Patton in Korea/MacArthur in the White House

[marathag]

Honestly I hadn't expected that peace deal proposal to be quite so controversial

yeah, it's at most, would get impeachment going against Truman, to at least kicking off something like the John Birch Society, in thinking there's something rotten going on at the UN a decade earlier

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

When has an invasion ever been "legal" under international law?

When it is in response to a genuine casus belli, and when the invading power first issues an ultimatum to the target.

For instance, the United States blockaded and then invaded Tripoli, after Tripolitanian pirates attacked American merchant ships and the Bey of Tripoli refused to stop them.

France invaded Germany in 1939, after Germany refused to comply with France's ultimatum to cease its invasion of Poland.

Britain invaded German territory (colonies, though not Germany itself), after Germany failed to comply with Britain's ultimatum to cease its invasion of Belgium.

The US invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban government failed to comply with the US ultimatum to hand over Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders.

Of course, the legitimacy of the casus belli may be dubious or non-existent.

For instance, the US invaded Mexico claiming that Mexico had invaded the US and killed Americans. But the battle in question took place in the disputed area between the Nueces and Rio Grande.

The US declared war on Spain, and invaded Cuba and the Philippines, claiming that Spain had blown up USS Maine. But there was no evidence for this.

Germany declared war on France in 1914 after France refused Germany's demand to pledge neutrality and surrender border fortresses (and allegedly dropped bombs from airplanes).

Also in 1914:
Russia declared war on Austria after Austria refused to halt its invasion of Serbia.

Austria invaded Serbia after Serbia failed to comply with all of Austria's demands regarding the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

And so on...

 

[Rickshaw]

When it is in response to a genuine casus belli, and when the invading power first issues an ultimatum to the target.

For instance, the United States blockaded and then invaded Tripoli, after Tripolitanian pirates attacked American merchant ships and the Bey of Tripoli refused to stop them.

France invaded Germany in 1939, after Germany refused to comply with France's ultimatum to cease its invasion of Poland.

Britain invaded German territory (colonies, though not Germany itself), after Germany failed to comply with Britain's ultimatum to cease its invasion of Belgium.

The US invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban government failed to comply with the US ultimatum to hand over Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders.

Of course, the legitimacy of the casus belli may be dubious or non-existent.

For instance, the US invaded Mexico claiming that Mexico had invaded the US and killed Americans. But the battle in question took place in the disputed area between the Nueces and Rio Grande.

The US declared war on Spain, and invaded Cuba and the Philippines, claiming that Spain had blown up USS Maine. But there was no evidence for this.

Germany declared war on France in 1914 after France refused Germany's demand to pledge neutrality and surrender border fortresses (and allegedly dropped bombs from airplanes).

Also in 1914:
Russia declared war on Austria after Austria refused to halt its invasion of Serbia.

Austria invaded Serbia after Serbia failed to comply with all of Austria's demands regarding the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

And so on...

You appear to have missed the point. The UN has always declared invasion illegal, particularly without it's imprimatur. It is a collective security organisation which rests on the idea that nation states are invaluable and should not be compromised. All state guarantee each other's security effectively. It has only allowed nation states to invade other states, or members twice - 1950 and 1990. 1950 is a bit iffy, 'cause North Korea wasn't even a member of the UN. Most of your examples predate the establishment of this regime. Indeed, most of them predate the establishment of proper international law. Since then, military action basically has become illegal, unless the UN OKs it.

 

[Belisarius II]

Thing is you are forgetting, it is the UN who would be making the deal, not the US. Truman could always just shove all the responsibility towards them. The US Media would produce the story that the US Administration wanted. In Vietnam and Gulf War II, yes, there was an anti-war movement but it took several years for it to develop, in the case of Vietnam and it was largely seemingly drowned out by the Jingoism of the media in the case of Gulf War II. No one really entertained the view that the Weapons casus belli was an outright lie, which it basically was. The UN would offer a seat to the PRC. Washington would voice a protest but it would not stop the UN from accepting Beijing into the General Assembly. They are not offering a seat at the Security Council.

WMD lie is a common assumption, but no investigation has ever reached that conclusion. Every investigation has concluded that the U.S. and it's allies believed Saddam had them. He himself told his interrogators he wanted the world to think he did, because it made him seem stronger then he was. Saddam made many bad choices, he thought the biggest threat to his regime came form Iran, his allies told him they would prevent the international community from letting the U.S. attack him. Lying about WMD's as a justification for war would've been one of the stupidest actions in history. If it was a lie the truth was bound to come out, and the political damage to the Bush, and Blair Administrations was devastating. It would make 0 sense to do that, since other justifications could've been used. Besides WMD's weren't the real reason for the war anyway.

