 At one point, his promising career was actually in jeopardy. In May 1905, MacArthur obtained an assignment to the California Debris Commission, a federal agency established to regulate hydraulic mining in the Sacraemnto and San Joaquin valleys.6 Major William W. Harts, his immediate superior, was less than enthusiastic about MacArthur's
performance. Directed to supervise the excavations in a nearby valley, then Lieutenant MacArthur complained that his departure for so long a time from San Francisco (where his mother resided) would be impossible due to his father's absence and the necessity to tend to some of his father's affairs.7 Harts reported to the chief of engineers that although MacArthur was usually prompt in complying with assigned orders, it was impossible to forsee with what enthusiasm the lieutenant would carry out work assigned to him if there was no objection in the way.8
Harts's concerns notwithstanding, he appointed MacArthur as acting chief engineer of the Division of the Pacific, a post not normally assigned to a junior officer.
Following a subsequent tour in the Orient, MacArthur secured an assignment to attend the Engineer School of Application at Washington Barracks in 1906. During the course of academic instruction, he also served as aide-de-camp to President Theodore Roosevelt. Enamored with his social duties in the White House, MacArthur displayed little interest in his academic regimen. So disgusted was Major E. Eveleth Winslow, the chool's commandant, that he wrote Brigadier General Alexander macKenzie, chief of engineers: "I am sorry to report during this time, Lieutenant MacArthur seemed to take but little interest in his course at the school and that the work done by him was generally not equal to that of most of the other student officers and barely exceeded the minimum which would have been permitted. Toward the latter part of the course, he...was in charge of a survey party...and owing to his ignoring or misunderstanding the instructions given him, the results were quite unsatisfactory. Indeed throughout the time Lieutenant MacArthur was under my observation, he
displayed but little professional zeal and his work was far inferior to that which his West Point record shows him capable of." 9
Due to his poor performance and conflicting duties, MacArthur did not graduate with his class. He eventually finished his course work and graduated in absentiua on 28 February 1908.
Seemingly unfazed by his mediocre performance in the Engineer school, young MacArthur courted professional disaster at his next assignment in the didtrict office of engineers in Milwaukee in August 1907. In his new posting, he was subject to the orders of Major William V. Judson. MacArthur's duties primarily concisted of preparing plans and supervising the construction of local harbor facilities. All in all, it was not a demanding job for an aspiring officer.
Milwaukee, however, was also now the residence of his parents, and his aging father was without official duties. As his family made repeated demands on his time, MacArthur was frequently absent from his desk. Judson complained that his subordinate lacked "zeal to learn and that the family ties superseded his devotion to work." 10
Intent on giving his subordinatean assignment that might secure MacArthur's interest, Judson assigned MacArthur the task of supervising reconstruction of Manitowoc Harbor, 60 miles from Milwaukee. Again, MacArthur remonstrated and argued vehemently because such an assignment would take him away from Milwaukee for a considerable period. Moreover, he informed Judson that he (MacArthur) "wished to be undisturbed for about eight months while he got ready for and passed his examination in the subjects of the garrison (engineer) course." 11 Although
he eventually went to Manitowoc, MacArthur continually expressed his total dissatisfaction with the project.
Not suprisingly, Judson wrote a scathing efficiency report in which he was highly critical of MacArthur in every category but "general bearing and military appearance." (comment-still the real way to success - look good!) When the adverse report was received in Washington, Major General Frederick C. Ainsworth, the Army's adjutant general, asked Judson to elaborate on the report. Judson promptly replied, "I am of the opinion that Liuetenant MacArthur, while on duty undermy immediate orders, did not conduct himself in a way to meet commendation and
that his duties were not performed in a staisfactory manner." Ainsworth then sent copies to MacArthur and his former commanding officers for comment. All of MacArthur's previous superiors were highly laudatory of his performance except Winslow and Hart.12
Never one to accept what he considered an affront to his personal honor, MacArthur submitted a rebuttal in which he professed bewilderment at Judson's serious allegations. Moreover, MacArthur wrote, "I feel keenly the ineradicable blemish Major Judson has seen fit to place upon my military record, as I am confirmed in the belief that nothing occurred when I was on duty in his office to deserve such drastic action."13 Additionally, MacArthur stated that he did not consider his own presence in the office as a matter of much practical importance.14
Ignoring proper channels, MacArthur sent his rebuttal directly to Brigadier General William L. Marshall, the new chief of engineers, who promptly reprimanded him for violating known military procedures. On 5 August, Marshall admonished MacArthur, stating that the lieutenant's rebutal "is of itself, justification of Major Judson's statement, in view of Mr. MacArthur's evident indication to avoid work assigned to him elsewhere. The Chief of Engineers expects of all officers under his command promptness and alacrity in obeying orders and faithfull performance of duties assigned to them."15
This stinging rebuke finally silenced MacArthur, and only timely intervention of Major General J. Franklin Bell, a comrade of MacArthur's father, saved MacArthur from professional oblivion. Bell posted MacArthur to Fort leavenworth, where MacArthur discovered his true vocation in commanding troops. From 1908 to 1911, MacArthur earned promotion to captain, as well as the respect of his commanding officers. From then on, his star was clearly in the ascendant.
