What do you think?
Rate this book
Reminiscences
Written in his own hand and finished only weeks before his death, Gen. Douglas MacArthur's memoir spans more than half a century of modern history. His vantage point at center stage during major controversies of the twentieth century enabled him to present unique views of the conflicts in which he played a vital role. No soldier in modern time has been more admired--or reviled. Liberator of the Philippines, shogun of Occupied Japan, victor of the Battle of Inchon, the general was a national hero when suddenly relieved of his command by President Truman. His supporters believe his genius for command and ability to implement that command by strategy stand as landmarks in military history. His critics are not so kind, calling him a gigantic ego paying homage to himself in this book. Decade by decade, battlefield by battlefield, this self portrait is a moving final testament to a life of service that began at West Point and continued in Vera Cruz during the Mexican uprisings and throughout the world wars. Appointed Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in the Pacific, MacArthur was the architect of the campaign to drive the Japanese from their strongholds at Bataan, Corregidor, and New Guinea. His recounting of World War II is dramatically punctuated with intimate portraits of key personalities and insights into his stand on controversial issues. Although the autobiography was written more than thirty years ago, it continues to be a valuable document of the period.
472 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1964
49 people are currently reading
524 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
September 4, 2015
Some readers say he was arrogant...I say he was accomplished. He was the George Washington of our times. Really a day to day memoir of a true patriot functioning under restraints of inept political leaders while bringing post war Japan from a feudal state to a functioning democracy by not being vengeful to a defeated nation. Book is very well written by a man I can believe in. Sadly, There are no equals on the scene today.
July 18, 2021
A Great Memoir
I’ve read a lot of books about General MacArthur and generally consider him one of my heroes, but I had never previously bothered with his memoirs because, in general, the memoirs of famous figures of recent years tend to be ghost-written garbage. This is an exception.
MacArthur, in this book written at the very end of his life, is sharp, funny, and paints a vivid picture of an amazing life. Highly recommended.
I’ve read a lot of books about General MacArthur and generally consider him one of my heroes, but I had never previously bothered with his memoirs because, in general, the memoirs of famous figures of recent years tend to be ghost-written garbage. This is an exception.
MacArthur, in this book written at the very end of his life, is sharp, funny, and paints a vivid picture of an amazing life. Highly recommended.
August 23, 2013
Because I have a voracious appetite for history and the fascinating figures from the past, this was right up my alley.
You may have heard a lot about this man, words like egotistical, bold, audacious, intelligent...I couldn't speak intelligently about any of those but this book is great. The man had an absolute mastery of the English language that few these days can even fathom much less put into practice. I admire that immensely so just reading that style and quality is a treat.
Let's face it the man was a military and political genius and a proven war hero, over and over. Reading of his exploits, life experiences and especially his thoughts and conversations with presidents, peers, service secretaries and chief's of staff...good stuff.
You may have heard a lot about this man, words like egotistical, bold, audacious, intelligent...I couldn't speak intelligently about any of those but this book is great. The man had an absolute mastery of the English language that few these days can even fathom much less put into practice. I admire that immensely so just reading that style and quality is a treat.
Let's face it the man was a military and political genius and a proven war hero, over and over. Reading of his exploits, life experiences and especially his thoughts and conversations with presidents, peers, service secretaries and chief's of staff...good stuff.
September 15, 2023
A commander of troops and administrator of excellence. What a life, what a journey, what a story.
June 16, 2012
I was reading this book when I visited the Vietnam War Memorial and the then new Korea War Memorial. Reading MacArthur write about the frustrations of the Korean War and how, in his opinion, US Intelligence was being leaked to the North Koreans, made it a very emotional day. The book is excellent and a must read for those who love military books.
December 31, 2024
I knew MacArthur was an egotistical narcissist, but I didn’t realize how big of one he was until I read this book. Still a good biography of his life if you can look past all of his ego stroking.
February 22, 2008
This is Douglas MacArthur's biography. It covers his whole life and overall, I thought it was well written. The author definitely has a pretty good opinion of himself. If I had won as many medals and battles as he did, I'm sure I would too. He was #1 in his class at West Point and among other awards he won the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, and the Purple Heart.
January 9, 2016
This book provides a glimpse into the mind of a remarkable man, probably the greatest military thinker in American history. Classically educated, he was a philosopher of conflict, and managed to take more territory with fewer casualties than any of his contemporaries. His landing at Inchon was one of the most audacious gambits in military history.
