The Legacy of Admiral Nimitz in Today's Japan

The Admiral Nimitz Foundation 2020 Symposium included five keynotes by prominent WWII authors. This keynote, titled THE LEGACY OF ADMIRAL NIMITZ IN TODAY’S JAPAN is presented by Craig Symonds, Ph.D. Symonds is the Ernest J. King Distinguished Professor of Maritime
History at the Naval War College and Professor Emeritus at the U.S Naval
Academy, where he taught for 30 years and served as a department chair.
He is the author or editor of 29 books, including The Battle of Midway,
Operation Neptune, and World War II at Sea: A Global History, all published
by Oxford University Press. Dr. Symonds is a recipient of the Roosevelt Prize,
the Lincoln Prize, the Morison Prize, and the Dudley W. Knox Medal for
Lifetime Achievement.
This program was funded in-part by donations from Humanities Texas, Texas Pioneer Foundation, and Enterprise Holdings Foundation.

[@skyespye6053]

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

[@dans.5745]

Exactly. He is a great teacher and presenter.

[@4RTigers]

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".

[@dboconnor57]

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.

[@derrickcochran4180]

Then they gave MacArthur command all force in Korea unbelievable

[@dankelly2147]

My father had a confrontation with MacArthur in 1937 that left a bitter loathing and hate for the man he never got over. Dugout Doug was a contemptible narcissist, and, yes, he was a pedophile.

[@briancooper2112]

I totally agree. My grandfather 11th airborne 1943 1946 hated MacArthur

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

This could be another Bilious Biography of MacArthur? No another hack job wack job!

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

​@derrickcochran4180 Mark Clatk Right? Any idea of what your musing about! NO

[@lmErnest]

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

[@armondedge8840]

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.

[@johnschuh8616]

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!

[@therealuncleowen2588]

He certainly was.

[@bruerR8757]

The Japanese mindset then, like the dilemma we face today with Islamic extremists, made it extremely difficult to defeat an enemy that is so willing to needlessly sacrifice himself that made it so difficult to defeat the Japanese. It defies all logic. Living to fight another day was not in the Japanese lexicon. It is a tribute to Nimitz who for so long tolerated the giant ego and egocentric behavior of MacArthur for the greater good. Truman's legacy was firing MacArthur before the General could engage us in another world war and sacrifice the lives of so many American soldiers and others in Korea who had already sacrificed so much. Excellent presentation. Thank you.

[@kirbyculp3449]

There is a reason for the neologism 'islamakazee'.

[@sundayman99]

All I knew about Admiral Nimitz was his name, and his role in the War in the Pacific. After watching this presentation, I now know that he was also a very decent human being. Thank you for this bit of context that is typically left out of the history books. Very well done!

[@kellybiggs261]

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

[@hae-meo-sum]

I believe Craig studied in Annapolis. His technology and skill would not be shaped except institutional curriculum. The vivid film is remarkable throughout the lecture.

[@TheHarvick29]

All I can say is thank god we had him

[@sheilagibson982]

And that he didn’t go to West Point.

[@NVRAMboi]

It's equally amazing to me that FDR recognized Nimitz' potential for greatness. Great call on POTUS' part. (*Even with FDR being "a Navy guy".)

[@dancolley4208]

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?

[@johnschuh8616]

Grandiloquent McArthur was, but he was not known to abuse people the way King did. and my guess is that very few generals and admirals in the armed services behaved like Nimitz toward their subordinates. He was, I gather, one of those few great men who was also a great man to his valets. His grandfather deserves our thanks for the way he raised him.

[@NVRAMboi]

I know with certainty which man I'd trust.

[@Briandnlo4]

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

[@NVRAMboi]

I did not know the painted barge story (for the surrender). That MacArthur would reject/dismiss out of hand such a classy gesture by Adm. Nimitz only confirms that MacArthur's self-absorbed reputation was well-earned.

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

One of my grandfather's served in the Pacific for the duration. The other served in Burma in '44-'45. One was working class. The other was a Yale Educated Surgeon. Both absolutely despised MacArthur. Leave it to MacArthur to unite Americans from different backgrounds and who served in different theaters in their hatred of him.

[@jonathanr2830]

The museum is far and away one of the very best gems in Texas worth visiting with the entire family. Fantastic exhibits that will strain your mind and move your heart, many authentic and to full scale, and many interactive and fully engaging. I would not want to spoil the surprises for you by detailing them. Plan on spending up to several hours to enjoy this museum. Many things to also include in your trip are: Fredericksburg with its German vibe and fun (tourist/non-tourist) shopping and dining; the Texas Hill Country vistas and its beautiful wildlife and natural features, and Enchanted Rock with its state park.

