Gen. MacArthur's CIB

[seanmc1114]

Lt. Gen. Eichelberger wore the CIB after the war while commanding Eighth Army in japan. There is a very good picture of him (and his CIB) at his desk at Camp Zama in his memoirs: Our Jungle Road to Tokyo (Viking Press, 1950), which will be posted here as soon as the book can be retrieved from the garage. The CIB is not mentioned in his memoirs. However, according to his own account, Gen. Eichelberger saw plenty of infantry combat up close and personal as a major general commanding I Corps in New Guinea in 1942, particularly during the battle at Buna in December.

Once again, the point is not whether someone has seen combat, no matter how intense. A general officer by definition cannot qualify for the CIB because he cannot be an infantryman. That is the definition of general officer.

 

Also, there was an earlier post that mentioned that Patton regretted not having earned the CIB. Why would he? Even if he had not been a general, he still wouldn't qualify because his branch had always been either cavalry or armor.

 

The Combat Action Badge can now be awarded to anyone, regardless of branch, who comes under hostile fire, and apparently even generals may qualify. However, the CIB is still reserved for the Queen Of Battle.

[Bluehawk]

I think the IOH approved the placement in regard to exactly where the insignia went on the uniform. IOH does not have the authority to say who gets awards and badges.

Excellent observation... they would have been concerned with order of precedence only.

[swmdo]

Seems like there are bigger things to be worried about then revising history and who has received what awards or decorations. What is done is done. General McArthur is one of our Great Generals and he was an honorable man. :thumbsup:

[Wailuna]

...one will find it very difficult to find any photo of him wearing any ribbons after he retired as chief of staff before he went to the PI. Even when he appeared before Congress when he came home from Korea, he wore only stars. I don't think he wore his 5-star eagles on his shoulder loops, and I am not sure he even wore US's on the collars...

...What always amuses me about the Great Thespian is comparing his umpteen rows of ribbons to the paucity of decorations worn by his 5 star contemporaries...

As Gil says, Gen. MacArthur favored an unadorned style of uniform in his later career. If he ever wore a uniform even resembling the rig on display at the MacArthur musuem, there must be a picture somewhere to commemorate the event. Show us the pix.

 

Gen. MacArthur as Chief of Staff of the Army ca. 1935.

 

Gen. MacArthur (with Fr. Edmund Walsh) in Tokyo ca. 1947.

[Wailuna]

...Once again, the point is not whether someone has seen combat, no matter how intense. A general officer by definition cannot qualify for the CIB because he cannot be an infantryman. That is the definition of general officer...

Ah, but Gen. Eichelberger did wear the CIB (as will be seen when I find my book).

 

I suggest that the directive that first promulgated the CIB was so vague on many points that it was interpreted to permit the award of the CIB to just about any U.S. soldier who fought as an infantryman (and that is "infantryman" with a small "i") at Buna in late 1942 (and at other places, such as Bataan in early 1942 and Guadalcanal in 1942/1943), which included cooks, clerks, and the corps commander. But read it and judge for yourself (see below). The "imperfections" of WD Circular 269-43 were soon evident as the changes were rolled out to rescind the preceding issuances in whole or in part: WD Cir. 186-44, WD Cir. 408-44, WD Cir. 450-44, WD Cir. 93-45 (and there might be more...) The CIB was a work in progress during WWII (and since).

[B229]

The Office of Heraldry approved the CIB on the displayed uniform... so what? The museum could remove the CIB at the very least if they had enough integrity to do so. I have to admit I knew nothing of how debatable so many of General MacArthur's awards were until reading this thread. It's rather disappointing to say the least.

 

The staff of the museum isn't there to pass judgement on MacArthur, they are there to present his history, right or wrong. As far as passing judgement goes, who are we to decide if he deserved it or not? The man had a Medal of Honor, which he basically awarded to himself, so why would anyone be surprised that he wore something he might not have actually earned? It happened; you can't change it; get over it.

[Wailuna]

...MacArthur...had a Medal of Honor, which he basically awarded to himself...

Here is another take on who awarded the Medal of Honor to Gen. MacArthur and why:

"...MacArthur had been ordered out of Corregidor because the President was concerned about the negative impact his death or capture would have on the American public during the critical first year of the war.  To counter the propaganda of the enemy, General George C. Marshall suggested awarding MacArthur the Medal of Honor.  The President agreed, and the [Medal of Honor] was presented to General Douglas MacArthur in Australia on June 30, 1942...." 

Source: Home of Heros Web site (link here). The full text of Gen. MacAruthur's Medal of Honor citation is given at this Web site.

[Bluehawk]

A life lesson, of importance.