September 24, 2007
A view inside the thoughts of one of America's greatest leaders. You also get to see a hint of the arrogance that the man possessed.
November 10, 2013
I just finished the book this morning, and it was an account of America's military involvement to the extent that MacArthur was involved in it, and he was involved in a whole lot of it.
His grandfather served on the Supreme Court, appointed by President Grant. It was this grandfather that taught MacArthur to play poker.
Douglas MacArthur's father, Arthur MacArthur, was a distinguished officer in the Civil war and the American West. The book relates incidents of both of those conflicts, told without vilification of either opponent. (Arthur MacArthur married a woman from a Southern military family. He spoke of the nobility of the American Indian leaders, many of which he knew.)He raised his family in the American West, and in the Midwest, and occasionally in Washington D.C., never very far from a military base. Arthur MacArthur achieved the rank of General while in the Philippines, where he served as military governor. Much of the family's destiny was to be played out in those islands.
We get a blow-by-blow of many of the military campaigns of the father as well as the son, as well as personal anecdotes of personalities that MacArthur encountered in his lifetime. It seems at times that he never met an important person that he didn't like, and who didn't send him a letter of congratulations, and we get to read all of those letters, verbatim. But this is not a superficial work, and even though his account of his own accomplishments is done with pride, he shares the credit everywhere. And his accomplishments were astonishing in their scope and variety.
He was a warrior, a proud descendant of a clan of Scottish warriors. There are a two phrases that accompany MacArthur's legacy, one is "I shall return," his promise to the Philippines, and the other is "There is no alternative to victory," which sealed his fate and severed his relationship to Truman in Korea.
The book examines both phrases in minute detail. Returning to the Philippines was no easy task, but he tells us how he did it, blow by blow. He trained Australians and various other islanders, lobbied and dealt with FDR, gave support to the Navy and Air Force, and all the while utilized his tactics of surprise while cutting off the supply lines of the enemy. This method allowed him to defeat an army which far outnumbered him, when the priorities of the War effort from Washington was to serve the needs of Europe. There was a point where he was forced to argue for the return to the Philippines, a commitment that he never considered breaking.
The book is also a defense of his honor and his commitment to his country. One of the reasons for all the documentation, I came to realize, was to lay a trail of support for all of his military decisions, because one of the accusations of his opponents was that he had disobeyed orders by crossing the 38th parallel in Korea. He states flatly that such a claim is pure fiction, and documents it heavily.
He also clarifies interpretations of his statements that would suggest that he was a "warmonger," a charge that he refutes verbally, but also with his record among populations that he has "conquered." After World War I, and before the Versailles treaty, he considered the German people, whom he lived among for several months, to be his family. He vilified the Versailles treaty as the principal reason for World War II.
The Japanese Prime Minister Yoshida, after MacArthur had "occupied" his nation for five years as a conqueror, announced upon MacArthur's dismissal, "The accomplishments of General MacArthur in the interest of our country are one of the marvels of history. . . .I have no words to convey the regret of our nation to see him leave." His reconstruction of Japan brought them from feudal paradigms to democratic ones with all the protections that a free people aspire to. This is the sort of victory that MacArthur had wished for in a unified Korea, and he was confused and embittered because it was denied him.
It has been a long time since I have read the book by Barbara Tuchman, "Stilwell and the American Experience in China," and "The Soong Dynasty," written by Sterling Seagrave, the son of the Burma Surgeon, but those works influenced me greatly as I read "Reminiscences." The books are written in different voices; that is, MacArthur's book is first person, while Tuchman wrote as a war correspondent following Stillwell's camp, and Seagrave wrote as a historian raised in Asia with excellent personal resources as well as authoritative scholarly documentation of the history of the warring factions that ravaged China before and after Sun Yat-Sen. Nonetheless, Tuchman's first-hand experiences in Stilwell's camp, and Seagrave's childhood association with his father's missionary hospital, and his father's service to Stilwell's troops, give all of these books a personal authority so that even though they are not "apples to apples," they are of similar literary species.
MacArthur criticizes few people, but he had little respect for Truman after his first year in office. (And who can blame him? Truman didn't even tell him that he was being relieved of command, he announced it over the media, without even telling him that his job was in any sort of jeopardy. MacArthur heard about it because one of his aides heard it on the radio, and informed MacArthur's wife, because the General was at lunch.) But he had in common with Truman the hatred and fear of communism that surfaced after World War II.
