Every time Craig Symonds gives a presentation, he hits it out of the park. This was great.

That he included “Henry’ in his meeting with McArhur and Halsey. and even spoke to him so familiarly, seems totally consistent with the Admiral’s character. What a decent man he was!

Excellent talk by Craig Symonds! I hope he can return for future webinars.

I grew up in the Philippines, and MacArthur was a legend who could do no wrong. I studied history and political science in college and combined with years of listening to old friends of my father as they sat around and played balut, I have a completely different picture of the general now. As a military commander he was at best acceptable, and at worst incompetent. As a person he was an absolutely self absorbed, narcissistic son of a bitch. He was also a pedophile, which shocked me. He is not fit to serve as an example to cadets in our military academy, and cannot be included in the pantheon of intelligent and capable leaders that won the war for us eighty years ago. I can confidently state that THANK GOD he wasn’t given overall command of the Pacific theater, and thank god Nimitz had most of the responsibility for the Pacific War. Splitting the command was a courageous decision, and I believe saved us all. Thank you, Dr. Symonds for your brilliant writing and lectures, so very informative and intelligently presented.

Thank you for being a care giver to our history. The museum is a treasure in the hill country. Thanks to all that make it possible

I was familiar with quite a bit of the info. here. However, you've presented a not insignificant number of important smaller details I did not know. Thank you for that. God bless the memory of Adm. Nimitz. In late 1941, FDR saw/knew things about Nimitz the rest of us couldn't see.

I have the immense pleasure of knowing one of Admiral Nimitz's bodyguards during the last two years of the war. His accounts of Adm. Nimitz are congruent with those presented here. He characterized him as a calm, decisive leader whom he never heard raise his voice or use a curse word. He was considerate of his bodyguards and was respectful of them. He told several stories where Nimitz would be considerate of them. He was in the room with Macarthur and Nimitz during a meeting to discuss strategy. He never mentioned any animosity between the two. He related a story where he accompanied the Admiral on a hike in Guam. The bodyguard was tall and he felt like he needed to relocate his sidearm (.45) from his waist to more of a cross body fashion so that he could access it more easily if needed. A Marine reported him for this and the Admiral squashed the complaint and told them to get lost. When the Admiral left for the signing of the peace treaty, this bodyguard accompanied him to the airfield. After saluting him and starting up the gangplank, the Admiral turned around came back down and shook his and thanked him for his service. This man added "I would have taken a bullet for him in a heartbeat".

Such an excellent Presentation on Admiral Chester Nimitz and his Leadership role in the Pacific Theatre during WW2. He had tremendous wisdom, knowledge, a decisive calm temperament and firm resolve in his Military Leadership role. Thankful to God for such great insights of Commander Nimitz!

I'm putting you in charge of this operation. Your country has confidence in you to succeed. These are the objectives. Go win this for America.

All I can say is thank god we had him

those of us who served in generations after Admiral Nimitz revere him and admire his example. I served in Japan 1995-1998 and I saw the positive aspects of Nimitz leadership even then.

I really appreciated your video and a great summation of two distinct US military commanders. Thank you.

Thank you for this wonderful video. In my declining years I have learned more about Adm Nimitz, and have become an admirer. It seems to me that he is one of the most underappreciated leaders of WWII.

Anything that put Dougout Doug in the corner so the adults could fight Japan was a stroke of pure genius.

I think that the entire issue of Nimitz vs. MacArthur could be summarized with one simple question: Who would YOU prefer to work for? A modest, soft-spoken but highly skilled leader or for a megalomaniac?

Yes!

Outstanding presentation! Another masterpiece of research and analysis by Mr. Symonds.

Very well done! Thank you.

Thank you for this wonderful information!

Thank you. I much appreciate this excellent presentation.

Late to this but wanted to say your museum videos are excellent. TY

Excellent! Thank you.

What an outstanding historian and superb presentation, thank you!

Great video thank you!

Well done. Thank you.

Yes.

Great presentation

It is unlikely that King would have acquiesced to having MacArthur as the sole theater commander in the Pacific. And having been an Assistant Secretary of the Navy the President would probably not have subordinated the Navy to the Army in a theater where naval power would be more important.

Excellent.

The museum is amazing, a must see if near the area. Especially the Japanese mini sub display

Great author, great lecturer!

Dr. Symonds' question, having studied both MacArthur and Nimitz, leads me to express that Admiral Nimitz was an essential element in the Pacific and Gen MacArthur was in over his depth. I am still amazed that the General did not face dereliction charges for his mishandling of the Air Corps in the Philippines following the head's up of Pearl Harbor. Having read the 'Graybook' in its entirety I am certainly a fanboy of the great man. Many thanks to the Museum of the Pacific War for these seminars.

