Patton in Korea/MacArthur in the White House

I think it’s still pretty implausible. There’s no serious thought to ban people from certain backgrounds running for office OTL even despite current circumstances. Short of Mac starting a WWIII/a nuclear war or trying to reintroduce slavery it just doesn’t seem likely. Worst case scenario is Mac get impeached and everyone moves on with a wary ness towards a military member running in the future.
I was envisaging a doom loop scenario. Mac has a disaster (because he ignored the policy experts and then no-one dared/was allowed to tell him it was a problem till it was to late), he then sacks a competent civilian and brings in another ex-military sycophant. Then there is another disaster, so he does the same. As his cabinet gets worse and worse it becomes more and more military heavy. His habit of everyone calling him "Sir" leaks out. He keeps wearing a military uniform. Then Luce and Willoughby spectacularly balls up the response to Dien Bien Phu and that turns into a foreign policy disaster. Each on it's own is not serious enough, but cumulatively they push things over the edge.

But then I'm not convinced by BNC's last analysis of MacArthur and still have quite a dim view of him. Given our author's views on Mac we're not going to see a complete catastrophe, so I agree things will never get that bad in this TL.
 
If you need a Cabinet level post that is basically a do nothing post but still keeps someone close, use the Postmaster General. It was used to reward Party members who were important and acted as advisors without being saddled with other things. At this time the USPO basically ran itself and the PG was someone who had time to be that advisor.
 
Quoting @BiteNibbleChomp in the "most uncomfortable candidate for POTUS" thread:

"His policies wouldn't be anything too extreme either - in his memoirs he briefly describes some of his political views on things, and all in all they're not too far from a standard Republican candidate of the McKinley or Taft era, combined with progressive (for the time) views on civil rights and support for some New Deal programs (though he doesn't explicitly say the last one). Most importantly, he makes repeated mention of 'small government' type ideas and letting Congress govern for the most part - those aren't the words of someone who is going to use his ego to impose his will on everything and start crises constantly. It's entirely possible his administration gets plagued by scandal kinda like Grant (depends on how many Bataan/Tokyo clowns get high posts), but otherwise I'd say he's more likely to be a fairly average president with a couple successes but nothing too remarkable - perhaps like Benjamin Harrison."
 
I was envisaging a doom loop scenario. Mac has a disaster (because he ignored the policy experts and then no-one dared/was allowed to tell him it was a problem till it was to late), he then sacks a competent civilian and brings in another ex-military sycophant. Then there is another disaster, so he does the same. As his cabinet gets worse and worse it becomes more and more military heavy. His habit of everyone calling him "Sir" leaks out. He keeps wearing a military uniform. Then Luce and Willoughby spectacularly balls up the response to Dien Bien Phu and that turns into a foreign policy disaster. Each on it's own is not serious enough, but cumulatively they push things over the edge.

But then I'm not convinced by BNC's last analysis of MacArthur and still have quite a dim view of him. Given our author's views on Mac we're not going to see a complete catastrophe, so I agree things will never get that bad in this TL.
Honestly it just seems that you are being negative because you don't like him, which it's fine to not like Mac, but he wouldn't lead to a constitutional amendment against generals. Mac winning isn't the Armageddon you seem to want it to be.
 
*snort.*

My money is on Hoover wining this fight.
There is a reason he was an administration boogeyman. His backup plans have backup plans and he knows where every skeleton is buried. EVen if you want to argue that MacArthur is a total outsider, he still knows shit.
Oh yeah.

Nixon once calling in Hoover to put some reins on him, and Hoover left happy as a clam while Nixon was dead white.

And that was Nixon of all people.
 
I won't be naming one. Agriculture won't be getting much of a mention in the story and I'd prefer not introduce needless characters just for the sake of it. They're there in the TL's world, but the story has enough excitement without mentioning them all in detail
Aww, and not have people's heads pop when he picks Henry Wallace for SecAg?
 
Oh yeah.

Nixon once calling in Hoover to put some reins on him, and Hoover left happy as a clam while Nixon was dead white.

And that was Nixon of all people.
I’m just imagining some domestic crisis going down and a scene like this going on with Mac’s Cabinet and Hoover (start at 0:45):

 
Knowing what we know today about the Sino-Soviet split, he was right about this a lot more often than he was wrong. He wasn't perfect, but there's nothing there to really suggest that he was a bomb-tossing lunatic either. Plus, Eisenhower was just as willing to make the nuclear threat as MacArthur was. If MacArthur was more overt about it, well he was more overt about just about everything
Well it is your story and you are free to tell it however you want to. In my opinion he was wrong a lot more than he was right. His defense of the Philippines was inept at best. His New Guinea was well done as was his Inchon landing. The advance into North Korea was nearly a disaster. He should have been court martialed for accepting hundreds of thousands of $ from the Philippine Government. Yes he said some nice words on September2, 1945. You cannot deny that he publicly advocated nuclear bombs and use of Nationalist Chinese troops. You acknowledge he wanted to expand teh war in Asia. Eisenhower, Bradley and the majority of the military leadership of the times held contrary views. I agree with Bradley "The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy"
 
You cannot deny that he publicly advocated nuclear bombs
No, I will deny this. At no time as general during the war did he advocate for the use of nuclear weapons. This is a decades old claim from Truman that has no basis in reality. I feel like this has been beaten to death in this TL, go back and read the rest of the discussion in here. Truman claimed Mac wanted to use nukes, Mac called Truman out for his lie and Truman retracted his claim.
 
It'll be very interesting to see how President Mac handles military reform; I've always been curious if Draft reform could have occurred before Vietnam. Would offering alternatives like the Civilian Conservation Corps and future Peace Corps be feasible for nation service?
 
MacArthur viewed the conflict in Korea like he did Japan: a war of conquest under a US declaration of war . Unfortunately Korea was a war of containment under a UN charter (albeit a brand new type of war). Mac could have ended the whole thing after Inchon, without Chinese intervention, if he had sealed off the NK army from escaping north, rather than wasting time liberating Seoul (a job he should have handed to the SK army).

ric350
 
No, I will deny this. At no time as general during the war did he advocate for the use of nuclear weapons. This is a decades old claim from Truman that has no basis in reality. I feel like this has been beaten to death in this TL, go back and read the rest of the discussion in here. Truman claimed Mac wanted to use nukes, Mac called Truman out for his lie and Truman retracted his claim.
Then what did he want to do? The war could hardly have been won without them
 
I did not limit my comments to "as general during the war". The story line envisions MacArthur as President so all statements are relevant.
Not exactly, as thats very misleading. A decade after the war I believe is when MacArthurs said the US should've used nukes in the Korean War. Which is when he had the advantage of hindsight. Using that hindsight, he is correct in that at the start of the conflict, the US would've been able to use nukes without the threat of retaliation, as the USSR only had around 5 in total at the time, and im not sure how many of those were even deployable as bombs. With that in mind, the US could have likely easily won the war with nukes. However at the time far less knowledge was available and the fact that MacArthur didn't advocate the use of nukes during the war shows that he wasn't the kind to act rashly without the full information as you keep claiming.
Then what did he want to do? The war could hardly have been won without them
Outside of the conventional methods of war, one of the more strange ideas proposed during the war was to spread a belt of radioactive cobalt along the Chinese border to prevent Chinese soldiers from crossing into Korea. I'm no expert on radioactive cobalt so it sounds pretty crazy to me, but I can't speak on if it could work or not.
 
Top