MacArthur knew that something changed with the death of FDR, and he couldn't put his finger on it. He had had arguments with FDR, one of which almost resulted in MacArthur's resignation, but he respected FDR's fierce defense of America, and his ability to unite and inspire the country. Although he was a Republican, he states often in the book that he had no interest in the factions of the political parties, and that his only real political allegiance was to Lincoln, his father's hero.
He grants no deference to Russia's contributions to WWII, although that country's sacrifices of the lives of millions of its troops and civilians blatantly belie that position. MacArthur was not impressed, however, with Russia's entry into war with Japan after MacArthur had faced the full force of the Japanese army in the Pacific. (He would have liked them to divert Japanese efforts earlier.)
MacArthur is confused by the rejection of Chaing Kai-shek's offer of troops for Korea, and attributes the rise of China at the beginning of the 20th century to be the work of Chaing Kai-Shek. Perhaps he was taking Chaing's word for it. (Seagrave and Tuchman tell a different story. . .Seagrave gives Chaing Kai-Shek all the glory due a dope dealer, and Stilwell considered him unreliable as an ally and self-serving as a head of state.) If there was bias toward Mao at the immediate end of the Asian war, it was probably at least partially due to the influence of Stilwell, the American General responsible for China during that conflict, although I have no inside knowledge of the policy about "Agrarian reformers" that MacArthur alludes to. Stilwell died shortly after his retirement and return to the U.S.
Stilwell attests to Mao's fierce fighting against Japan. Chaing's wife, (A Soong sister) would ask the American Congress for money, and then use his resources to protect his own compound, and abandon Stilwell in planned joint ventures in the Asian theater. Stilwell was constantly training Asian soldiers, who would learn to fight, and then often join Mao in the fight against Japan. This was true in Vietnam as well as Burma and China. Chaing evidently had planned to allow Mao and Stilwell to fight Japan, and then use American resources to fight Mao for the government of mainland China. For whatever reason, he was denied that option.
As I stated in my reviews of these other two books, Stilwell and MacArthur had much in common, including extensive youthful experience in Asia. Stilwell touched on the Philippines, but had extensive experience in the diplomatic corps in China. Both men had comprehensive influence in the training of American troops, and both men were forced to compete with Europe for funding during the initial phases of the war, relying on native armies for support. Stilwell spoke fluent Chinese, and for decades personally witnessed the deterioration of Chinese culture under the influence of the British, and the debilitating presence of the opium trade.
I was fairly young when I read Tuchman's book on Stilwell, and she was the first to point out to me the very different experience of American versus British rule. Later, when I encountered LaRouche, he also wrote about the tyranny of British policy after the war in India, easily matching Nazi or communist perfidy. LaRouche served as a medic in Burma, and must have served at least in the general area of Stilwell, yet he too is silent on Stilwell's presence at least to my knowledge. LaRouche is eloquent, however, about the British involvement in the Truman administration, and he openly discusses the many conflicts between Roosevelt and Churchill.
Although MacArthur claims that he has no interest in politics, his understanding of Communism doesn't include the analysis of its British roots. His understanding of capitalism, which he expounds upon in one passage, is that government involvement and taxation is detrimental to prosperity, which displays a basic fallacy involving the role of credit in a democratic (or "republican") economy. The proper role of government is essential, as MacArthur instinctively knew in his practice of governing Japan, and in his admiration for the programs which lifted the American people out of the depression, which includes the support for a strong military defense. (Roosevelt, after accepting responsibility for supporting the military, often provoked MacArthur's reaction regarding social programs, saying that MacArthur was the "symbol of the conscience of the American people.")
Much of his frustration with pacifism comes from the degree to which anti-war sentiment was used to try to stop the build-up of American military strength before World War II (the reason for his near-resignation, which FDR did not accept), and the degree to which his enemies used anti-war sentiment to effect his removal from Korea before achieving a unified and democratic Korea. He equates those forces with communistic sympathies, or at least to that vague malaise which he can't identify. Support for his efforts to represent our interests in Asia was suddenly missing in Washington.