I love your museum, (I am a proud member). Roosevelt made the right decision.

Interesting video

Thanks for this great program on a pivotal period in WWII. I'm curious as to whether or not you’ve heard of recrnt accounts I've heard that in the last stages of planning Olympic, before Hiroshima, the King absolutely refused to have the Navy participating in the landings once he learned we would not have an overwhelming superiority of manpower in the invasion. He instead said the if the government didn’t surrender, we should continue blockade and bombardment.

Wow.

Yes but because Admiral Nimitz had a calm demeanor which was asset.

Of course.

For decades I have called Eisenhower a political general....... .....a political general of such high quality, talent and brilliance that Eisenhower was a divine gift by God to the allies in Europe. Political generals are an unavoidable requirement for victory, and the ones that do it well are beyond measurable value.

The scope of the Pacific Theater and multi service cooperation pretty much assured a multiple command. The smart move would have been to look at how much water and how many enemy occupied islands would fall more to the Naval branch than that of the Army.

Dividing command, one of the best decisions of the war.

Maybe I'm wrong but McArthur's entitlement cost lives. He was a Washington swamp guy always social climbing. Nimitz was a country boy for Texas serving his country?

Wish we had Fleet Admiral Chester W Nimitz Today

I realize I’m coming to this comments section many months after the question of “divided command, and is it a good idea” is asked, but I just wanted to add that if you go back into antiquity to the late republic (BC) ? period the Roman army, as a regular governmental policy, they put the legions under the control of two equal-authority commanders. Those two officers would alternate calendar days, or periods of days under one then the other’s leadership. Apparently this was successful for quite a period of time. ( 2:17 )

McArthur was a jerk throughout his career until he was fired by Truman. Today's military would not put up with a McArthur temperament.

The Pacific is the main beneficiary of the US Navy's dedicated men and women, starting with Dewey but confirmed by Nimitz. US provided security and freedom has led to one of the most amazing improvements in living standards ever

THUMBS UP

Nimitz and Grant IMHO are the two best flag officers this great country ever produced. I only wish that after the war and once Nimitz had become CNO he would have revisited the DSM for Joe Rochefort. Rochefort was simply done dirty by King and the Redman brothers and Rochefort deserved much much better for the critical role he played in the Battle of Midway.

The surrender happened on the Battleship USS Missouri on September 2, 1945- because President Turman not only because he was from the state of Missouri, but also his daughter Maraget was the one who had christened the Battleship Missouri.

Let's take a moment of praise for FDR. Whatever your political tribe, you have to admit he made some excellent decisions. Regarding Nimitz' upbringing- his grandfather was a stoic- something that resonates with me and explains why Nimitz was so effective as a commander. One thing about McArthur- you could not use "stoic" to describe him.

Amphibious Ops are always commanded by the Task Force Cmdr. until land forces ashore are consolidated and a HQ is establish for these forces.

Promote Nimitz ... drop Dugout Doug into Davey Jones' in-basket.

japan was utterly loath to consider surrender,all face lost unless they die for the emperor,,,kids and teachers drilled with broomsticks marched and drilled to fight to the last their atrocities spoke of utter contempt for human life anywhere anytime,,utterr destruction was the language they finally understood

Like most Americans I had relatives that participated in WWII in one capacity or another. My uncle Joe, who was a compassionate person, served in the Army. He was in for the duration; starting in 1942 with the invasion of North Africa. At the end of the war in Europe he was in a military hospital in Germany. He, and so many others, were given orders to ship out to the pacific. They were to participate in the invasion of Japan. He told me that the atomic bomb actually saved many lives. It was estimated that the Americans would lose one million lives and the Japanese 10 million. The bomb stopped this madness. President Truman made the right decision.

I think it was the right decision!

Two brains are better than one

A key factor in the decision to invade the Philippines instead of Formosa was Spruance's determination that Luzon must be taken first to provide logistical support for and invasion of Formosa, per Twilight of the Gods.

I suspect that the number of Japanese casualties from a prolonged conventional campain would end up being at least as large and horifying as the number produced by dropping the nuclear bombs. I guess this should be a consideration in any argument for or against.

Thoughts about dividing command... considering the sheer size of the the theatre, i think it was a good idea. And Nimitz was the perfect candidate to do that with MacArthur. MacArthur thought far too highly of himself, not that he was utterly inept - i don't believe he was, but the Army did have better people, and with Nimitz being a more low-key, less grandstanding type of guy, he was a great fit, they worked out fine together. Credit to Nimitz for that. As for strangling Japan into surrender... that would have been the worst scenario. They'd've held out for far, far longer than the Allies would imagine, all the deaths, starvation, ungh... it was either atom bombs, or a fall landing and invasion, and an invasion would have been unimaginably costly to both sides.