With the mind set of the time giving the PRC a permanent seat of the UNSC was out of the question. Truman, and the Democratic Party would've been flayed alive if they pushed that policy. Most of the Western World would oppose the change as well. The British were a special case because of Hong Kong. MacArthur would be 72 years old in 1952, and his shelf life in presidential politics was short. MacArthur sitting in Japan as a hypothetical candidate is a very different thing then MacArthur in Chicago. Taft's isolationism was out of step with the post war world. Ike was the centrist candidate, just as he was in the OTL. He'd still be the odds on favorite for the GOP.

 

[Belisarius II]

Respectfully though I have enjoyed the story telling of this TL I think the military side has been unrealistic. The NKPA was grossly underestimated. Patton's ordering of a stand at Taejon would've ended in total disaster, not a victory. The Battle of Taejon wasn't anywhere near an even fight. The fact the NKPA took heavy casualties doesn't prove the Americans could've won the battle by staying, and fighting it out. The Americans were beaten hands down. The deficiencies of the American, and ROK Armies couldn't be corrected by Patton "kicking butt" in the timescale in the story. It took months of hard fighting, and reorganization for 8th Army to get into any kind of fighting shape. Just saying the UN advance is only a week ahead of OTL schedule doesn't resemble reality. There were to many intervening events, and actions that had to happen to get there, that didn't occur in this TL.

The defeat of the Chinese Army was just too simple. The Chinese were far too strong, and resilient to be so easily beaten. Just deducing that Chinese offensives were short sharp actions, because of logistical limitations, so could be quickly dealt with by well timed counter punches is over simplistic. Your taking a tactic, and extrapolating it into a strategy. Even in 1953 the Chinese could smash holes in the line, that were difficult, and costly to plug. In 1953 the Americans, and ROK's were at a much higher standard then they were at the beginning of 1951. Fighting the Chinese was a massive grinding battle, especially after they brought their artillery into action. Even under better generals then Patton there was no simple trick to beat the Chinese. Chinese manpower, and Soviet weapons constituted a very formidable force that strained the resources of the United States, and their allies.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Thanks everyone for the feedback re Truman's peace proposal... I've amended it to just be a simple 50mi DMZ, which shouldn't annoy Congress too much

Ike was the centrist candidate, just as he was in the OTL. He'd still be the odds on favorite for the GOP.

If he runs... He wasn't especially keen about doing so IOTL. ITTL there's still another two whole years before the election, plenty of time for butterflies to flap their wings

Respectfully though I have enjoyed the story telling of this TL I think the military side has been unrealistic. The NKPA was grossly underestimated. Patton's ordering of a stand at Taejon would've ended in total disaster, not a victory. The Battle of Taejon wasn't anywhere near an even fight. The fact the NKPA took heavy casualties doesn't prove the Americans could've won the battle by staying, and fighting it out. The Americans were beaten hands down. The deficiencies of the American, and ROK Armies couldn't be corrected by Patton "kicking butt" in the timescale in the story. It took months of hard fighting, and reorganization for 8th Army to get into any kind of fighting shape. Just saying the UN advance is only a week ahead of OTL schedule doesn't resemble reality. There were to many intervening events, and actions that had to happen to get there, that didn't occur in this TL.

The defeat of the Chinese Army was just too simple. The Chinese were far too strong, and resilient to be so easily beaten. Just deducing that Chinese offensives were short sharp actions, because of logistical limitations, so could be quickly dealt with by well timed counter punches is over simplistic. Your taking a tactic, and extrapolating it into a strategy. Even in 1953 the Chinese could smash holes in the line, that were difficult, and costly to plug. In 1953 the Americans, and ROK's were at a much higher standard then they were at the beginning of 1951. Fighting the Chinese was a massive grinding battle, especially after they brought their artillery into action. Even under better generals then Patton there was no simple trick to beat the Chinese. Chinese manpower, and Soviet weapons constituted a very formidable force that strained the resources of the United States, and their allies.

I'm going to start off by saying that this is, above all else, meant to be a story much more than an in-depth analysis of the Korean War, and my focus has always been on the character of General Patton more than about what individual units are doing, or whether B Company could hold this hill at that time, or anything else of that sort. It's why I haven't included maps (at least in the main story) and why half the POVs are in Patton's HQ - honestly I'm not that interested in the nitty gritty of where the units are. A year's reading about Patton and about how the war was fought under Walker convinced me that Patton could do a better job, and for story/character purposes it is much more interesting to look at Patton making a significant difference to the war, even going so far as the Yalu... Walker (and MacArthur) made enough easily-avoided mistakes that I believe a better commander (such as Patton, although I'll throw Ridgway in there too) could have won the war by the spring of 1951. Some, such as yourself, may disagree with me, and that's fine. It's just that if you don't believe the war can be won, nothing I write is likely to convince you otherwise. We've had 40+ pages at this point (and Taejon in particular has been debated long enough, I think). For the purposes of the 'alternate' history, a UN convincingly winning scenario is much more interesting than just "OTL but moved north a bit and with more swear words out of Patton's mouth", which because of geography is really the only other option. If you feel that stretches plausibility, well I doubt TTL is the worst offender out there!
Besides, technically the POD for this is in 1945, so if it makes things easier, just assume that the US did a better job of training the troops in 8th Army between 1946-50 and had more and better stuff ready to go when Korea flares up. ITTL lots of people have Patton's book* which they probably didn't IOTL - maybe this has an impact?

Re the Chinese, I think I detailed this in a post recently, the TLDR is that Patton only gives a convincing thumping to the Chinese in one sector of the front (Iwon-Hyesanjin), where he concentrated a major spearhead and the Chinese only had a small force. Everywhere else, particularly in the west, the Chinese have only been pushed back a little bit... the situation much closer to a 1951/2 battle than OTL Oct/Nov 1950. They're hardly "easily beaten".

* = Patton's book ITTL is assumed to be similar to War as I Knew It, in particular it still includes his recommendations for how to build an effective army that make up a huge part of the appendices - although I've also assumed he does a fair bit of complaining about Ike as well. Regarding a lot of the soldiers having a copy, this is based off the OTL Mexican War, where something like one in three or one in two American soldiers going into Mexico brought with them a copy of The History of the Conquest of Mexico by William H. Prescott, which was published in 1843 and describes the Spanish defeat of the Aztecs.

- BNC

 

[Sam R.]

The detailed character study is the guts of this.

I'd recommend *not* playing with stuff you don't understand inside out, like the 53 strikes in GDR Berlin. Or the partial collapse of heavy industry hards in Hungary, then their resurgence, then their rejection; and the complex relationship the working class and left-communist party networks inside the social democratic networks and the communist networks had.

People will push you to write a generic cold war history. Stick with your core writing impulse.

 

[Rickshaw]

WMD lie is a common assumption, but no investigation has ever reached that conclusion. Every investigation has concluded that the U.S. and it's allies believed Saddam had them. He himself told his interrogators he wanted the world to think he did, because it made him seem stronger then he was. Saddam made many bad choices, he thought the biggest threat to his regime came form Iran, his allies told him they would prevent the international community from letting the U.S. attack him. Lying about WMD's as a justification for war would've been one of the stupidest actions in history. If it was a lie the truth was bound to come out, and the political damage to the Bush, and Blair Administrations was devastating. It would make 0 sense to do that, since other justifications could've been used. Besides WMD's weren't the real reason for the war anyway.

I think the UN Inspector's final report was sufficient to disprove the existence of the Weapons of Massed Distraction. They proved in their report that the Iraqis were lying, as were the US and UK and Australian Governments. It was clearly a case of a manufactured cassis belli, which even in the end of the US Administration was forced to admit. Secretary of Defence Powell admitted that the reality was that the WMD's were the only thing that the various arms of the administration could agree on, so they ran with that to justify their invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

Saddam was sadly mistaken in believing what the US Ambassador to Iraq told him before he invaded Kuwait - that Kuwait was not a concern of the US's. He took that to mean that the US didn't care about Kuwait. However, this is basically distracting from the gist of the thread. The reality is, the Iraqis lied and the US lied and chose to believe the Iraqi claims.

 

[Belisarius II]

I think the UN Inspector's final report was sufficient to disprove the existence of the Weapons of Massed Distraction. They proved in their report that the Iraqis were lying, as were the US and UK and Australian Governments. It was clearly a case of a manufactured cassis belli, which even in the end of the US Administration was forced to admit. Secretary of Defence Powell admitted that the reality was that the WMD's were the only thing that the various arms of the administration could agree on, so they ran with that to justify their invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

Saddam was sadly mistaken in believing what the US Ambassador to Iraq told him before he invaded Kuwait - that Kuwait was not a concern of the US's. He took that to mean that the US didn't care about Kuwait. However, this is basically distracting from the gist of the thread. The reality is, the Iraqis lied and the US lied and chose to believe the Iraqi claims.