Like MacArthur, Eisenhower experienced ddifficulties in his early career. many of Eisenhower's early commanders valued his service as a football coach far more than his professional abailities as a young officer. At one period, he received higher ratings on his efficiency report for his duty with the football team than his regimental responsibilities.16 This became a source of increasing frustration for the junior officer throughout his first decade of commissioned service.
Still, there were flashes of brilliance for Eisenhowerprior to his emergence as the top graduate from the Command and General Staff School in 1926. As commander of Camp Colt near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, in World War I, he established a training base for the fledgling Tank Corps. This assignment eventaully entailed command of 10,00 men and 600 officers.17 So conspicuous was his performance at Camp Colt that Eisenhower was one of the first members of his class to achieve the rank of lieutenant colonel and one of the few officers to earn the Distinguished
Service medal for duty in the United States during the war.
As a result of his experience at camp Colt, Eisenhower became one of the first officers to recognize the potential of motorization and mechanization. His information with armor increased when he moved to Camp Meade in 1919 and befriended patton. In a sense, Eisenhower and Patton were among the true pioneers of armored warfare. Together, they proposed a new armor doctrine:
"We believe that tanks should be speedy, that they should attack in mass. By making good use of the terrain in advance, they (tanks) could break into the enemy's defensive positions, cause confusion, and by taking the enemy front line in reverse, make possible not only an advance by infantry, but enevelopments of, or actual breakthroughs in, whole defensive positions."18
Eisenhoweralso encouraged planners to consider defensive, as well as offensive use of armor. He began writing extensively on the future role of armor on the modern battlefield. Writing in Infantry Journal in 1920, he chastised his branch for its unimaginative approach to combined arms tactics and urged infantry officers to study the question of tanks, their capabilities, limitations and consequent possibilities of future employment. Eisenhowerstated that "the clumsy, awkward, and snail-like progress of the old tanks must be forgotten, and in their
place, the Army must picture a more steady, relaible engine of destruction."19 Eisenhower's revolutionary views did not endear himself to Major General Frank L. Sheets, cheif of infantry, who under the national defense Act of 1920, was responsible for the development of armor doctrine. Sheets summoned Eisenhower and informed him that his views were "incompatible with established inafntry doctrine." Henceforth, Eisenhower should keep such thoughts to himself or face the distinct possibility of court-martial.20
Being the dutiful subordinate, Eisenhower compiled, but he had not heard the last from Sheets. Four years later, Eisenhower returned from Panama and visited Sheets in order to obtain an appointment to attend one of the service schools. Sheets refused to favorably consider the request and seemed intent on holding Eisenhower back. Eisenhower had the last laugh, however, when through a novel arrangement that temporarily transferred him to the Adjutant General Corps, he attended the Leavenworth course in 1925.
(comment-a branch transfer today is irreversible - AG Corp officers command nothing!)
Even then, one of Sheets'aides wrote Eisenhower, advising against attending Command and General Staff School because "you would probably fail" and the failure would make him useless as an infantry officer, condemming him forever"to a life of coaching inferior football players."21 Undeterred by this lack of faith, Eisenhower applied himself diligently and graduated first in his class in June 1926.
Eisenhower 's alienation of Sheets, however, was not the most serious obstacle he encountered as a junior officer. While stationed at Camp Meade in 1921, then Major Eisenhower faced an Inspector General investigation into alleged financial improprieties that almost terminated his promising career. The investigation charged Eisenhower with offenses of the gravest character for which he might not only be dismissed from the service but also imprisoned. Investigators charged Eisenhower with knowingly violating Army regulations by accepting $250.67 for commutation of quarters, heat and light for his son, Icky, who had been residing in Denver with relatives while
Eisenhower's wife Mamie, was residing with Eisenhower at Camp Meade in public quarters, heated and lighted with public funds.
Under existing regulations, Eisenhower had clearly violated the stipulation that only one abode was authorized for dependants. Had he knowingly violated the regulation? Ike said no; Brigadier General Eli A. Hemlick, acting inspector general of the Army, said yes. Actually, Eisenhower had surfaced the issue himself when he became aware that a problem might exist. he immediately made arrangements for repayment but that did not satisfy Hemlick. According to Hemlick, Eisenhower's actions had been "illegal and unauthorized" and he (Eisenhower) had
submitted statements that he knew were "false and untrue."22 Hemlick recommended that Eisenhower be brought to trial on charges fraud.