[B229]

Here is another take on who awarded the Medal of Honor to Gen. MacArthur and why:

"...MacArthur had been ordered out of Corregidor because the President was concerned about the negative impact his death or capture would have on the American public during the critical first year of the war.  To counter the propaganda of the enemy, General George C. Marshall suggested awarding MacArthur the Medal of Honor.  The President agreed, and the [Medal of Honor] was presented to General Douglas MacArthur in Australia on June 30, 1942...." 

Source: Home of Heros Web site (link here). The full text of Gen. MacAruthur's Medal of Honor citation is given at this Web site.

 

Good info, thanks for posting that. Either way, he was awarded it and therefore entitled to wear it, which is all that really matters in the end.

[Mr-X]

Great work, BlackJack! Research rules again. Tracking down that Life article and making a direct inquiry to the MacArthur museum and posting your results adds some bona fide clarity to this discussion, as well as a welcome breath of fresh air.

 

Well said :thumbsup:

[Wailuna]

...Lt. Gen. Eichelberger wore the CIB after the war while commanding Eighth Army in japan. There is a very good picture of him (and his CIB) at his desk at Camp Zama in his memoirs: Our Jungle Road to Tokyo (Viking Press, 1950), which will be posted here as soon as the book can be retrieved from the garage. The CIB is not mentioned in his memoirs. However, according to his own account, Gen. Eichelberger saw plenty of infantry combat up close and personal as a major general commanding I Corps in New Guinea in 1942, particularly during the battle at Buna in December...

 

[seanmc1114]

However, according to his own account, Gen. Eichelberger saw plenty of infantry combat up close and personal as a major general commanding I Corps in New Guinea in 1942, particularly during the battle at Buna in December.

Actually Gen. Eichelberger did not see any "infantry" combat as a corps commander since as a general officer, he was not assigned to the infantry branch. Ground combat and infantry combat are not the same thing. Yes, many general officers came under fire, some were wounded and even killed in action and some may have lived the life of the front line combat troop from time to time, but the Combat Infantryman Badge was not intended to simply recognize that one has been fired upon in combat. It was symbolic of all the infantryman endured as a foot soldier. I'm sure there were thousands of front line artillerymen, engineers, signalmen, tankers, etc. who endured conditions much closer to what the infantryman did than any general ever did but they didn't rate a CIB either.

 

The Combat Action Badge is now intended to recognize the type of action experienced by non-infantrymen that has been referred to on this thread and it can be awarded to general officers too. Had General MacArthur or Eichelberger served after 2001, they would have probably earned a CAB, but I still say nothing short of the act of Congress that awarded the CIB to Gen. Stilwell legitimates that award to a general officer.

[Kadet]

...yes, and in the late 1940s EVERY infantryman who earned a CIB or medic that was awarded the CMB was handed a Bronze Star. Did ALL of these people REALLY deserve that medal? I seriously doubt it....but it was done. The men that fought that war made a great sacrifice and achieved an enormous victory over tyranny that made the world a better place. MacArthur served a pivotal role, whether you care for the man's legacy or not. The nation was grateful for that. Read MacArthur's biography sometime. He served extensively in combat throughout his career, the Philippines, Mexico, WWI...he literally dedicated his life to fighting our nations's wars. I have no issue w/ the man being given a CIB.

 

Like Dave, I question some of the logic in the "Smoking Gun" link.

[Wailuna]

...Gen. Eichelberger did not see any "infantry" combat...

The picture speaks for itself. What do you make of Eichelberger's CIB?

[seanmc1114]

The picture speaks for itself. What do you make of Eichelberger's CIB?

I stand by my original assessment. MacArthur, Eichelberger, Stillwell and others may have been presented with honorary awards of the CIB by someone with the authority to do so, but as general officers they still, by definition, did not meet the requirements for the award. Otherwise, I would argue that virtually every infantry division commander in World War II should have received the badge but they didn't.

[Jack's Son]

When you look at this "in context".........Dave, Bluehawk and Andy make a lot of sense. :thumbsup:

[Huntzman]

I respect the opinions of those who feel there was nothing tacitly wrong with MacArthur being given the CIB on an "Honorary" basis. However I am going to disagree with the appropriateness.

 

The CIB was intended to be a grunt award, the ones who bore the weight of Infantry warfare. I understand that MacArthur, had it been in effect at the time, would have been eligible. The basic fact is it wasn't and he did not merit it. If you are going to use that argument, then what about the other WWI grunts who should receive the same recognition?

 

Nothing in MacArthur's career suggests he wasn't a soldier, but that does not mean that history should be altered to reflect things that "coulda, shoulda, woulda." Maybe I just have a soft spot for the knuckle dragger's. I feel that too many have been denied medals for so long that they truly earned.

