Patton in Korea/MacArthur in the White House

Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Douglas MacArthur is handling his job as president?

  • Approve

    Votes: 91 87.5%
  • Disapprove

    Votes: 13 12.5%

  • Total voters
    104
  • Poll closed .

bguy

Donor
Taft being an isolationist is a smear. While the liberal Republicans used it as an attack line, if he's their nominee, I imagine the party in general would do a better job setting the record straight on that. Taft's concern was more about specific signed commitments that gave the room no flexibility. He still said that if the soviets attacked Europe, the US would treat it as an act of war. He just believed in Monroe Doctrine style declarations rather than formal alliances.

Not to mention that Taft also voted in favor of the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine, supported the US intervention in Korea, and advocated for the US to defend Taiwan.

Anyway, I think the same forces that made Nixon VP in 1952 funnily enough make sense here as well. Young Senator from the West.

Since MacArthur is considered to be conservative with a strong focus on Asia, he probably needs someone from the Dewey wing of the party who is more of an Atlanticist to balance the ticket. Henry Cabot Lodge maybe.
 
Do you believe that MacArthur was in favour of civil rights for African Americans?
MacArthur didn't really care one one way or another about civil rights for African-Americans. Perfectly happy to serve in a segregated army and be pals with horrific racists like Ned Almond, but never publicly opposed the integration of the army either when this became a thing. Favourably impressed Thurgood Marshall when the latter was able to take a meeting with him in the Korean War. Like Eisenhower, he would probably do as little as possible to advance civil rights, but he would not stand for federal authority being openly defied by local or state officials.
 
In Marshall's case one could argue that his bad decisions did help lose China I don't know enough to comment one way or the other. His being in some way pro-Communìst is just ludicrous!
 
Even against an isolationist like Taft?
Ehh... Taft was nothing special, but he'd do an ok job. Stevenson wasn't exactly a strong candidate either. A closer race than Ike's blowout, but I'd still give it to the GOP absent some massive unforeseen event.
Goddam, Patton kicks ass even in retirement!
You didn't think I kept him around for nothing, did you?
McCarthy calling "Red" to Patton?

Did he go suddenly nuts?
No. McCarthy was always nuts. :p
Good thing ABC decided to not air it live. The FCC would be on them for showing murder. 🤣
Patton's language is probably enough to keep a couple of FCC censors in work!
Wait no North Korean Rump state in the Kangyee pocket?
What would be the point? There's nothing there, it's tiny, and a fully united SK is much less likely to call for war against China than one that still has a scrap of land it wants to take. Makes more sense to just cut the losses IMO.
WW3 it is baby.
Didn't I explicitly say somewhere that I wasn't going to do the 'Mac spams nukes' trope?

- BNC
 
Also just noticed we've passed 1000 posts and 100 likes on the first post... I'm 99% sure this is the first time I've ever had a thread I started either of those.
Thanks everyone for being a part of it all, and here's to many more pages of great discussion! :)

- BNC
 
Ehh... Taft was nothing special, but he'd do an ok job. Stevenson wasn't exactly a strong candidate either. A closer race than Ike's blowout, but I'd still give it to the GOP absent some massive unforeseen event.

You didn't think I kept him around for nothing, did you?

No. McCarthy was always nuts. :p

Patton's language is probably enough to keep a couple of FCC censors in work!

What would be the point? There's nothing there, it's tiny, and a fully united SK is much less likely to call for war against China than one that still has a scrap of land it wants to take. Makes more sense to just cut the losses IMO.

Didn't I explicitly say somewhere that I wasn't going to do the 'Mac spams nukes' trope?

- BNC
Who's his VP?
 
Ehh... Taft was nothing special, but he'd do an ok job. Stevenson wasn't exactly a strong candidate either. A closer race than Ike's blowout, but I'd still give it to the GOP absent some massive unforeseen event.

You didn't think I kept him around for nothing, did you?

No. McCarthy was always nuts. :p

Patton's language is probably enough to keep a couple of FCC censors in work!

What would be the point? There's nothing there, it's tiny, and a fully united SK is much less likely to call for war against China than one that still has a scrap of land it wants to take. Makes more sense to just cut the losses IMO.

Didn't I explicitly say somewhere that I wasn't going to do the 'Mac spams nukes' trope?

- BNC
Honestly Mccarthy was a little unbalanced. But would he be insane enough to really put Patton through all of this? Let alone let the media air the shit show in the senate? I mean his career would be over the second he went public with that accusation.
 
Last edited:
I mean if it's Patton then I expect WW3. Having those two guys in charge would lead to nothing but trouble.
I think Patton is retired for good unless Mac decides to give Patton his battlefield death by sending him to some advisory role in Vietnam or something. No doubt knowing Patton would want to advise from the front and likely want to go out guns blazing at some VC or other commies. Hell, that would give Mac cassus belli to go into Vietnam/wherever if he wanted to.
 