Since the bulk of the heavy lifting in the Pacific (at least in the first years) would be by the navy, and you could not put Nimitz over McArthur, It was a good compromise. No one new what to expect in the beginning. No one new how to prepare troops for combat with the Japanese, who had many combat experienced commanders and troops. I think a lot of the feelings for McArthur are a bit tainted by how things ended in Korea. Neither commander made a major blunder, and the only issue they could not resolve with each other was whether to invade the Philippines or Formosa and now that we know how the Japanese occupation went I think we can all agree that millions more civilians would have died there without the invasion. So that too turned out right. Both of those men lead a desperate fight that at the beginning was against an undefeated enemy who seemed to win everywhere, regardless of odds. Give them both their due.

They simply had to get along.The president demanded it.

In 1945 the USAAF was compelled to use B-29’s dropping naval mines in all Japanese home waters.

RE: "Split Command" -- This was a necessary compromise, and Roosevelt, the ultimate politician, was well aware of it. MacArthur had the PR people and the blind support of the media; but he was not especially competent as a military commander -- which he'd already demonstrated i n the 1942 Phillippines, and would do so again in 1952. He couldn't be shunted aside as he should have been, so he was given a sideline command dressed up as the major effort to re-take the Philippines.

When it comes to MacArthur, yes.

If we had blockaded Japan it seems probable that Japan would have sensed our reluctance, which was part of their strategy to make happen and use. Given the state of Japanese food resources a blockade that lasted through the winter might well have been tantamount to genocide.

It was a perfect idea given MacArthur's inflated Ego which seemed to outrank his planning and good reason.

I always thought the divided command concept was a perfect fit for the gigantic pacific theatre. The Japanese had to adjust to a two prong assault and they just didn't have the resources to cope !

Nightmare. Perfect description.

It was essential to divide forces as Australia was threatened. Army v Navy was an issue also.

Re: could Japan have been compelled to surrender without using the Atomic bomb? Perhaps, but it would have meant continued suffering of Allied POW’s, as well as additional combat fatalities of sailors and airmen. Honestly, which other country in WW2 would have hesitated using a weapon that might achieve quick victory? None of them. And surely not our enemies!

Big theater, Multiple axsis of advance; good reasons

Key phrase: "According to Layton" in what purportedly are his memoirs. Let us remember that "And I Was There": Pearl Harbor and Midway - Breaking the Secrets was actually written by Captain Roger Pineau, USNR (Ret.) and John Costello and edited by Bruce Lee. I've read this book. I've read other books by John Costello, and a number of books edited by Bruce Lee. Quite frankly, while I have great respect for Edwin T. Layton as an intelligence officer, I've little trust in some of his own statements (in the form of testimony and in his USNI oral history) as relate to Pearl Harbor. Let's not forget that Bruce Lee wanted a book that would sell "within the limits of national security." I'm skeptical of much of what Lieutenant Commander, Commander, Captain and Rear Admiral Layton is credited with having stated (in 7 of the 8 government investigations into Pearl Harbor), in his oral history, and in what is purportedly "his" book. Andy McKane, P.O. Box 166, Maunaloa, Hawaii 96770.

Theater wad big enough

Dugout Doug lost the Philippines, even with warning, should have stayed in those poor captive islands. That would have saved many thousands of our Marines, Soldiers and Sailors in World War 2; and even more so in Korea. Read about the still unsung Marine General Major General Oliver P. Smith, who ignored orders to continue his advance and saved most of our Marines in Chosin.

Admiral Nimitz is a great admiral and a great person. By disapproving the use of nuclear weapon against Japan and resulting massacre of innocent civilian he showed his humane nature. There are orher ways of forcing Japan to surrender. It is like shooting unarmed criminal family because he refuse to surrender..

Yes. Mccarthur blew it by not having his " Tails up." In the Phillippines.

The more I study the history of the Manhattan Project along with J. Oppenheimer bio pic. Why didn't the USA simply drop the first bomb 10 -25 miles off Tokyo Bay a 50,000 foot Air burst for example. so the Emperor and His Hawks could see the powerful destruction. If not convincing drop number two nearer Harbour facility creating tsunami. Ummm

You Know Somthing That Japan. Got Advanced Technology From Germany including there NUCLEAR Research and We Had 2 Bombs and 3rd One. The next 3 months

Relying on a naval blockade to resolve the Pacific theater would've simply handed most of east Asia to the Soviets. As it was, even the two bombs weren't immediately definitive. The Soviet front was the straw that broke the camel's back, even if it was only a matter of sooner-than-later. An alternative of invading mainland Japan, guaranteeing the destruction of virtually every population center of any appreciable size, would've been even more horrific. Assuming Japan would retract deployed units to defend the home islands, that would also hand east Asia to the Soviets.