That is not correct. The UN Inspector did not say the U.S. & UK Governments were lying. They reported the Iraqi regime had no stockpiles of deployable WMD's. They never concluded the Allies knew there weren't any beforehand. No Allied civilian, or military official ever admitted to lying about WMD's, and no documents have ever surfaced to that effect. They way Washington works it's about impossible to believe if such a document existed it hasn't been leaked to the media. At worst the intelligence agencies were found to have tilted their conclusions to what their political bosses wanted to hear. No one knew with certainty if Iraq had them or not. Intelligence agencies don't speak in the kind of absolutes that are used in common language. They speak in terms of degrees of confidence. After the fact you had a lot people saying, "I knew it all along." Bull.

Even Saddam's top commanders thought he had them. Each commander thought some other unit had them, and most of them expected they would be used when the Allies got close to Baghdad. Allied troops fought under the handicap of using MOPP Suits, and maintained high alert for detecting chemical agents. If the Allies knew in advance there were no WMD's they wouldn't have fought that way. After the fact many people have conflated the intelligence being wrong, with lying. Saying something that isn't true is only a lie if you knew it wasn't true when you said it. Because the Iraq War became so unpopular the back biting, and second guessing has been unbelievable. Finding people who supported the Iraq War are as hard to find as people who voted for Nixon.

 

[Rickshaw]

That is not correct. The UN Inspector did not say the U.S. & UK Governments were lying. They reported the Iraqi regime had no stockpiles of deployable WMD's. They never concluded the Allies knew there weren't any beforehand. No Allied civilian, or military official ever admitted to lying about WMD's, and no documents have ever surfaced to that effect. They way Washington works it's about impossible to believe if such a document existed it hasn't been leaked to the media. At worst the intelligence agencies were found to have tilted their conclusions to what their political bosses wanted to hear. No one knew with certainty if Iraq had them or not. Intelligence agencies don't speak in the kind of absolutes that are used in common language. They speak in terms of degrees of confidence. After the fact you had a lot people saying, "I knew it all along." Bull.

That is not what I read in the UN Inspectors' final report. They concluded that there were no weapons of massed distraction. Therefore it is quite safe to conclude that both the Iraqis and the US Administration chose to lie about the issue. I am sure the intelligence community hedged their language, the problem was the politicians didn't hear the hedging or ignored them, choosing to speak in absolutes. The media played the story they were told to - to back the US Administration's reasons for going to war. Pity it was all bullshit, as the UN Inspection proved. The problem was, Washington was not prepared to wait for the UN Inspectors' report and so they invaded. I thought it was obvious from the get go and could not believe that the people of the US were so naive.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

You appear to have missed the point. The UN has always declared invasion illegal...

International law predates the UN.

Vattel's The Law of Nations was published in 1758. Of course there was no body to enforce "the law of nations"; there is none today. The UN has no such power, any more than the League of Nations had.

Indeed, most of them predate the establishment of proper international law.

When was that?

 

[Hcira1]

That is not what I read in the UN Inspectors' final report. They concluded that there were no weapons of massed distraction. Therefore it is quite safe to conclude that both the Iraqis and the US Administration chose to lie about the issue. I am sure the intelligence community hedged their language, the problem was the politicians didn't hear the hedging or ignored them, choosing to speak in absolutes. The media played the story they were told to - to back the US Administration's reasons for going to war. Pity it was all bullshit, as the UN Inspection proved. The problem was, Washington was not prepared to wait for the UN Inspectors' report and so they invaded. I thought it was obvious from the get go and could not believe that the people of the US were so naive.

Respectfully, this has gone from you making reasoned arguments to you just saying "its my opinion that they lied" despite none of the evidence supporting your claims. This whole argument is besides the point of this thread, and I do no think it would be fair to BNC to derail his timeline on an argument that has nothing to do with his topic.

 

[Belisarius II]

International law predates the UN.

Vattel's The Law of Nations was published in 1758. Of course there was no body to enforce "the law of nations"; there is none today. The UN has no such power, any more than the League of Nations had.

When was that?

The problem has always been the enforcement side of international law. Nations must agree to live by the laws they establish, since there is no impartial police force, or prosecution authority. It is safe to say it is against Post WWII international law to change borders by force, and occupy the territory, and population of another country. Even then the details become murky. UN resolutions regarding Arab/Israeli borders are a minefield for debate, with both sides claiming the actions they took were repelling aggression. As in any area of law lawyers argue their clients cases, but in the arena of nations force is still unfortunately the final arbiter.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Thanks everyone for the feedback re Truman's peace proposal... I've amended it to just be a simple 50mi DMZ, which shouldn't annoy Congress too much

I was holding out hope for something else, but let me ask a question the answer to which I may have overlooked. In OTL, China 'invaded' Tibet in Oct 1950, but in this ATL, has that still happened, or was it called off/put on hold due to how much worse the fighting in North Korea is going?

 

[mrmandias]

@BiteNibbleChomp Thanks for taking my "snippy" feedback in good part. Love the TL.

 

[Rickshaw]

International law predates the UN.

Vattel's The Law of Nations was published in 1758. Of course there was no body to enforce "the law of nations"; there is none today. The UN has no such power, any more than the League of Nations had.

When was that?

Approximately 1895 when the Treaty of St. Petersberg occurred.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Not sure how the discussion shifted to Iraq? Amuses me though seeing as I was reading Decision Points by George Bush last week which fits almost too well

@BiteNibbleChomp Thanks for taking my "snippy" feedback in good part. Love the TL.

I was holding out hope for something else, but let me ask a question the answer to which I may have overlooked. In OTL, China 'invaded' Tibet in Oct 1950, but in this ATL, has that still happened, or was it called off/put on hold due to how much worse the fighting in North Korea is going?

Tibet still gets invaded ITTL.

The detailed character study is the guts of this.

I'd recommend *not* playing with stuff you don't understand inside out, like the 53 strikes in GDR Berlin. Or the partial collapse of heavy industry hards in Hungary, then their resurgence, then their rejection; and the complex relationship the working class and left-communist party networks inside the social democratic networks and the communist networks had.

People will push you to write a generic cold war history. Stick with your core writing impulse.

Really appreciate that you posted this I've been telling myself this same thing a lot while working on TTL so it is always refreshing to hear it from someone else!

Pretty much the only reason I decided to extend this one past ch24 at all is because, at least to my knowledge, there haven't been any good President MacArthur TLs (or really any at all that haven't been almost immediately abandoned), and all the Patton stuff provides a rather good starting point for one. Honestly the topic has become a bit of a meme (check out some of the threads where the question is raised - it never takes long for someone to say "he'd drop lots and lots of nukes") and I'd like to provide a more reasonable look at the idea... when I say the new chapters are going to be more internationally focused, it's a lot more a case of 'Patton didn't care about anything outside his battlefield' than an aim to explore every little event that happened in 1953-6. If I do the chapters right we'll only hear about those events that actually impact Mac in some way.

- BNC

 

[The Ghost of Danton]

Pretty much the only reason I decided to extend this one past ch24 at all is because, at least to my knowledge, there haven't been any good President MacArthur TLs (or really any at all that haven't been almost immediately abandoned),

Yeah, it's one of those obvious ideas that never really get used. I don't think there's been a substantial timeline for Dewey actually beating Truman or RFK in 68 either which is weird.
This is a great timeline and I'm excited to see it continue. I suppose seeing how President MacArthur handles Civil Right and Hungary, if that still goes down, would be the two big areas I'd be interested in.

 

[Steelers94]

Hungary is my big worry for Mac as president TTL. Given that the rollback strategy hasn't been discredited it's quite possible that Hungary escalates into WW3.

 

[chankljp]

Hungary is my big worry for Mac as president TTL. Given that the rollback strategy hasn't been discredited it's quite possible that Hungary escalates into WW3.

Maybe not full on escalation to WW3, but perhaps with President MacArthur trying to use Yugoslavia to covertly supply the Hungarians with arms and supplies similar to an abandoned TL that I have once read here on the site, ultimately ending in more Hungarians getting killed and the hardliners in the USSR having much more influence over Khrushchev.

Also, with the success of rolling back communism in TTL's Korea, when it comes time to say... Vietnam, might the US be emboldened to act even more openly and aggressively? On the opposite side of the coin, with the overthrown of a communist government over in Korea and an American ally now within throwing distance of Vladivostok, would this put pressure on the Soviets to take a more hardline stance elsewhere internationally to get themselves a 'win', in order to avoid showing anymore signs of weakness?