He knew that there was enemy knowledge of his orders in Korea, and the men serving under him knew that, too. What he didn't know was the alliance of forces which operated much of our diplomatic and intelligence endeavors after the war. He didn't know of, or didn't acknowledge the importance of, the commitment of the British to re-establish their various colonies, either directly or indirectly, in defiance of Roosevelt's stated goal of economically developing the natural resources of the poor nations of the world for the benefit of their populations. (Roosevelt died on April 12 of 1945, shortly after his fourth inaugural as President of the United States. British and financier forces had lobbied for Truman, instead of Wallace, to be his vice president, knowing that FDR would die in office. )
MacArthur advocated the use of nuclear weapons before he knew of Russia's development of that weapon,(believing the US was the only power that had it) as a possibility in Korea. He wanted to act to win against communism before the weapon was proliferated, and knew that there was a small window for victory in Asia.
He doubted the necessity to bomb Hiroshima, knowing that Japan was already defeated. Japan was told to surrender on July 26th, but did not respond soon enough. Hiroshima was bombed August 7th. Japan, in its petition for peace to Switzerland on August 10th, stated that it had asked Russia to convey this intention weeks earlier.
Even though he was summarily fired in Korea, MacArthur was received warmly in dozens of cities in the U.S. He could probably have easily won the presidency, which nomination he was offered several times by the Republicans. Considering the way he ran Japan, we probably would have benefitted greatly from it, if he had the correct economic advisors. This is a really good book, and I recommend it highly to those who would want to hear the thoughts of an old (and truly magnificent) soldier.
His grandfather served on the Supreme Court, appointed by President Grant. It was this grandfather that taught MacArthur to play poker.
Douglas MacArthur's father, Arthur MacArthur, was a distinguished officer in the Civil war and the American West. The book relates incidents of both of those conflicts, told without vilification of either opponent. (Arthur MacArthur married a woman from a Southern military family. He spoke of the nobility of the American Indian leaders, many of which he knew.)He raised his family in the American West, and in the Midwest, and occasionally in Washington D.C., never very far from a military base. Arthur MacArthur achieved the rank of General while in the Philippines, where he served as military governor. Much of the family's destiny was to be played out in those islands.
We get a blow-by-blow of many of the military campaigns of the father as well as the son, as well as personal anecdotes of personalities that MacArthur encountered in his lifetime. It seems at times that he never met an important person that he didn't like, and who didn't send him a letter of congratulations, and we get to read all of those letters, verbatim. But this is not a superficial work, and even though his account of his own accomplishments is done with pride, he shares the credit everywhere. And his accomplishments were astonishing in their scope and variety.
He was a warrior, a proud descendant of a clan of Scottish warriors. There are a two phrases that accompany MacArthur's legacy, one is "I shall return," his promise to the Philippines, and the other is "There is no alternative to victory," which sealed his fate and severed his relationship to Truman in Korea.
The book examines both phrases in minute detail. Returning to the Philippines was no easy task, but he tells us how he did it, blow by blow. He trained Australians and various other islanders, lobbied and dealt with FDR, gave support to the Navy and Air Force, and all the while utilized his tactics of surprise while cutting off the supply lines of the enemy. This method allowed him to defeat an army which far outnumbered him, when the priorities of the War effort from Washington was to serve the needs of Europe. There was a point where he was forced to argue for the return to the Philippines, a commitment that he never considered breaking.
The book is also a defense of his honor and his commitment to his country. One of the reasons for all the documentation, I came to realize, was to lay a trail of support for all of his military decisions, because one of the accusations of his opponents was that he had disobeyed orders by crossing the 38th parallel in Korea. He states flatly that such a claim is pure fiction, and documents it heavily.
He also clarifies interpretations of his statements that would suggest that he was a "warmonger," a charge that he refutes verbally, but also with his record among populations that he has "conquered." After World War I, and before the Versailles treaty, he considered the German people, whom he lived among for several months, to be his family. He vilified the Versailles treaty as the principal reason for World War II.
The Japanese Prime Minister Yoshida, after MacArthur had "occupied" his nation for five years as a conqueror, announced upon MacArthur's dismissal, "The accomplishments of General MacArthur in the interest of our country are one of the marvels of history. . . .I have no words to convey the regret of our nation to see him leave." His reconstruction of Japan brought them from feudal paradigms to democratic ones with all the protections that a free people aspire to. This is the sort of victory that MacArthur had wished for in a unified Korea, and he was confused and embittered because it was denied him.