The entire episode lasted six months, from June until December 1921. It was an extraordinary trying period for Eisenhower, who had recently suffered the loss of his son to scarlet fever the preceding winter. More than once, he contemplated resigning to join his brothers, all of whom were successful businessman. Just when his career prospects seemed darkest, fate, in the form of Major General Fox Conner, intervened
Conner, West Point Class of 1898, had been General John J pershing's operations officer in World War I. En route to take command of the 20th Infantry Brigade in Panama, Conner requested Eisenhower to serve as his executive officer and brigade adjutant. Pershing was only too happy to honor a personal request from Conner and issued the necessary orders.
The approval of Conner's request terminated the investigation into Eisenhower's alleged financial improprieties. Instead of a court-martial, Eisenhower received a formal letter of reprimand. Writing on behalf of the secretary of war, Lieutenant Colonel John Shuman informed Eisenhower that Ike's admitted ignorance of the law was to his discredit, and his failure to conform to established regulations had led to the grave charges being properly preferred against him. As reprimands go, it was a slap on the wrist. The alternative could have been far worse, and the world might have heard the last of a military officer named Eisenhower.
In spite of it all, Eisenhower was a relatively easy subordinate compared to Patton. For good or ill, notes one early biographer, Patton's forte was not staff duty.24 This was frequently refelected in Patton's efficiency reports. During the 1920s, officers evaluated their subordinates in relation to other officers of their rank as inferior, below avaerage, average, above average, and superior. Patton uniformly received above average to superior ratings in physical energy, endurance and initiative. These ratings were somewhat offset by fairly consistent ratings as average in judgment, common sense and tact. In 1920, while on duty at Camp Meade, Patton was regarded by his commanding oficer as "an efficient officer." Lieutenant Colonel E.G. Beurat of the Inspector General Department investigated the efficiency of officers at Meade and summarized Patton as "efficient; keenly interested in the development of tanks. I consider him average."
The same year, Colonel W.C. Rivers, the regimental commander of the 3d Cavalry and Patton's immediate superior, rated Patton "below average" in tact.
Being Patton's commanding officer was not always easy. The senior officers whom he served in Hawaii, for example, deserve some sympathy. So turbulent was patton's first tour of duty in Hawaii from 1925 to 1928 thathe was relieved of duty as the division G3 and received an adverse efficiency report in which the commanding general called Patton a "disturbing element in a peacetime."26
Patton reported to Schofield Barracks for duty in the Hawaiian Division on 31 March 1925. Following duty as the G1, Patton finally secured the much sought after assignment as the division G3 on 1 November 1926. He immediately made his presence felt and in the process began the trek that ultimately led to his removal as G3 the subsequent summer.
As the staff officer whose duties consisted of supervising training and advising the division commander on tactical matters, Patton frequently observed brigade and battalion training exercises. In mid-November, he witnessed the 22nd Brigade's exercise. The training exercise displeased him immensely and Patton submitted an extremely critical report directly to the brigade commander, who himself was a brigadier general. Patton tactlessly failed to have the division commander sign the report. For a major to "correct" a brigadier general was inadmissable and created much ill will toward Patton on the part of the brigade and battalion commanders, all of whom were senior to the
division to the division operations officer.27
Unfortunately, Patton did not learn from this experience. Following a battalion tactical exercise in may 1927, he submitted a scathing critique of the unit's conduct of the operation. Patton berated the officers and men of the battalion, stating that they were not trained or prepared to accomplish the designated mission. Although he judiciously had the division's adjutant general sign the report on behalf of major General William R. Smith, the commanding general, it was common knowledge within the command that the maneuvers and comments belonged
to Patton. As crticism of the G3 grew, Smith removed the abrasive Patton from his key staff position and reassigned him to be division G2.
Patton, was mortified at what he deemed Smith's lack of moral courage, yet his actions had left Smith with few alternatives. patton had been overeager, too direct and savage in his denunciation of errors committed by senior officers and too abrasive to serve as the G3.28 Colonel Francis W. Cooke, the division cheif of staff, rated patton as "average" in all categories of G3, but noted Patton possessed unusual opportunities to acquire both a theoretical and practical knowledge of General Staff work.29 Still, the relief stung badly and Patton's first Hawaiian tour was a sobering professional experience.
Given the less than glowing efficiency reports in their early careers and the alienation of several commanding officers, how then did MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton survive in an army that frequently stifle personal initiative and creative thought? Why did they remain in an army where promotion was determined more by seniority than individual merit? Certainly, many of their early reports would not pass the scrutiny of today's selection boards. Was their future success due more to luck and patronage than professional competence? The unequivocal answer is "No."
(comment - disagree - the answer is equivocal - he has already documented that by today's standards they would not have been promoted, which is the real value of this article - at least they were then in a system that somehow did not allow paper files (OERs, reprimands) to end their careers - and had senior leaders somehow willing to give second chances - but patronage and luck, in the form of timing - did save their bacon and gave them opportunities to display their skills - so, why the author (who rose to Colonel) takes this bent is understandable..)
Luck alone fails to explain how each officer managed to survive in the interwar Army to be in a position to assume greater responsibility on the eve of World War II. Each believed in his own destiny, but MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton were also incredibly ambitious men who created their own luck. Each also used influence to advance his own career at critical times. All had powerful political and military patrons.
MacArthur repeatedly used his father's prestige to obtain coveted assignments, and MacArthur's association with Secretary of war Baker led to his own promotion from major to full colonel on the eve of World War I.30
It was Conner to whom Eisenhower attributed his principal success. Two years before his own death in 1969, Eisenhower noted in his personal memoirs, "I can never adequately express my gratitude to this one gentlemen, for it took years before I realized the value of what he had led me through. But in a lifetime of association with great and good men, he is the one more or less invisble figure to whom I owe an incalculable debt."31
Like MacArthur and Eisenhower, Patton enjoyed powerful friends. Patton's early association with Pershing in Mexico in 1916, facilitated Patton's subsequent assignment to Pershing's staff in World War I. A review of Patton's personal correspondence during the interwar period also reveals how frequently Patton kept in contact with the Army's senior leadership and national politicians who often interceded on Patton's behalf.32 Still, countless other officers enjoyed similar associations and fortuitous assignments, yet failed to advance. How then
did these men succeed?
Close scrutiny of the career patterns of America's leading commanders in World War II reveals that the senior leadership was extremely dedicated to the military profession. Instead of despairing at the lot of the undermanned and underpaid
*(comment - all were married to women from wealthy families.)
Army between the wars, MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton pursued their professional development with passion, taking full advantage of the Army's emphasis on institutionalized professional education. Eisenhower was the most illustrative example. Between the wars, he attended the Command and General Staff School, the Army War College and the Army Industrial College.
Additionally, MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton were prodigious readers of military history. Patton and MacArthur had personal libraries containing thousands of volumes on the great captains and campaigns of history (comment-wealthy families). Through his association with Conner, Eisenhower also became an avid reader and studied the operational and logistical requirements of war.
What really separated these future commanders from their contemporaries was their ability to make rapid, correct decisions. All seemed able to separate the essential aspects of a problem from their non-essential components to reach the correct solution. MacArthur's ability to quickly synthesize conflicting parts of a complicated problem and issue succinct instructions were legendary. Patton also possessed the intuitive instincts and ruthless drive to get to the heart of a problem. Eisenhower was no exception. Writing in 1933, the deputy chief of staff of the Army, major General George Mosely, captured the essence of Eisenhower's success in a letter to his most valued subordinate:
"You possess one of those exceptional minds which enables you to assemble and to analyze a set of facts, always drawing conclusions and. equally important, you have the ability to express those conclusions in clear and convincing form. many officers can take the first few steps of a problem, but few have your ability of expression. My earnest hope is that you will guard your strengths and talents carefully and that..your government may use your talents in positions of great responsibility."33 Mosely could have just as easily been describing MacArthur and Patton.
In the final analysis, MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton were proven performers. Had they not produced, they would have fallen by the wayside. Devoting themselves to their profession, they bequeathed to us a legacy of brilliance and excellance. Like Martin Blumenson, we lament their passing but take pride that they came our way when the nation needed them most.
1. Martin Blumenson, "Ranks of the WWII Greats Grow Thinner: A Lament," Army, (November 1987):16
2. Douglas S. Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants A Study in Command, Vol. I(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1942), xxx.
3. Eric Larrabee, Commander in Chief: FranklinDelano Roosevelt, His Lieutenants, and Their War (New Yorks: Harper & Row, 1987), 5.
4. Edgar F. Puryear, Nineteen Stars : A Study in Military Character and Leadership (Novato CA: Presidio Press, 1981) In addition to MacArthur,Eisenhower and Patton, Puryear examines the career of George C. Marshall, Army chief of staff in World war II.
5. Larabee, 309.
6. D. Cl;ayton James, The Years of macArthur, Vol I (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970) 90.
7. William R manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, 1880-1964 (Boston: Little Brown, 1978) 65. See also James, 91.
8. Ibid.
9. Letter, Winslow to Mackenzie, 7 August 1908. 487448 as quoted in james, 95-96. See also Manchester, 69. Copies of correspondence in adjuyant general of the Army files-Douglas MacArthur, Record Group (RG) 94, National Archives. Hereafter cited as AGO-DF.
