The History Buff, Original Historical Autographs & Manuscripts

The History Buff, 17509 Bearpath Trail, Eden Prairie, MN, 55347 or Palm Beach, FL, 33480

Bigger Font Smaller Font

Douglas MacArthur
SOLD

Historic 1936 Typed Letter Signed wherein MacArthur outlines a defensive perimeter that would have moved any potential Pacific war farther from our shore

The question for history-- would MacArthur's strategy also have prevented Pearl Harbor???
Douglas MacArthur (1880 - 1964). U.S. Army General. Historic Typed Letter Signed, "Douglas MacArthur", one page typed letter signed, On Office of The Military Adviser letterhead, Manila, The Philippines, October 8, 1936.

First, this is an extrodinary letter in that there is very little written material that survives this time period in MacArthur's career. The General was sent to The Philippines in 1935 by FDR to head the small US Army post in the islands and to advise the Philippine armed forces.It is while he was an adviser and still in the U.S. Army that MacArthur wrote this letter. MacArthur retired from the U.S. Army in 1937. Thereafter he became a full time adviser to the Philippine military with the rank of Field Marshall. This letter was written to an old colleague Fred Payne. Payne was well known to MacArthur from their time in Washington, D.C when Payne was an Assistant Secretary of of War in the Hoover administration. MacArthur, ever the strategist, outlines a plan for strengthening the American Armed Forces in the Philippines and for establishing a new American Navy base in Alaska so that, as he wrote, --- "with this accomplished, our new line Philippines, Alaska line will lie athwart every major trade route (sea lanes) in the Pacific and will give us complete control of the Pacific problem. With such a line, the United States can view with complete composure any problem that may arise in the Pacific. The old defeatist line of Alaska, Hawaii and Panama was (see info below)** in my opinion, fatally defective in two ways: First it pitched any battle on our own coast, and second, it destroyed the maneuvering potentialities of the fleet, cooped up in such a narrow triangle they were (are) practically worthless. With the line now advanced; with Hawaii the supporting base for both extremities, complete range of action is restored to the fleet. I only hope that someone in the government will have sense enough to comprehend the tremendous change that is taking place and will capitalize to the benefit of our beloved country." Is there any doubt whatsoever that MacArthur was referring to the peril posed to the United States by the burgeoning Japanese Navy and growing Japanese imperialism when he mentioned "the tremendous change that is taking place"? In the year or so before this letter was written Japan had withdrawn from the United Nations, renounced its naval treaties that placed limits on the size of their navy and its armaments and had signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Hitler (and later joined by Mussolini) thus laying the foundation for its attacks on the Asian mainland. In fact they attacked China (Manchuria) in 1937 an event many historians now recognize was the beginning of World War II.

This important early letter reflects MacArthur's comprehensive understanding of the conflict that lay ahead and that, in addition, he understood clearly that the northern Pacific sea lanes were completely unguarded. In sum, he realized that there was a dagger about to be thrust into the belly of our nation. Under those circumstances it is interesting how circumspect he was in what he wrote but there should be no ambiguity in anyone's mind concerning what he met by "the Pacific problem." This may be one of the first examples of a military commander trying to be "politically correct." At this point one would have to ask, no demand, from history both how those responsible for the security of the United States failed to have the same measure of the foresight and concern reflected in this letter and why, if they did, they remained silent and unresponsive. Maybe the same people were listening to Lloyds of London who were quoting odds against war between Japan and America at 100 to 1.In the opinion of many, history has not fully held The Roosevelt administration and Congress accountable for their monstrous dereliction of duty in the time leading up to Pearl Harbor. But in all fairness, Hitler was also a growing menace and the United States was in poor economic shape in the years following the Great Depression so it may be that out government simply did not have the resources fro both the European and Pacific theaters.

Let us engage in a favorite pastime of some historians-what if history?-- what if, for example we had done what MacArthur suggested? The map presented herein shows that the Japanese Navy used the 'northern' route to approach and to attack Pearl Harbor. Now, why was that? The obvious explanation is that this route was completely unguarded whereas a more southern path to Hawaii would not only have been a greater distance but also their fleet would have had to course in the proximity not only of our military posts in the Philippines but also those on Wake and Midway Islands - both circumstances thus increasing their chance of premature detection. History records that the Japanese relied on stealth when they executed one of the most infamous 'sneak' attacks in history-an attack that was carried out without a prior Declaration of War in contravention to all civilized rules of warfare at the time. If MacArthur's plan outlined in this letter had been implemented, it certainly would have been much more difficult for the Japanese to get as far as they did undetected so the question is-- would Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto have gambled with his fleet to attack Pearl Harbor under those circumstances?

MAP SHOWING ROUTE TAKEN BY JAPANESE NAVY ACROSS NORTHERN PACIFIC TO AVOID DETECTION

Finally, just imagine the circumstances under which this letter was written. MacArthur, having been marginalized to a possible career dead end in the far Pacific and apparently forsaken to some degree by the military and country he loved who, despite all this, did not follow the path that lesser men might have chosen: He did not descend into despair and withdrawal. Rather, this letter reflects both MacArthur's active strategic mind at the time and that he always had the welfare of his "beloved nation" as he put it in the forefront of his thoughts. This letter is discovered at a time when almost every current reference to MacArthur's career finds it necessary to emphasize his foibles and his mistakes.*** However, this letter shows that this great American military genius was embarrassingly correct in his analysis of the gathering storm in the Pacific and that he had a brilliant strategy to defend our country in that theater. Furthermore, as mentioned previously herein, the timing of this letter was prescient because, within a year, the Japanese launched their attack on Manchuria which historians now regard as the true beginning of World War II.

Price:$OLD

** What MacArthur was referring to is the plan that had been developed by Army strategic planners (PLAN ORANGE) as referenced in the archives from The Center for Military History of the United States Army , an excerpt from which is as follows-- "The case for the Army planners was summarized by Brig. Gen. Stanley D. Embick, Chief of the War Plans Division and long associated with the Philippines and Pacific strategy. Reliance on a base that was inadequately defended, he observed, was to invite disaster. American strategy in the Pacific, he insisted, should concentrate on holding the strategic triangle, Alaska-Hawaii-Panama. Such a course would place the United States in an invulnerable position and permit its military and naval forces to conduct operations "in such a manner that will promise success instead of national disaster." MacArthur did not mention General Embick by name but there is no doubt that it was the plan he represented as evolved by the Military Strategic Planning Board that he (MacArthur) was refering to in the above letter. It certainly appears that MacArthur was not consulted about their plan. His letter to Fred Payne makes clear why.

*** A recent example-December 8, 1941: MacArthur's Pearl Harbor (Texas A&M University Military History Series, 87.) (Hardcover)
by William H. Bartsch

Would you like to purchase this product? Simply click BUY NOW to securely shop online with eHistoryBuff.