It has been a long time since I have read the book by Barbara Tuchman, "Stilwell and the American Experience in China," and "The Soong Dynasty," written by Sterling Seagrave, the son of the Burma Surgeon, but those works influenced me greatly as I read "Reminiscences." The books are written in different voices; that is, MacArthur's book is first person, while Tuchman wrote as a war correspondent following Stillwell's camp, and Seagrave wrote as a historian raised in Asia with excellent personal resources as well as authoritative scholarly documentation of the history of the warring factions that ravaged China before and after Sun Yat-Sen. Nonetheless, Tuchman's first-hand experiences in Stilwell's camp, and Seagrave's childhood association with his father's missionary hospital, and his father's service to Stilwell's troops, give all of these books a personal authority so that even though they are not "apples to apples," they are of similar literary species.
MacArthur criticizes few people, but he had little respect for Truman after his first year in office. (And who can blame him? Truman didn't even tell him that he was being relieved of command, he announced it over the media, without even telling him that his job was in any sort of jeopardy. MacArthur heard about it because one of his aides heard it on the radio, and informed MacArthur's wife, because the General was at lunch.) But he had in common with Truman the hatred and fear of communism that surfaced after World War II.
MacArthur knew that something changed with the death of FDR, and he couldn't put his finger on it. He had had arguments with FDR, one of which almost resulted in MacArthur's resignation, but he respected FDR's fierce defense of America, and his ability to unite and inspire the country. Although he was a Republican, he states often in the book that he had no interest in the factions of the political parties, and that his only real political allegiance was to Lincoln, his father's hero.
He grants no deference to Russia's contributions to WWII, although that country's sacrifices of the lives of millions of its troops and civilians blatantly belie that position. MacArthur was not impressed, however, with Russia's entry into war with Japan after MacArthur had faced the full force of the Japanese army in the Pacific. (He would have liked them to divert Japanese efforts earlier.)
MacArthur is confused by the rejection of Chaing Kai-shek's offer of troops for Korea, and attributes the rise of China at the beginning of the 20th century to be the work of Chaing Kai-Shek. Perhaps he was taking Chaing's word for it. (Seagrave and Tuchman tell a different story. . .Seagrave gives Chaing Kai-Shek all the glory due a dope dealer, and Stilwell considered him unreliable as an ally and self-serving as a head of state.) If there was bias toward Mao at the immediate end of the Asian war, it was probably at least partially due to the influence of Stilwell, the American General responsible for China during that conflict, although I have no inside knowledge of the policy about "Agrarian reformers" that MacArthur alludes to. Stilwell died shortly after his retirement and return to the U.S.
Stilwell attests to Mao's fierce fighting against Japan. Chaing's wife, (A Soong sister) would ask the American Congress for money, and then use his resources to protect his own compound, and abandon Stilwell in planned joint ventures in the Asian theater. Stilwell was constantly training Asian soldiers, who would learn to fight, and then often join Mao in the fight against Japan. This was true in Vietnam as well as Burma and China. Chaing evidently had planned to allow Mao and Stilwell to fight Japan, and then use American resources to fight Mao for the government of mainland China. For whatever reason, he was denied that option.
As I stated in my reviews of these other two books, Stilwell and MacArthur had much in common, including extensive youthful experience in Asia. Stilwell touched on the Philippines, but had extensive experience in the diplomatic corps in China. Both men had comprehensive influence in the training of American troops, and both men were forced to compete with Europe for funding during the initial phases of the war, relying on native armies for support. Stilwell spoke fluent Chinese, and for decades personally witnessed the deterioration of Chinese culture under the influence of the British, and the debilitating presence of the opium trade.
I was fairly young when I read Tuchman's book on Stilwell, and she was the first to point out to me the very different experience of American versus British rule. Later, when I encountered LaRouche, he also wrote about the tyranny of British policy after the war in India, easily matching Nazi or communist perfidy. LaRouche served as a medic in Burma, and must have served at least in the general area of Stilwell, yet he too is silent on Stilwell's presence at least to my knowledge. LaRouche is eloquent, however, about the British involvement in the Truman administration, and he openly discusses the many conflicts between Roosevelt and Churchill.
Although MacArthur claims that he has no interest in politics, his understanding of Communism doesn't include the analysis of its British roots. His understanding of capitalism, which he expounds upon in one passage, is that government involvement and taxation is detrimental to prosperity, which displays a basic fallacy involving the role of credit in a democratic (or "republican") economy. The proper role of government is essential, as MacArthur instinctively knew in his practice of governing Japan, and in his admiration for the programs which lifted the American people out of the depression, which includes the support for a strong military defense. (Roosevelt, after accepting responsibility for supporting the military, often provoked MacArthur's reaction regarding social programs, saying that MacArthur was the "symbol of the conscience of the American people.")