10. Michard Schaller, Douglas MacArthur: The Far Eastern General (New York: Oxford University Press,1989), 8.
11. James, 98; Manchester, 69.
12. Manchester, 94; James, 100.
13. James, 100.
14. Letter, MacArthur to TAG, 28 July 1908, AGO-DF, 487448, RG 94, National Archives.
15. James, 101. See 19 documents realting to Judson's report in AGO-DF, 487448, National Archives. Documents include correspondence from 1 July to 4 September, 1908.
16. Robert W. madden "The Making of a General of the Army," Army (December 1990):55 Copies of all of Eisenhower's efficiency reports are in Series III, Efficiency reports in Dwight D. Eisenhower personal records, records of the office of the Adjutant general, RG 407. Files are located in the Eisenhower Library, Abilene, KS.
17. Ibid., 54.
18. Ibid., 55.
19. Dwight D. Eisenhower "A Tank Discussion," InfantryJournal (November 1920):457.
20. Stephen Ambrose. Eisenhower: Soldier, General of the Army, President-Elect 1890-1952 (New York Simon and Schuster, 1983), 72. See also Merle Miller, Ike The Soldier: As They Knew Him (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1987), 180.
21. Ambrose, 79; Madden, 55.
22. For a complete analysis of the inspector general investigation, see Miller, 196-203.
23. Letter Shuman to Eisenhower, 16 December 1921, in Series I, General Historical Files (1921) in DDE personal records, records of the adjutant general, RG 407.
24. H. Essame, Patton: A Study in Command (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1974), 23.
26. Essame, 23.
27. Blumenson; 811-12.
28. Martin Blumenson, Patton: The Man Behind The Legend, 1885-1945 (New York: William Morrow and Company, INc.,1985), 128.
29. Ibid., 816.
30. Douglas MacArthur, Reminiscences (New York: McGraw Hill, 1964), 46.
31. Dwight D. Eisenhower, At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends (New York: Doubleday, 1967), 187.
32. The best source is Blumenson's The Patton Papers.
33. Letter, Moseley to Eisenhower, 18 February 1933 as quoted in Miller, 249-250.
----------------------------------
MacArthur and orders: "the only real soldier, MacArthur felt, was at the front. In September 1918 Pershing ordered a bayonet charge with minimal artillery, hoping to catch the Germans by surprise. MacArthur's troops rejected this as too risky. He agreed. "It's sometimes the order you don't obey," he told a fellow officer, "that makes you famous." He changed the plans. He also led the charge. And he did it with style." - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/filmmore/transcript/transcript1.html
MacArthur and first wife: "On Valentine's Day, he and Louise (Louise Cromwell Brooks, a 31-year-old divorced socialite with two children - and a fortune.) were married at her mother's mansion in Palm Beach. Pinky was too sick to attend - well enough to manage a hasty retreat from the superintendent's house. Another who did not attend was Gen. Pershing. Louise had had an affair with Pershing in Paris during the war. After the war, she had a fling with Pershing's aide. Then she met MacArthur.
PERRET: Pershing was extremely angry and so he cut short MacArthur's tenure as superintendent and sent him to the Philippines with Louise"
BROOKS: Louise couldn't quite reconcile herself to the limitations of the Philippines. I think she felt she was just counting the days till she could get back to civilization because she'd lived in Washington. She'd lived in Paris. She'd been the center of attention wherever she was, and I think she missed the glamour of the rest of the world.
NARR: After seven years of marriage, Louise divorced MacArthur. In his memoirs, he never mentioned her name. MacArthur's commitment to the army paid off. In 1930 President Herbert Hoover appointed him chief of staff, the position his father had been denied...
NARR: A proud Pinky touched his four stars and whispered, "If only your father could see you now! Douglas, you're everything he wanted to be." It is not clear what his father would have thought of "Dimples." Isabel Rosario Cooper was an actress of mixed Scottish and Filipino blood who became MacArthur's mistress during a stint in Manila after his divorce. She was 30 years his junior. He signed love letters "Daddy." At a time of strict racial segregation, MacArthur took the risk of bringing Dimples to Washington.
KARNOW: So there she is at the Chastleton apartments in what the tabloids of the day would call a love nest. And there he is. He's living at the official residence of the Army chief of staff with his mother and sort of in this acrobatics, he would slip over to be with Dimples and then go back without his mother knowing what he was doing. And here he is in his early fifties dreadfully afraid that his mother will discover that he's got a girlfriend.
MacArthur's mistress:
Isabel Rosario Cooper, an actress, was born in the Philippines of Filipino and Irish ancestry. She was famous as the first recipient of an on-screen kiss in a Filipino movie. When she was sixteen years old she met Douglas McArthur and became his mistress. He arranged for her follow him to Washington DC. After the War he filed a libel action against a journalist on the Washington Post, Drew Pearson. When Pearson revealed that he had obtained
the love letters exchanged by McArthur and his young mistress, McArthur dropped the action and paid him $15,000 for the letters.
MacArthur's Querida- Written by Patty Cachapero, Directed by Jon Rivera
"We had to do some extensive research into the life of General MacArthur during his height of fame in the 30s and 40s since the work was based on a portion of his life,....A very unique and interesting play, it dealt with the reality of MacArthur's life and his foreign mistress (who happened to be only 16 years old!), his controlling, power hungry Mother and his own struggle with his faltering rise to the Presidency, racial prejudices and ultimately the crumbling of a man so revered in the public eye - he was reduced to a whimper when scandal hit.. The writer also used her artistic license to sprinkle in some interesting characters to move the story along and not make it merely a documentary of his life."
"Douglas MacArthur: The Philippine Years" by Carol Morris Petillo (Indiana University Press 1981). Unlike other biographies of the general, this one takes a closer look into the complex relationship MacArthur had with the Philippines and the Filipinos. There are a number of things in that book that are not found in our textbooks -- like Manuel Luis Quezon and the Philippine Commonwealth government granting MacArthur half a million US dollars as they fled to Corregidor Island and eventually to the United States. Then there is more data on MacArthur's
mistress, "Dimples," than all the other MacArthur biographies combined.
"Dimples" was a screen name for a vaudeville actress who went down in Philippine film history for being on the receiving end of the first on-screen kiss. Depending on which book you are reading, her name either takes the Spanish form Isabel Rosario Cooper or the anglicized Elizabeth Cooper. They met sometime in 1929 when MacArthur was back in Manila, just separated from his wife Louise. What I have been trying to reconstruct is not so much what the couple did during the general's regular visits to her home on Herran Street (now Pedro Gil) in Manila’s Paco area, but rather the obviously potent concoction of crushed mango, Spanish brandy and crushed ice that Dimples served and
called "the Douglas."
In late 1930, MacArthur accepted the appointment as chief of staff and returned to the United States. The problem was that MacArthur was stationed in Washington and his mother lived with him in Fort Myer, thus he had to arrange at great expense to both his pocket and his reputation to house Dimples close to his office at the hotel Chastleton on 16th Street in Washington DC. Petillo makes reference to the correspondence between MacArthur and Dimples as follows:
"Not surprisingly, the letters reflected the General's longstanding romanticism and were filled with assurances of his continuing devotion, both now and forever. More noteworthy, however, was his uncharacteristic emphasis on the social aspect of [his trip back to the US via San Francisco], and the good times he foresaw after they had been reunited. MacArthur seemed fearful that Isabel would not follow him to the States, and spent a great deal of space urging that she prepare with care and allow nothing to interfere with her departure. Between the lines of passionate prose, there was an underlying insecurity..."
What is surprising is that Petillo did not have direct access to the Dimples-MacArthur correspondence now in the University of Texas at Austin. In 1976 the tabloid National Enquirer stopped publication of the letters "from the 50-year-old MacArthur to the 16-year-old Dimples" to avoid a lawsuit. - http://www.inq7.net/opi/2003/oct/15/text/opi_arocampo-1-p.htm
NARR: MacArthur tried to create a sense of family in the War Department with what he called "my gang." It included a young major, Dwight Eisenhower, whom he admired even though he had never led a charge.
AMBROSE: Douglas MacArthur is the man who wrote in Eisenhower's personnel report "this is the best officer in the United States Army. When the next war comes move him right to the top." Eisenhower was a Major at that time. MacArthur saw something in Eisenhower that others weren't seeing or at least he wasn't advancing.
NARR: Ike was impressed with MacArthur's "comprehensive" knowledge and found his memory "without parallel." But he was surprised how freely MacArthur crossed the line "between the military and the political."
---------------------
Patton's mistress
From Publishers Weekly
George S. Patton Jr. is remembered as much for his tough, profane image as for his military skill. Few sense that this image represented an ideal and a command tool to Pattonand that developing and projecting it was one of many struggles for a man forever in doubt about his aptitude and performance. Blumenson (author of The Patton Papers and a one-time member of the general's staff) has written a detailed and persuasive study of Patton's character, making liberal use of quotes by Patton and his family which afford insight into Patton's view of himself. More afraid of cowardice and under-achievement than of injury or death, unable to live up to his own impossible standards or the
example of his martial forebearsbut always tryingPatton was very conscious of his shortcomings and insecure in his accomplishments. From his early efforts to overcome dyslexia to forcing his courage on the battlefields of World War II, he remained ill at ease with the differences between himself and the ideal he desperately wished to embody. Photos not seen by PW. 35,000 first printing; $40,000 ad/promo. November 11 Copyright 1985 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Library Journal
The complex personality of ``Old Blood and Guts'' George S. Patton, Jr. is always a fair target for psychologists and amateur psychohistorians. Now, Patton scholar and ex-aide Blumenson has capped his excellent presentation of The Patton Papers with a mildly interpretative account of the colorful general's life and foibles. Unfortunately, he uses a vast amount of source material but does not tell us anything particularly new. The book is gossipy and fast moving but disappointing to readers hoping for fresh insights into this major military figure. A glib and entertaining popular biography in no way superior to any of the existing works on the subject. Raymond L. Puffer,
U.S. Air Force History Prog., Los Angeles - Copyright 1985 Reed Business Information, Inc.