I'm more than a year late in sharing my thoughts, but maybe they are so off the wall they may be useful. First, the divided command in the Pacific worked very well, so it seems strange to question it. This is especially true because if MacArthur had been in total command, he would undoubtedly have cut out the Central Pacific Drive, like he cut out the Australians, and concentrated all his efforts on the Phillipines with the Navy simply providing cover. I think this would likely have been a disaster. If Nimitz had held total command, it may have worked because he allowed his commanders freedom to fight as they thought fit. As for bombing and blockading Japan into surrender. I think that may have worked, or at least brought Japan to the point of collapse so that it may have been easily invaded and over-run, but it would have taken several more years. I think that the Soviet invasion made this wait impossible politically. The world was lucky that the US had the bomb and used it.

Japanese surrender without invasion or use of atomic bomb? I would say: Exceptionally unlikely. One must keep in mind what you stated about 'surrender was the abandonment of honor' in Japanese culture. With that said the martial mindset of the Japanese would not have permitted surrender. Even if we would have simply strangled Japan for say another year. Even if we invaded a nation of starving skeletal being that could not pick up a weapon, yes we would have had to invade.

In regards to Nimitz hope for Japanese surrender by blockade action by 1945 what was left to blockade? Very few ships remained capable of transporting anything and any remaining would have little fuel. Thousands of POWS were being held in Japan under miserable conditions. Aircrews on bombing missions being shot down or bailing out were usually killed by civilian population. Japanese culture at the time was vehemently opposed to any kind of surrender. Reluctance to use the Atomic bomb would ensure as the condition of infrastructure became non existent the assured deaths of all POWS and Japanese population from starvation. The use of atomic weapons forced the issue of surrender to end the war in a relatively short span of time saving millions of lives both Allied and Japanese.

MacArthur was a prima donna. up thank God he wasn't in charge of everything

Neither the invasion nor the blockade seems to me to have been more “humane” than the atomic bombs. I recall the forced and uncoditional terms imposed by the Allies on Germany, when they refused to negotiate with the revolutionary government of Germany and continued the starvation blockade of the German people until the German delegate signed the Versailles Treaty. Paradoxically the Japanese came away with a more honorable peace in 1945 than the Germans did in 1919. What sort of place would Japan have been in 1950 when Communism had triumphed in China.

The title of this video does not match the content.

Nimitz was simply a very nice man. MacArthur was simply a jerk.

No!

Divided command? Nope. MacArthur should have fired just like Kimmel was and either give the whole Pacific over to Nimitz or choose someone else to lead Army operations in the Pacific subordinate to Nimitz.

Because it was an immense area of responsibility, the task would be monumental for a single theater. As to Mac, talk is cheap. As Commander in Chief, I can't afford Diva Generals... I want managers of geniuses... Willis Lee, Burke, Lockwood, Spruance, Logistics etc al.

I don't know why y'all can seat and listen to this story, which creates an image of super villain McArthur... Seems you don't actually know back then the services had to be at loggerhead to serve.. there weren't any official roles and rules,they had to improvise every step of the way . The air force wasn't even established as yet, and when it did in 1948 , the navy was heavily against the air force , including digging dirt in it.. the Navy thought that Navy air force role was to be taken by the new service, which we now know it wasn't true ... The second biggest airforce in the world is still The Us Navy by far... I think to be a general in the army in those years and a navy admiral assumes command it would naturally stir a few problems.. and the king in Washington also felt it.. to rise to be a general is a feat by itself... So stop hating and concentrate on the men ..

Would Japan surrender without an invasion. No. They would just live like animals for as long as it took. The peasants would die like flies and the remains of the military, and aristocracy would go without desert for awhile.

MacArthur wasn't half the leader that Nimitz was. Nimitz listened to subordinates and seniors alike. MacArthur was a egocentric personality who insisted on his way only. I don't believe that MacArthur could have or would have been as successful as Admiral Nimitz was at Midway; a crucial battle that turned the tide of the Pacific war only six months after Pearl Harbor. Awarding MacArthur the CMOH for leaving Corregidor and escaping to Australia is and was a travesty.

Starving Japan into submission could result in a bloody civil war by December 45. 10 million civilians added to the butchers bill. I wouldn't invade, even if A bombs didn't convince the cabinet to surrender. By then the Russian Army has taken Honshu with 2 million casualties.

Japan could have been starved into surrender. It would have taken a year and resulted in several millions of Japanese civilian deaths.

Should have fired MacAuthor at the beginning of the war for the disaster of the Philippines! The country would have been better for it.