 

Another thing that bothers me is that he tried to deny Wainright's MOH. He fled the Philippines and yet later "accepted" the MOH. Yet he had the audacity to question the awarding of the medal to the man he left behind to actually fight.

 

 

Just my humble opinion.

 

Andrew

[flyer333555]

Another thing that bothers me is that he tried to deny Wainright's MOH. He fled the Philippines and yet later "accepted" the MOH. Yet he had the audacity to question the awarding of the medal to the man he left behind to actually fight.

 

 

He did not fled. He was ordered out. This is a big, big difference.

 

Luis Ramos

[Kadet]

There is no doubt that MacArthur was a complex man, w/ many foibles and controversial traits. Most great men share these characteristics to some extent. Even in WWII, MacArthur personally participated in actions that would have qualified a more junior infantryman for the CIB. To my mind, the CIB was awarded efficiently and consistently to the "grunts" in WWII and these men were further recognized w/ retroactive Bronze Stars after the war. I think Uncle Sam did right by them as well. The MoH controversy regarding Wainright is interesting. First...we probably don't know the whole story. There may have been more to the situation than meets the eye. MacArthur himself was denied the MoH for his actions in Mexico as a young junior officer, and it is interesting that he would do the same thing later in his career...like I said, complex. He was also notoriously liberal w/ medals for many of his other subordinates. During WWI, as a Brigadier General, MacArthur was by any measure "crazy brave" on numerous occasions. Risking life and limb to a much greater extent than expected of a General Officer. This, among other things, rubbed his chain of command the wrong way, and set up feuds that lasted his entire career. For example, he had absolutely no time for George Marshall, who served as a staff officer in WWI and the Army Chief of Staff in WWII. At the beginning of WWII, there was a crisis of sorts surrounding the control of MacArthur's actions in the Pacific. He was a fascinating man.

[seanmc1114]

Even in WWII, MacArthur personally participated in actions that would have qualified a more junior infantryman for the CIB.

Back to my original point. MacArthur was not an infantryman in World War II. He had been a general officer since the 30's and therefore did not have a specific MOS or branch assignment. And the CIB was not simply meant to recognize participation in combat. It was meant to recognize a select group of individuals who held a certain specialty in the Army (Infantry) and as a result were forced to endure a disproportionate share of the hardships of combat and the casualties that came from that.

 

I still say MacArthur did not qualify for the CIB under any stretch of the imagination and that his honorary award was no different than an honorary degree awarded to a college commencement speaker. It's a nice recognition but it is not the same as the degree earned by the student who did the coursework and met all of the other requirements for an actual degree.

[Jack's Son]

....................and that his honorary award was no different than an honorary degree awarded to a college commencement speaker. It's a nice recognition but it is not the same as the degree earned by the student who did the coursework and met all of the other requirements for an actual degree.

Does that mean nobody will call me Doctor, anymore??

 

I agree with you 100%! :thumbsup:

[kjones5452]

Back to my original point. MacArthur was not an infantryman in World War II. He had been a general officer since the 30's and therefore did not have a specific MOS or branch assignment. And the CIB was not simply meant to recognize participation in combat. It was meant to recognize a select group of individuals who held a certain specialty in the Army (Infantry) and as a result were forced to endure a disproportionate share of the hardships of combat and the casualties that came from that.

 

I still say MacArthur did not qualify for the CIB under any stretch of the imagination and that his honorary award was no different than an honorary degree awarded to a college commencement speaker. It's a nice recognition but it is not the same as the degree earned by the student who did the coursework and met all of the other requirements for an actual degree.

:thumbsup:

[chris3bs]

We were fortunate to have these men who commanded our forces and the ones under them during their time. Also having two Presidents making decisions as they did which the commanders had to follow as General MacArthur found out later in his military career. I respect them all no matter what happened.

[Lucky 7th Armored]

Very interesting discussion here, i enjoyed reading it.

[Kadet]

Back to my original point. MacArthur was not an infantryman in World War II. He had been a general officer since the 30's and therefore did not have a specific MOS or branch assignment. And the CIB was not simply meant to recognize participation in combat. It was meant to recognize a select group of individuals who held a certain specialty in the Army (Infantry) and as a result were forced to endure a disproportionate share of the hardships of combat and the casualties that came from that.

 

I still say MacArthur did not qualify for the CIB under any stretch of the imagination and that his honorary award was no different than an honorary degree awarded to a college commencement speaker. It's a nice recognition but it is not the same as the degree earned by the student who did the coursework and met all of the other requirements for an actual degree.

 

..actually MacArthur was a General Officer in WWI. I agree w/ you in that, because of his rank, he didn't technically qualify for it...but given his contribution and long service in combat participating in and leading infantry operations, I have absolutely no issue w/ the honorary award.