Much of his frustration with pacifism comes from the degree to which anti-war sentiment was used to try to stop the build-up of American military strength before World War II (the reason for his near-resignation, which FDR did not accept), and the degree to which his enemies used anti-war sentiment to effect his removal from Korea before achieving a unified and democratic Korea. He equates those forces with communistic sympathies, or at least to that vague malaise which he can't identify. Support for his efforts to represent our interests in Asia was suddenly missing in Washington.
He knew that there was enemy knowledge of his orders in Korea, and the men serving under him knew that, too. What he didn't know was the alliance of forces which operated much of our diplomatic and intelligence endeavors after the war. He didn't know of, or didn't acknowledge the importance of, the commitment of the British to re-establish their various colonies, either directly or indirectly, in defiance of Roosevelt's stated goal of economically developing the natural resources of the poor nations of the world for the benefit of their populations. (Roosevelt died on April 12 of 1945, shortly after his fourth inaugural as President of the United States. British and financier forces had lobbied for Truman, instead of Wallace, to be his vice president, knowing that FDR would die in office. )
MacArthur advocated the use of nuclear weapons before he knew of Russia's development of that weapon,(believing the US was the only power that had it) as a possibility in Korea. He wanted to act to win against communism before the weapon was proliferated, and knew that there was a small window for victory in Asia.
He doubted the necessity to bomb Hiroshima, knowing that Japan was already defeated. Japan was told to surrender on July 26th, but did not respond soon enough. Hiroshima was bombed August 7th. Japan, in its petition for peace to Switzerland on August 10th, stated that it had asked Russia to convey this intention weeks earlier.
Even though he was summarily fired in Korea, MacArthur was received warmly in dozens of cities in the U.S. He could probably have easily won the presidency, which nomination he was offered several times by the Republicans. Considering the way he ran Japan, we probably would have benefitted greatly from it, if he had the correct economic advisors. This is a really good book, and I recommend it highly to those who would want to hear the thoughts of an old (and truly magnificent) soldier.
August 31, 2018
Excellent but puffy.
There is a LOT of interesting information in this book. The 1st-hand historical accounts of the war in the Pacific are involving and compelling.
Reminiscenses covers MacArthur's entire career, both before and after his service in WW2.
Some accounts include facts not generally known to the public, such as the communist involvement in the Bonus March. (Many of the "veterans" who showed up asking for their bonus checks were actually criminals, recruited by the communist party to embarrass the Hoover administration.)
Some passages must be viewed through the lens of a different culture, to avoid judging the heroes of yesterday by the standards of today. MacArthur looks back fondly on military hazing, and even defends the practice -- disappointing to modern sensibilities, but understandable as a part of military history.
As with many great books, Reminiscences could have benefited from a good editor.
Fewer words and denser text could have made this a much easier read.
I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants a better understanding of the war in the pacific theater, as well as Douglas MacArthur's life and other accomplishments -- but be warned: It is a slow read.
There is a LOT of interesting information in this book. The 1st-hand historical accounts of the war in the Pacific are involving and compelling.
Reminiscenses covers MacArthur's entire career, both before and after his service in WW2.
Some accounts include facts not generally known to the public, such as the communist involvement in the Bonus March. (Many of the "veterans" who showed up asking for their bonus checks were actually criminals, recruited by the communist party to embarrass the Hoover administration.)
Some passages must be viewed through the lens of a different culture, to avoid judging the heroes of yesterday by the standards of today. MacArthur looks back fondly on military hazing, and even defends the practice -- disappointing to modern sensibilities, but understandable as a part of military history.
As with many great books, Reminiscences could have benefited from a good editor.
Fewer words and denser text could have made this a much easier read.
I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants a better understanding of the war in the pacific theater, as well as Douglas MacArthur's life and other accomplishments -- but be warned: It is a slow read.
May 27, 2025
I am struck most strongly by his criticism of the political decision not to win the war in Korea and his thorough explanation of why the failure to win there precipitated the failure in Vietnam, and while he did not live to see it, continued failure in the Middle East from the 90s through the war on terror till our departure in the last five years, and even more blatantly in Ukraine as being directly against Russia.