I think he was in the middle, It looks bad for the Cold war, if we hold 10 percent of the population down, while desiring to manage progress. We need to siphon off an elite, and let things happen without extremes and over excitement. The source Juan Wiliams American Revolutionary Bio of Thurgood Marshall, and his encounter with MacArthur while looking over Korean court martials.
 
CHAPTER 27
<snip>
Then Joseph McCarthy made the worst decision of his career. He attempted to smear George C. Marshall.
Yes indeed:

Speech delivered by Senator Joseph McCarthy before the Senate on June 14, 1951​

How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this Government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.

Who constitutes the highest circles of this conspiracy? About that we cannot be sure. We are convinced that Dean Acheson, who steadfastly serves the interests of nations other than his own, the friend of Alger Hiss, who supported him in his hour of retribution, who contributed to his defense fund, must be high on the roster. The President? He is their captive. I have wondered, as have you, why he did not dispense with so great a liability as Acheson to his own and his party’s interests. It is now clear to me. In the relationship of master and man, did you ever hear of man firing master? Truman is a satisfactory front. He is only dimly aware of what is going on.

I do not believe that Mr. Truman is a conscious party to the great conspiracy, although it is being conducted in his name. I believe that if Mr. Truman had the ability to associate good Americans around him, be would have behaved as a good American in this most dire of all our crises.

It is when we return to an examination of General Marshall’s record since the spring of 1942 that we approach an explanation of the carefully planned retreat from victory, Let us again review the Marshall record, as I have disclosed it from all the sources available and all of them friendly. This grim and solitary man it was who, early in World War II, determined to put his impress upon our global strategy, political and military.

It was Marshall, who, amid the din for a “second front now” from every voice of Soviet inspiration, sought to compel the British to invade across the Channel in the fall of 1942 upon penalty of our quitting the war in Europe.

It was Marshall who, after North Africa had been secured, took the strategic direction of the war out of Roosevelt’s hands and who fought the British desire, shared by Mark Clark, to advance from Italy into the eastern plains of Europe ahead of the Russians.

It was a Marshall-sponsored memorandum, advising appeasement of Russia In Europe and the enticement of Russia into the far-eastern war, circulated at Quebec, which foreshadowed our whole course at Tehran, at Yalta, and until now in the Far East.

It was Marshall who, at Tehran, made common cause with Stalin on the strategy of the war in Europe and marched side by side with him thereafter.

It was Marshall who enjoined his chief of military mission in Moscow under no circumstances to “irritate” the Russians by asking them questions about their forces, their weapons, and their plans, while at the same time opening our schools, factories, and gradually our secrets to them in this count.

It was Marshall who, as Hanson Baldwin asserts, himself referring only to the “military authorities,” prevented us having a corridor to Berlin. So it was with the capture and occupation of Berlin and Prague ahead of the Russians.

It was Marshall who sent Deane to Moscow to collaborate with Harriman in drafting the terms of the wholly unnecessary bribe paid to Stalin at Yalta. It was Marshall, with Hiss at his elbow and doing the physical drafting of agreements at Yalta, who ignored the contrary advice of his senior, Admiral Leahy, and of MacArthur and Nimitz in regard to the folly of a major land invasion of Japan; who submitted intelligence reports which suppressed more truthful estimates in order to support his argument, and who finally induced Roosevelt to bring Russia into the Japanese war with a bribe that reinstated Russia in its pre-1904 imperialistic position in Manchuria — an act which, in effect, signed the death warrant of the Republic of China.

It was Marshall, with Acheson and Vincent eagerly assisting, who created the China policy which, destroying China, robbed us of a great and friendly ally, a buffer against the Soviet imperialism with which we are now at war.

It was Marshall who, after long conferences with Acheson and Vincent, went to China to execute the criminal folly of the disastrous Marshall mission.

It was Marshall who, upon returning from a diplomatic defeat for the United States at Moscow, besought the reinstatement of forty millions in lend-lease for Russia.

It was Marshall who, for two years suppressed General Wedemeyer’s report, which is a direct and comprehensive repudiation of the Marshall policy.

It was Marshall who, disregarding Wedemeyer’s advices on the urgent need for military supplies, the likelihood of China’s defeat without ammunition and equipment, and our “moral obligation” to furnish them, proposed instead a relief bill bare of military support.

It was the State Department under Marshall, with the wholehearted support of Michael Lee and Remington in the Commerce Department, that sabotaged the $125,000,000 military-aid bill to China in 194S.

It was Marshall who fixed the dividing line for Korea along the thirty-eighth parallel, a line historically chosen by Russia to mark its sphere of interest in Korea.

It is Marshall’s strategy for Korea which has turned that war into a pointless slaughter, reversing the dictum of Von Clausewitz and every military theorist since him that the object of a war is not merely to kill but to impose your will on the enemy.