[@davidvonkettering204]

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.

[@toastecmo]

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.

[@haroldgraham4993]

The spices flow

[@haroldgraham4993]

Oil is the spice

[@Bejman13]

Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz was a good, decent, smart man. And one of the greatest military strategists this country has ever known.

[@edwardloomis887]

I LOVE the video at 1:43: In a professional military, a subordinate doesn't just walk anywhere relative to someone who is senior. In the U.S. Army, the junior person walks to the left of the senior, harkening to the phalanx where the senior commander who fought in the front right corner of the formation. Hoplite shields, held with the left arm and sword in the right, protected everyone in the phalanx except the front right person, which is why the king/commander/centurion positioned himself there. MacArthur, for whatever reason, possibly because he was on a ship, didn't focus on where he was relative to Nimitz, or thought because it was Navy, they wouldn't "get" that. Nimitz professionally but physically moves MacArthur to the right to the position of honor as the senior officer. I really love that clip.

[@timothybrady2749]

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

[@NVRAMboi]

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.

[@antonioperez2623]

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

[@garyives]

Thank you. I much appreciate this excellent presentation.

[@mr19471985]

Excellent presentation, thank you.

[@jgonzalez101]

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!

[@Peace2U-ec6es]

It's bad enough when you have to fight a hostile enemy, but really bad when the hostile enemy is supposed to be on your side.

[@jerrewilliams5555]

Actually Nimitz spent a large part of his early life ahd education in Kerrville although his family ties were strong in Fredrksburg. Several teachers in his hight school learned that he would have to leave before he had finished high school so they worked overtime to tutor him in math and science.

[@kwi5331]

Ian Toll’s trilogy on the Pacific War went into detail on the people and their decisions. I appreciate Nimitz much more.

[@ejdotw1]

What an outstanding historian and superb presentation, thank you!

[@frankconnors9497]

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.

[@keithrosenberg5486]

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.

[@hannahreed7192]

Absolutely a good idea. Land: McArthur. Sea: Nimitz, ONLY Nimitz!

[@Vito_Tuxedo]

There are far too many superb Pacific War historians for me to be able to pick a favorite. But Dr. Symonds is, in my view, something like the dean of them all. For that reason, he holds a pre-eminent position among them. Coincidentally, I have never seen a presentation of his that was not most severely excellent.

[@FlameofDemocracy]

Answer to question 2: Since reading about the holodomor in 'Red Famine' by Anne Applebaum, I would think that a widespread siege would have been far less compassionate, than a relatively quick resolution to the conflict.

[@danilorainone406]

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

[@curtgomes]

Absolutely true.....

[@sspicer549]

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

[@maureenchristopher1976]

Thank you for this wonderful information!

[@curtgomes]

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.

[@spikespa5208]

He saw it as the opportunity to end that horrific war right *NOW.*

[@robertoles3654]

Great author, great lecturer!

[@pauljnolan1000]

Very well done! Thank you.

[@richardmiranda640]

A collared shirt and a jacket, this man has class and a good message too

[@kaylemoine1571]

Excellent! Thank you.

[@richardbennett1856]

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.

[@NSResponder]

A warrior and a gentleman.

[@charlesdavis7940]

Excellent. 👍

[@williammarriott6131]

I think Halsey's flagship wad the USS New Jersey.

[@terencecowart8759]

Yes!

[@blainedunlap4242]

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

[@harlangrove3475]

FWIW, my grandfather was under Nimitz's command before WW2 in subs out of San Diego.

[@Bobby-hq7nz]

Wish we had Fleet Admiral Chester W Nimitz Today

[@larryyoung5757]

Excellent

[@italiang8470]

Excellent video

[@colinellis5243]

Anything that limited dugout Doug's maniac command was a good idea!

[@alfavulcan4518]

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

[@KMN-bg3yu]

In general, having a divided command structure is frowned upon. However, in the Pacific it certainly seemed to work better than anyone could have possibly foreseen (even MacArthur)

[@SFLiving]

Well done. Thank you.

[@Anthony-em1rc]

McArthur was a crackpot. Nimitz is the kinda man for any job.

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

MacArthur has an all time comb over.

[@cheesenoodles8316]

Hind sight has jaded me. Anything to mute McArther influence was necessary. Nimitz was the right man in the right place at the right time.

[@sheilagibson982]

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

[@MrKen-wy5dk]

720p in 2021?? Surely you can afford at least a 1080p camera or a 4k camera by now.

[@RHill79]

Great video thank you!

[@davidoltmans2725]

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.

[@mikebender8521]

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?

[@curtgomes]

You're correct.

[@fredjones554]

Great presentation

[@rogerthornton4068]

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

[@jrsmith1008]

I don't think McArthur was jerk at all he wanted to drop nuclear weapons on China during the Korean conflict maybe that wasn't a great idea however he was a great general and today's politicly correct military leaders are not fit to shine the mans boots I'm referring to the Pentagon who left Afghanistan with tail tucked between their legs we don't have too many fighting men left at high levels

[@DanColley-qy3wi]

He probably was still a jerk even AFTER he retired. PS: This was an excellent bit of oratory . Mr. Symonds is an excellent historian and he gives an equally excellent lecture. Anchors Aweigh, Mr. Symonds. WELL DONE.

[@2012photograph]

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

[@fostercathead]

Yes.

[@runemrick]

As for who was best put in command between Nimitz and MacArthur, one need only look at a map to realize with much more ocean than land, a war in the area would be a largely navel venture and that by a navy's proper use, land war could be minimized. Concerning the bomb, without it there would likely have been no surrender and a protracted campaign which would have killed both military and civilians one hundred fold, either by direct conflict, or more likely starvation. Even after Covid, few of us understand how big a role supply chains make in keeping us alive.

[@lorasschissel5518]

Excellent.

[@paulfarace9595]

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.

[@jyy9624]

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

[@oldcremona]

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!

[@itswagon]

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

[@springbok204]

Why, on earth, is Macarthur has been revered by history, as much as he has?

[@Marcus-p5i5s]

Here's what I KNOW. FDR more than once put politics ahead of the war. This was one of those times. Nimitz HAD to be there for the success of the Pacific war. ANY halfway decent senior general could have filled MacArthur's role. However, that would mean that he would return to Washington. FDR considered Douglas to be a formidable rival for President if out of uniform. Thus he got the command in Australia. Out of the running for PotUS.

[@CB-vt3mx]

Rank seniority has nothing to do with position authority. I remember being promoted to 1SG over some more senior Master Sergeants. Their seniority in GRADE meant nothing. The 1SG is in charge. Period. This is important to the issue in this video. Macarthur may have been senior in GRADE, but not in rank and position. He should have known that given his time of service.

[@tswizard13]

MacArthur needed a throttle

[@parrot849]

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 )

[@keithrosenberg5486]

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.

[@guytakamatsu7326]

Interesting video

[@nx014]

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.

[@jacklydon]

I am hard pressed to criticize Franklin Roosevelt. I think he understood that politically he could not sack or even disrespect MacArthur. He would just ignore him. And that's what he wanted Marshall, King and Nimitz to do. Give him is less than critical fiefdom and forget about him. So, yes. Divided command was okay for Roosevelt. Just don't make a habit of it.

[@kevinmccarthy8746]

Of course.

[@alejandrocantu4652]

I think the divided command was wrong, and the army should have been subordinated to the navy as the war in the Pacific was primarily a naval campaign.

[@oldranger649]

THUMBS UP

[@thomasmolloy5447]

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.

[@3716anderson]

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

[@iamironkanute8750]

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.

[@brunopadovani7347]

MacArthur did make a major blunder. He allowed his bombers in the Philippines to be bombed by the Japanese, with full knowledge that Pearl Harbor had been attacked, a full day earlier. Those aircraft should have been defended, or disbursed to other fields.

[@warrenklein7817]

By January/ February 1943, King, MacArthur, and Nimitz had succeeded in starting the fight back by victories at Kokoda/ Buna / Gona New Guinea and Guadalcanal.

[@johngaither9263]

By 1945 Douglas MacArthur was 65 years old. It's apparent he combed his hair over his bald spot. I wonder if he colored his hair to keep it so uniformly dark? Appearance was everything to Dougy. Him doing so wouldn't surprise me in the least and is probably one of the least annoying things he did.

[@GerardDeschenes]

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.

[@larryyoung5757]

The Emporer Hirohito surrendered for the sake of his people. The Japanese military still resisted surrender and tried to take or kill Hirohito. Only the bomb and the Russian invasion of Manchuria convinced the emperor to surrender .

[@dougmoore5252]

In retrospect I see it as a very good idea as these places were very far from each other.

[@ralphkeith9642]

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.

[@davidcbr0wn]

Wow.

[@Davigaming049]

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.

[@Idahoguy10157]

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

[@jacklydon]

Blockade would never have resulted in surrender.

[@Conn30Mtenor]

18:35 No, the Atom bombs were necessary. The bombs were almost miraculous in their destructive power. This had an effect on the Japanese mind- they were a people who fully believed in miracles, like the two Tai-fun that destroyed Kublai Kahn's fleets. Twice.

[@andymckane7271]

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.

[@mybadluckcharm]

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.

[@dancolley4208]

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