In even briefer summary than he gave is to say that our fear of retaliation and commitment has prevented any decisive victory and that anything less than victory is defeat and further that any victory without changing the people (as he did in Japan) will be fruitless since they’ll just go back to the way they were before (as we did not do in the Middle East) closing with his famous statement “There is no substitute for victory”
In even briefer summary than he gave is to say that our fear of retaliation and commitment has prevented any decisive victory and that anything less than victory is defeat and further that any victory without changing the people (as he did in Japan) will be fruitless since they’ll just go back to the way they were before (as we did not do in the Middle East) closing with his famous statement “There is no substitute for victory”
August 23, 2025
I’m no fan of General MacArthur as his egotistical grandstanding for taking credit when it was never due absolutely doesn’t sit well with me so I was expecting his memoir to be much of the same. Memoirs I find are always on some level self serving and given who wrote this, I went into it with a grain of salt.
While I did enjoy some aspects of it in a historical context, his need to again talk himself up as being the saviour of the Pacific War when he barely participated (if at all) in any of the fighting is a disservice to the men who actually did put their lives on the line.
His post WWII work in helping to rebuild and transform Japan should rightly be acknowledged as a positive thing, but it’s his missteps in Korea and those during the Japanese invasion of the Philippines that he never took much responsibility for remains for me something that remains a stain on his character.
While I did enjoy some aspects of it in a historical context, his need to again talk himself up as being the saviour of the Pacific War when he barely participated (if at all) in any of the fighting is a disservice to the men who actually did put their lives on the line.
His post WWII work in helping to rebuild and transform Japan should rightly be acknowledged as a positive thing, but it’s his missteps in Korea and those during the Japanese invasion of the Philippines that he never took much responsibility for remains for me something that remains a stain on his character.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 14, 2020
I read this book in the mid-70's. It was the first of several books I own about MacArthur. I gave it a 5 because I could not rate it 4-1/2. Many people do not like, in fact they despise MacArthur, because of his many flaws. However, all great historical figures are flawed, some deeply. MacArthur was one of the greatest military leaders as well as being quite politcally savy. This book was very well written by a person with an extraordinary command of the English language.
August 19, 2021
Read in conjunction with Wm Manchester's biography of MacArthur. Read just sections of each focusing on the occupation of Japan because I wanted to see if that experience provided any insight on how to make the occupation of Iraq successful. Probably . . . but Japan started higher on the evolution of governmental sophistication and American will to deal with Japan was MUCH higher than our desire for commitment in Iraq.
Rating may be higher were I to read the whole thing.
Rating may be higher were I to read the whole thing.
June 9, 2018
Great biography from one of the main actors of the past century .
I recomend this book to who is interested to have a better view and understanding of Far East Asia and the relationship with the USA.
I recomend this book to who is interested to have a better view and understanding of Far East Asia and the relationship with the USA.
May 20, 2024
I have long admired MacArthur even named my pet guinea pig after him at age 8. I didn't read his memoirs for several decades and was intrigued by a passage about Turkey and another about the Southern Philippines. This book is full of hidden anecdotes such as those.
February 16, 2023
Superb! Well written.
February 27, 2016
What a great book, I feel like I obtained a unique view into a critical time of our nation’s history by a gifted leader and military man. What really stood out was his great understanding of other countries (in Army terms Civil Affairs) and disconnects he had with the political movements within our country which lead to his removal in Korea. The predictions at the end of this book have proved to be very prescient. His concern that socialism, capture of industry for political gain, and imprudent use of the tax code would end the country in bankruptcy and loss of freedom are just about here. Never knew he brought 10 million Bibles into Japan after its defeat and that he implored for missionaries. He was true to his belief that the horrible nature of war was theological in nature and only escape would be a “spiritual recrudescence” which I am not sure he was counting on as he also quoted Plato in that “only the dead have seen the end of war”. He did however shade his writings some..never mentioned his first marriage, his Filipino girl friend, and of course never mentioned the secret cables he sent to other countries where he indicated he wanted to expand the war with China. The release of that information did not come out until the 1980s…basically, Truman was seeing his communications which were counter to US policy. By the way, could it be that MacArthur instinctively knew that US policy was to really lose the Korean war as Owen Lattimore indicated July 17, 1949?
May 4, 2011
a brilliant strategist...
Read
October 22, 2012hbmhbkbkbkbkbkbbkbknnnl
January 14, 2016
Fantastic piece!
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews