If Doug MarArthur had been killed 1942...

[Noman]

Douglas MacArthur so angered President Truman that Truman felt a mistake of FDR had been to recall MacArthur from the Phillippines-instead of Jonathan wainwright.....1942

General Wainwright is recalled from the Phillippines instead of MaCArthur ...
MacArthur actually ventures forth from his Corridiger HQ and while posing against the skyline while giving a inspirational speech to his straved/ and diseasse ridden troops about how great they are embarking on a righteous crusade against the Japanese...a enemy sniper kills him.

FDR awards MAcArthur a posthumous MOH
THe GOP starts screaming their lungs out about how FDR didn's make use of the entire US War Machine to save the Greatest hero that America ever produced-notwithstanding the Merchant Marine which was sunk by U-Boats off the east coast at a shocking rate-Worse than Pearl Harbor...or that american Industry had to be geared for War...or the US Army and US Navy had be expanded from a Constablery role of a few thousand to over one to two million service personel....or that MacArthur actions at Clark Field should have lead to his court martial....or wonder if MAC should have actually been recalled to active duty since he techanlly lost his citizenship when he became a FIELD MARSHALL of the Philippines {American has never had a Field Marshal in the Military}....:rolleyes:. And then of Course there was MacArthur Well known paranoia {allegeedly he thought george marshall who was a AEF Staff officer in World War I had been behind MacArthur not getting the MOH in World War I {actually Pershing had decided that there would be only one MOH per Division} and his insubordination {his Bonus Army reactions}

[MikeTurcotte]

Rant aside, MacArthur was one of the relatively few 'celebrity' soldiers the US had. Ego, military skill, command ability and everything else notwithstanding, this is another blow to the US.

Long term, Nimitz probably wins the argument about strategy over Wainwright, and the Philippines are bypassed in favor of Formosa. Postwar, without Shogun Mac, Japan is probably administred by a committee of US soldiers/sailors/technocrats, leading to a Japan much like OTL but without the allure of MacArthur.

Korea is obviously very different. Maybe no Inchon flank, so a brutal slog up the peninsula. No paradigm defining clash between MacArthur and Truman, meaning that conflict (civilian leadership vs the military) comes later.

Mike Turcotte

[Noman]

MacArthur had one really good tactical move in the Korean Conflict-the landing at Inchon which helped the Walker's 8th Army...the rest of his record between 1945 and 1951 leaves a lot to be desired....the 8th Army which remained a occupation force with poor training/segregation by color...putting Ned ALmond in charge of the "race" to the Yalu with 3 understrength divisions{See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir_order_of_battle#Republi c_of_Korea_forces} backed by an untrained Korean forces vs chinese armies who outnumbered him five to one....his deliberate habit of making bombastic speechs of how the Chang Kai-Shek would help him "Liberate" China {Chang had no support in mainland China at all}....

[von Adler]

Inchon is such a basic operational manouvre for a force that has the naval lifting capacity and absolute naval and almost absolute aerial superiority. The British and Americans did it at Salerno and they did it in Southern France, I fail to see why someone else than MacArthur would not see such an obvious move and its advantages.

[CalBear]

Inchon is such a basic operational manouvre for a force that has the naval lifting capacity and absolute naval and almost absolute aerial superiority. The British and Americans did it at Salerno and they did it in Southern France, I fail to see why someone else than MacArthur would not see such an obvious move and its advantages.

The thing about Inchon was that, due to the tides, you had to leave the landing force more or less totally isolated for half a day. It worked out brilliantly, but it had the potential to be an utter FUBAR.

[CalBear]

MacArthur had one really good tactical move in the Korean Conflict-the landing at Inchon which helped the Walker's 8th Army...the rest of his record between 1945 and 1951 leaves a lot to be desired....the 8th Army which remained a occupation force with poor training/segregation by color...putting Ned ALmond in charge of the "race" to the Yalu with 3 understrength divisions{See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir_order_of_battle#Republi c_of_Korea_forces} backed by an untrained Korean forces vs chinese armies who outnumbered him five to one....his deliberate habit of making bombastic speechs of how the Chang Kai-Shek would help him "Liberate" China {Chang had no support in mainland China at all}....

MacArthur (who, BTW, I utterly despise) was at his absolute BEST from late 1945 to 1950. He accomplished a miracle during his time as Military Governor of Japan, changing a semi-feudal, top down dictatorship run by the military to a fairly liberal democracy that has non-aggression built into its very soul.

I hate the man, but give credit where it is due.

[Gridley]

Rant aside, MacArthur was one of the relatively few 'celebrity' soldiers the US had. Ego, military skill, command ability and everything else notwithstanding, this is another blow to the US.

True.

Long term, Nimitz probably wins the argument about strategy over Wainwright, and the Philippines are bypassed in favor of Formosa.

I doubt there would be any argument in the first place - there won't be a south Pacific front at all, and Wainwright isn't senior enough to advocate grand strategy even if he wanted to (from the little I know of the man, I doubt he'd try).

Postwar, without Shogun Mac, Japan is probably administred by a committee of US soldiers/sailors/technocrats, leading to a Japan much like OTL but without the allure of MacArthur.

Disagree on this point. Most non-Mac administrators are unlikely to spare the royal family from the war crime trials. That's likely to have a major impact in the post-war period and would most likely result in a very different Japan.

Korea is obviously very different. Maybe no Inchon flank, so a brutal slog up the peninsula.

Korea will certainly be different, but there is no reason whatsoever to believe there won't be an Inchon given a similar strategic picture. Even absent the south Pacific theater the US will have just wrapped up a war in which it conducted DOZENS of amphibious assaults, most of which (Normandy/Overlord being an exception) were in the same spirit as Inchon. US amphibious assets, skills, and experience were at a combined peak probably never matched before or since by any nation in history. It would take a remarkably clueless ground commander NOT to think of an amphibious hook shot as one of the tools in his tool box. Even if the ground commander doesn't suggest the sea route, the Navy will (and the US Army lacked a senior general besides Mac bigoted enough to squash such a suggestion).

[wietze]

MacArthur (who, BTW, I utterly despise) w

Maybe its time for a small tl thats a total MacScrew?

(with as final part of his career a position as walmart greeter ;) )

[trekchu]

Maybe its time for a small tl thats a total MacScrew?

(with as final part of his career a position as walmart greeter ;) )

Wasn't there this chap called CalBear or something who had, for his TL, Dugout Dough be axed even before the war began?

*hint hint* *nudge nudge*

[Blackfox5]

If MacArthur is not recalled, I don't think Wainwright will be recalled. He'll stay there along with the other officers who surrender.

Furthermore, I don't think MacArthur "technically lost his citizenship." He always remained a US citizen. Serving in the armed forces of another country might be grounds for the government to rule the person has voluntarily relinquished their citizenship, but it has never automatically done so. Furthermore, given the relationship between the US and the Philippines at the time, Mac's appointment as a Field Marshall of the Philippines were done with the approval of all parties involved.

In short, the US has to send someone else to Australia as a commitment of the US to defend that country. Who's sent? Walter Krueger? Hugh Drum? Lloyd Fredendall? Joe Stilwell? Someone else? It'll need to be one of the top ranking generals, but probably not someone considered crucial for Europe (no Ike, no Patton). US troops are still sent to hold New Guinea, but after the threat to Australia ends, the SW Pacific theatre becomes a backwater. The Pacific War is consolidated under Nimitz and the Navy.

FDR could very well still decide that the Philippines and not Formosa is the next step in the Pacific campaign even with no "I shall return" speech. As a dependant of the US, the US owes something to the Filipinos.

Outcome of WWII probably not impacted that much. Real butterflies happens as to who is the commander in Japan when the Korean War happens since he'll likely be given the immediate command. If Busan holds, then perhaps someone else will be given overall command when reinforcements arrive and an Inchon style outflanking happens (which may or may not occur).

[High Plains Drifter]

Outcome of WWII probably not impacted that much.

Without MacArthur, a whole bunch of the New Guinea campaign doesn't happen. Buna-Gona (11/42 to 1/43) and Salamaua-Lae (4/43 to 9/43) probably happen in a relatively similiar timeframe to make sure there is no more immenent threat to Australia.

Does anyone (Australia?) expend a lot of political capital to try and retake the rest of New Guinea?

Do the Finisterre Range and Huon Peninsula campaigns kick off in September 1943 to clear out that part of New Guinea in preparation of the New Britain/Cape Gloucester campaign?

Without MacArthur around, how far does the Solomon Islands campaign go? I assume Bouganville happens as part of the efforts to neutralize Rabaul. A New Britain campaign? An Admiralty Island campaign? Or were these both MacArthur efforts?

Without fighting to retake New Guinea as preparation for a Philippines campaign and to prove Mac's doing something, where do all the troops, naval lift/landing capacity, and logistics used there go?

Is Truk now the next target after Kwajalein?

Saipan and Guam must happen earlier than summer of 44?

Does Marcus Island become a target? Its more in a straight line toward Japan. And big enough for an airfield.

Iwo Jima and Okinawa have to happen sooner than 45.

Is Formosa the February 45 invasion destination? Assuming Okinawa is a pre-requisite for Formosa. Or with a bloody Okinawa, do the Allies say screw Formosa, who wants another Okinawa, lets just go straight for the Home Islands. (Of course an island the size of Formosa may very well be a pre-requisite as a floating Logistics depot for an invasion of Japan.)

No slaughter at Pelelui.

Is an earlier effort made at the DEIs?

I see no Philippines, but instead planning for Formosa, as possible leading to a late spring 45 invasion of Japan. Would a successful landing on Kyushu lead to an earlier surrender? An earlier surrender might limit Soviet push into Korea (but probably not Manchuria) to maybe no partitioning of Korea.

Not saying this is probable, but worth of consideration perhaps.

[Blackfox5]

I'm not saying things don't happen differently. I am saying that it won't have any impact on the outcome. Once Australia is safe from invasion, there is no real reason to invest significant resources into the SW Pacific. The outcome of the war depends on what happens in the Central Pacific.

Some of the resources given to MacArthur are going to stay there. Some are going to be diverted to Nimitz to support the Central Pacific drive. Others are going to go to elsewhere - perhaps the ETO or to support the drive into Burma to open up a land route to China.

But I don't think the changes are going to materially speed up or slow down any of the major milestones of the war. The invasion of Japan is not going to be sped up. The US will not have sufficient forces until the war in Europe is over. If the Central Pacific drive becomes a lot more efficient and quick, it shouldn't lead to an earlier invasion.

If troops are not going anything in early 1945 because the stepping stones to Japan are all in Allied hands, they might land troops in Hong Kong/Canton to open up a sea supply route to Nationalist China. That might lead to some interesting butterflies if China gets substantial aide and the Nationalists make some good victories before the war ends. Part of me doubts if the drive is that much improved.

[MageOhki]

MacArthur (who, BTW, I utterly despise) was at his absolute BEST from late 1945 to 1950. He accomplished a miracle during his time as Military Governor of Japan, changing a semi-feudal, top down dictatorship run by the military to a fairly liberal democracy that has non-aggression built into its very soul.

I hate the man, but give credit where it is due.

I'm sorry, Calbear... while I'll agree he was an good governer, and mabye the best choice, I don't credit him with that. It doesn't take into account Japanese cultural mores and other sitautions. Giving him the full credit is wrong.

In an lot of ways, what happened was the Japanese LEADERS (fact is, we didn't really replace very many, Calbear, not the keys) basically adopted American ways, becasue it was proven superior, in the one way they truly understood.
MacA DID help with it, and he WAS an good figure for it. But, for your reference, how long did the LDP rule?

TRUE Democratic ideals are new in Japan, in any sense of the word.

A

[Prince Charon]

Disagree on this point. Most non-Mac administrators are unlikely to spare the royal family from the war crime trials. That's likely to have a major impact in the post-war period and would most likely result in a very different Japan.
Specifically, the occupation of Japan would have been America's Northern Ireland, only with extremely few Unionists. Most of the people who might have been put in charge of Japan, IIRC, wanted to convert Japan to a democratic republic, with the Imperial family at best reduced to private citizens, and at worst, exiled. This would not have been acceptable to to the Japanese people. At all. Lots of bombings, people setting themselves on fire (or other means of committing public suicide), and other forms of protest, violent and otherwise, would ensue.

MacArthur understood and respected Japanese culture enough not to crap all over it.

[Snake Featherston]

The USA's war effort does much better, its postwar issues with Japan are much more grave and much less likely to work well. MacArthur's positive contributions to history are all post-1945, in the context of 1942 his death would be a propaganda defeat but for the USA more, not less, likely to ensure it has a smoother time actually fighting the war. As for one thing there might be a single command, not a separate Army War and Navy War.

[Sumeragi]

TRUE Democratic ideals are new in Japan, in any sense of the word.
There is no such thing as a "true" democratic idea. The ideology fits itself to different cultures to be relevant (not that I support the banal Japanese politics. I rather have the dynamic Korean one any day).