other reader reviews and comments:
There is also a serious character flaw in Patton regarding his niece. Although he denied it, it was pretty obvious he was having sex with his niece. This is where we, as the reading public, must give all thanks to the Patton family. They trust Blumenson so much that he is the only man they have given full access to the family papers and letters. At no point did they tell Blumenson to hide anything. They recognized that their family member was an historical figure,and insisted on a complete analysis--warts and all. Otherwise, how can you form an opinion on
the man?...he wasn't faithful to his wife. There were a couple mentions of how many condoms he used in a short period. Patten had a long affair with his niece. And after he died, the niece killed herself. She left a note that she would be with Uncle Georgia before Beatrice....Blumenson makes excellent use of Patton's personal letters, especially those to Patton's wife, to reveal the human side of his tough-as-nails persona. Patton with nervous indigestion? Patton feeling worthless and inferior? Who would have guessed!
The War Between the Generals
Reviewer: Mannie Liscum (Columbia, MO United States) - See all my reviews
David Irving's "The War Between The Generals" is an insightful piece of military history. Irving's study follows the personalities and actions of most of the major Allied military leaders of the European Theater of Operations (ETO) - including both combat and COMZ generals - from the planning stages of Operation OVERLORD through the end of the war and occupation period. Beyond the generals Irving also mixes in their interactions with political leaders from Secretaries of War to the Big Three. In the end one can get a good feel for the Allied command structure and operation in the ETO and how personalities and nationalism affected the relationship between the partners and the function of their armies.
http://www.solargeneral.com/irving/WarBetweenGenerals.pdf
p189
George Patton - still in England - was growing ever more impatient. The Americans were bogging down, just as the British had around Caen. Patton observed resignedly that if Bradley played safe, if he kept on attacking down successive phase lines to the south, "we will die of old age before we finish." On July 4, tiring of waiting for the call to France, he breezed into London to meet a beautiful young woman who had arrived from Boston.
Her name was Jean Gordon, and she was Patton's niece, the child of Beatrice Patton's invalid half-sister. She had lost her father when very young and had subsequently vacationed from school with the Pattons. Over the years she had become exceedingly close to Patton, and he adored her. She was charming, clever, and sensitive. Now she had enlisted as a Red Cross "doughnut girl"; and managed to get to Europe to be with her Uncle Georgie. She was about as old as his own daughter.
Patton found her stunning in her uniform. He later murmured to Everett Hughes that he didn't want her presence known in London. Hughes, already a repository of many buddies" secrets, kept mum. Jean Gordon was the first of several young women who joined their American generals on the battlefields. In England and later in Europe, she would become
Patton's constant table companion when he entertained important visitors. The two of them would converse animatedly with each other in fluent French, to the confusion of those around them. Hughes could not help wondering what the relationship was.
pp195-96
Patton talked to Hughes about Jean Gordon. In a mood which Hughes divined as more boastful than repentant, his friend told him: "She's been mine for twelve years." That answered the curious question that had been at the back of Hughes's mind.
p246,
Hughes liked being with Patton, but on this occasion he found him edgy, perhaps because of a letter from Mrs. Patton, received a few days before. She had learned that Jean Gordon was in England, several thousand
miles closer to her "Uncle Georgie" than she was, and had written to fire a shot across his bow. Patton had evasively replied: "The first I knew about Jean's being here was in your letter. We are in the middle of a battle
so [we] don't meet people. So don't worry." A bit farther down the page, Hughes made the delicious inscription:
"Jean Gordon off to France. [That] will please 'Uncle' Geo."
pp320-21,
On November 5, Marlene Dietrich and her troupe lunched with Patton and Jean Gordon at Nancy, and gave his officers a show. "Very low comedy"; complained Patton to his diary. "Almost an insult to human intelligence.
"; Dietrich's streamlined figure left Patton unstirred. He had become something of a connoisseur of the European female form, favouring the statuesque Norman and Breton women to the shapeless Arabs, the overstuffed Italians, and the boyish English. French women, he noted admiringly, reminded him of British locomotives, with two buffers in front and powerful driving wheels behind.