It is Marshall-Acheson strategy for Europe to build the defense of Europe solely around the Atlantic Pact nations, excluding the two great wells of anti-Communist manpower in Western Germany and Spain and spurning the organized armies of Greece and Turkey — another case of following the Lattimore advice of “let them fall but don’t let it appear that we pushed them.”

It is Marshall who, advocating timidity as a policy so as not to annoy the forces of Soviet imperialism in Asia, had admittedly put a brake on the preparations to fight, rationalizing his reluctance on the ground that the people are fickle and if war does not come, will hold him to account for excessive zeal.

What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence. If Marshall were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve this country’s interest. If Marshall is innocent of guilty intention, how could he be trusted to guide the defense of this country further? We have declined so precipitously in relation to the Soviet Union in the last six years. How much swifter may be our fall into disaster with Marshall at the helm? Where Will all this stop? That is not a rhetorical question: Ours is not a rhetorical danger. Where next will Marshall carry us? It is useless to suppose that his nominal superior will ask him to resign. He cannot even dispense with Acheson.

What is the objective of the great conspiracy? I think it is clear from what has occurred and is now occurring: to diminish the United States in world affairs, to weaken us militarily, to confuse our spirit with talk of surrender in the Far East and to impair our will to resist evil. To what end? To the end that we shall be contained, frustrated and finally: fall victim to Soviet intrigue from within and Russian military might from without. Is that farfetched? There have been many examples in history of rich and powerful states which have been corrupted from within, enfeebled and deceived until they were unable to resist aggression. . . .

It is the great crime of the Truman administration that it has refused to undertake the job of ferreting the enemy from its ranks. I once puzzled over that refusal. The President, I said, is a loyal American; why does he not lead in this enterprise? I think that I know why he does not. The President is not master in his own house. Those who are master there not only have a desire to protect the sappers and miners — they could not do otherwise. They themselves are not free. They belong to a larger conspiracy, the world-wide web of which has been spun from Moscow. It was Moscow, for example, which decreed that the United States should execute its loyal friend, the Republic of China. The executioners were that well-identified group headed by Acheson and George Catlett Marshall.

How, if they would, can they, break these ties, how return to simple allegiance to their native land? Can men sullied by their long and dreadful record afford us leadership in the world struggle with the enemy? How can a man whose every important act for years had contributed to the prosperity of the enemy reverse himself? The reasons for his past actions are immaterial. Regardless of why he has done what be did, be has done it and the momentum of that course bears him onward. . . .

The time has come to halt this tepid, milk-and-water acquiescence which a discredited administration, ruled by disloyalty, sends down to us. The American may belong to an old culture, he may be beset by enemies here and abroad, he may be distracted by the many words of counsel that assail him by day and night, but he is nobody’s fool. The time has come for us to realize that the people who sent us here expect more than time-serving from us. The American who has never known defeat in war, does not expect to be again sold down the river in Asia. He does not want that kind of betrayal. He has had betrayal enough. He has never failed to fight for his liberties since George Washington rode to Boston in 1775 to put himself at the head of a band of rebels unversed in war. He is fighting tonight, fighting gloriously in a war on a distant American frontier made inglorious by the men he can no longer trust at the head of our affairs.

The America that I know, and that other Senators know, this vast and teeming and beautiful land, this hopeful society where the poor share the table of the rich as never before in history, where men of all colors, of all faiths, are brothers as never before in history, where great deeds have been done and great deeds are yet to do, that America deserves to be led not to humiliation or defeat, but to victory.

The Congress of the United States is the people’s last hope, a free and open forum of the people’s representatives. We felt the pulse of the people’s response to the return of MacArthur. We know what it meant. The people, no longer trusting their executive, turn to us, asking that we reassert the constitutional prerogative of the Congress to declare the policy for the United States.

The time has come to reassert that prerogative, to oversee the conduct of this war, to declare that this body must have the final word on the disposition of Formosa and Korea. They fell from the grasp of the Japanese empire through our military endeavors, pursuant to a declaration of war made by the Congress of the United States on December 8, 1941. If the Senate speaks, as is its right, the disposal of Korea and Formosa can be made only by a treaty which must be ratified by this body. Should the administration dare to defy such a declaration, the Congress has abundant recourses which I need not spell out.


This may not be George Patton's last victory; but it may be his greatest
 
Taft being an isolationist is a smear. While the liberal Republicans used it as an attack line, if he's their nominee, I imagine the party in general would do a better job setting the record straight on that. Taft's concern was more about specific signed commitments that gave the room no flexibility. He still said that if the soviets attacked Europe, the US would treat it as an act of war. He just believed in Monroe Doctrine style declarations rather than formal alliances.

Anyway, I think the same forces that made Nixon VP in 1952 funnily enough make sense here as well. Young Senator from the West.
Interesting didn't know that
 
Top