Eisenhower and Bradley both phoned encouragement. "I expect a lot of you," the Supreme Commander said. "Carry the ball all the way."
Hughes drove back to Paris, obliging Jean Gordon with a lift in his car. If the attack succeeded, Patton would not have much time for her. But the Germans were well dug in, the rains streamed down, and the Third
Army slithered to a halt. On November nm, Hughes noted: "Third Army not thru yet. V-os hitting London, V-ns hitting Antwerp."
November no was Patton's fifty-ninth birthday. The day before, as a sort of birthday present and to cheer up the doleful warrior, Hughes sent Jean Gordon back to him.
p355
Hitler's master plan (Ardennes Offensive) had taken account of everything but George Patton. On December nU, Bradley telephoned Patton and told him to bring his top staff officers to Luxembourg for an immediate conference. Patton,
sensing trouble, sent Jean Gordon back to Paris in his personal plane to stay with Hughes&'s friend J.P. (Hughes's Mistress) Then he climbed into his staff car and raced from Nancy up to Luxembourg.
pp397-8,
Patton was in Paris, on leave. Hughes noted: "Much hoopla. Brought [Lieutenant Colonel Charles] Codman and Jean [Gordon] . . . to hotel for dinner. I guess Geo is thru with this war and has his eyes on China and a
fourth star.
They all drove over to the Folies Bergères after that, but the floorshow got worse every time General Hughes saw it, which was not infrequently. "A man can get accustomed to naked women if he sees enough naked women," Hughes wrote. "But George had his mind on _______ and a job in the Pacific, mostly on __________, he can't talk about anything except that. He must be getting impotent."
p403,
Jean Gordon was among the retinue. Subsequently Patton got another hostile letter from Beatrice. "Don't worry about Jean," he wrote back. "I wrote you months ago that she was in the Army. . . . I have seen her in the company of other Red Cross [girls], but I am not a fool so quit worrying.
p417-18
George Patton was still fighting - around Pilsen, in Czechoslovakia - when Germany surrendered. Several of his Third Army intimates were worried about him. He seemed increasingly eccentric, emotional, even unstable. Secretly they contacted Hughes and asked if he and J.P. would come over "they would send a plane for them"; and divert George a bit.
Hughes and J.P. arrived at Third Army headquarters in Regensburg, Germany, on May nn. Patton was living in a castle that was more like a museum, full of bric-a-brac.
Hughes soon gathered that Patton had had a scene with Jean Gordon; perhaps, he thought, about what would become of her now. But that evening, thanks in part to a huge bottle of champagne provided by a Red Cross girl named Marion Hall, they had made up. Later Patton mystified Hughes by telling him that Jean had handed him "a marked calendar.";
Patton went on unblushingly to inform Hughes that he had ordered nine condoms for his forthcoming trip to London"; he had been encouraged to take some time off and relax. Before he left he achieved a victory over Soviet
Communism: he met a Russian general in Linz, drank him under the table, and walked out under his own steam.
Flying into London on the 16th, he noticed that the city was much less battered than German cities he had seen. He checked in at Claridge's Hotel, then phone Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne to ask for two tickets to
their current play, which he found "most amusing." News photographers came into the theatre and took Patton';s picture. "I think that they may have thought I was Montgomery," he playfully told his diary, "until I
started to go out, when they found I was bigger." He was pleased to find that "the whole street for about three blocks was a solid mass of people waiting to see me." later in May Patton was able to return to London to resume his endeavours. Back in Paris, he told Hughes that in London he had succeeded "four times in three days."; He went on to remark that a busy man sacrifices a certain number of opportunities. He knew the exact number of opportunities that he had not sacrificed: "Seventy-one," he said.
That evening Patton invited eight to dinner at the Ritz"; and had to fork over .. dollars out of his own pocket. He told Hughes he was scared to death of going back home to America. He left the next day. Jean Gordon was distraught. With J.P., Hughes took her back to his apartment so she could "have a good cry." When Patton returned to Paris on July 4, he told Hughes over sandwiches and scotch in Hughes's room: "Beatrice gave me hell. I'm glad to be in Europe!" He added that he was damned well not going to the Pacific while MacArthur was out there. Before they parted, he said: "Stick around, maybe you and I will run this theatre."
p423
November 1945 was a sad month for Jean Gordon, too. She returned to the United States, never to see her beloved Patton again. On December on, he died from injuries he had received in an auto accident. "I think it is
better this way for Uncle Georgie," she told her friend Betty South. "There is no place for him anymore."; There was no place for Jean Gordon either. In New York, two weeks after his death, she committed suicide.
bravenet.com
