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

  • Approve

    Votes: 199 72.6%
  • Disapprove

    Votes: 75 27.4%

  • Total voters
    274
Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally I think the Soviet Union's reaction might not be so dramatic, they already have to deal with a US ally on their borders in Turkey so another one wouldn't be that big a deal. Particularly when you think that missiles in Turkey can actually hit the Soviet heartland in Leningrad and Moscow while a missile from Korea can only hit Vladivostok, a major city but not the economic and governmental nerve center of the nation. Also the Soviet Union kept the conflict at an arms distance, they boycotted the UN session the day that they voted to intervene in Korea effectively abstaining and never committed the forces that China did. Stalin's probably going to try and wash his hands of the whole disaster. It's China that I think will be hunting for a win, the Communist's first real war since gaining control was essentially a defeat and while Americans aren't massing on their borders they control every part of Korea that matters and now have a major ally on the mainland not just in the sea.
 
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.
Well from what I've read about Mac's opinions, he really didn't care nearly as much about Europe as he did Asia. Obviously he would have to give lots and lots of attention to Europe as president, but I would imagine that would impact his decision making in some aspects. he might simply view Hungary as irrelevant and a risk to derail whatever grand strategy he's trying to pursue.
 
As I mentioned before, it will be interesting what happens when Britain, France and Israel get nervous about Nasser and the canal, (as I recall, it was the Suez crisis that pushed Nasser to the Soviets Camp). What will the US reaction be to these developments ITTL? These reactions will also affect what happens in Indochina later on.

ric350
 
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.
I've put them both on the list :)

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.
Do you happen to remember the link? That sounds interesting!

o_O o_O o_O

As I mentioned before, it will be interesting what happens when Britain, France and Israel get nervous about Nasser and the canal, (as I recall, it was the Suez crisis that pushed Nasser to the Soviets Camp). What will the US reaction be to these developments ITTL? These reactions will also affect what happens in Indochina later on.

ric350
Yeah Suez is something I've always found quite interesting, it'll definitely be getting a mention later :)

- BNC
 

AlexG

Banned
Absolutely. Also, both of the OTL examples cited by @Rickshaw (The Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq's alleged WMDs) had one thing in common: They were used as the pretext to escalating/launching a war, something that is much easier to rally popular support via appeals to patriotism. Which is obviously different compared to proposing a peace deal ENDING a war.

... A war that, BTW, from the perspective of the Americans public, they were totally WINNING, and winning massively. In that you had reports in the news for months of these larger than life figures in the form of MacArthur and Patton totally kicking commie butt... Than suddenly the president fired General Patton after he was shot in the line of duty, UN forces pulled back from the Yalu River, and now the Reds are being rewarded with a peace deal that allowed them to walk away with something while we were winning?!

Especially when the lessons of WW2 in the form of 'Compromises with the enemy will never work, since they will just come back for more. Just look at the Munich Agreement and 'Peace in our Time'!' were still fresh on everyone's minds.
Agreed entirely.
 
Am I alone in thinking McArthur wouldn’t be a terrible President?
I think its certainly possible he wouldn't be terrible. To my knowledge (I've read a couple of MacArthur biographies), we just don't know enough about his politics to know what kind of agenda he would have domestically. His friendships with high profile conservatives would lead me to believe he was pretty conservative, but theres really not much to go on. I do think its possible that he would be totally uninterested in domestic policy and potentially even may leave that realm of agenda setting and policymaking up to his VP. If that is the case then his VP pick would obviously be super important and I think it could go a few different ways.

One choice would be Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the senator from MA. He could be the pick if MacArthur is seen as a hardcore conservative and wants to balance the ticket with a moderate running mate. The choice I think would be best for Mac would be Joseph Martin, the former speaker of the house at this time and current house minority leader. He had good relations with the democrats in congress to my knowledge, and was somewhere between Taft and Eisenhower politically. So fairly conservative, but willing to compromise and support some social programs. Both Lodge and Martin would support civil rights, although I don't know if particularly more would be accomplished with either of them leading domestic policy than it was OTL with Eisenhower's administration.
 
I think its certainly possible he wouldn't be terrible. To my knowledge (I've read a couple of MacArthur biographies), we just don't know enough about his politics to know what kind of agenda he would have domestically. His friendships with high profile conservatives would lead me to believe he was pretty conservative, but theres really not much to go on. I do think its possible that he would be totally uninterested in domestic policy and potentially even may leave that realm of agenda setting and policymaking up to his VP. If that is the case then his VP pick would obviously be super important and I think it could go a few different ways.

One choice would be Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the senator from MA. He could be the pick if MacArthur is seen as a hardcore conservative and wants to balance the ticket with a moderate running mate. The choice I think would be best for Mac would be Joseph Martin, the former speaker of the house at this time and current house minority leader. He had good relations with the democrats in congress to my knowledge, and was somewhere between Taft and Eisenhower politically. So fairly conservative, but willing to compromise and support some social programs. Both Lodge and Martin would support civil rights, although I don't know if particularly more would be accomplished with either of them leading domestic policy than it was OTL with Eisenhower's administration.
I’m not nearly as well read on MacArthur as you, however I did read that he consulted with the ACLU to help with crafting the ideas civil liberties in occupied Japan and Korea.

Could that inform his social policy?

 
just don't know enough about his politics
well from what i have heard he was indeed friends with some of the high profile conservatives but his ideas closely matched that of a new dealer someone who supported Roosevelt with the new deal. now in regards to the civil rights thing that was just posted it could mean that he might be a fairly liberal if not very involved president. though that might be a gross oversimplification
 
Am I alone in thinking McArthur wouldn’t be a terrible President?
I think he did a great job in Japan given the knowledge he had and the constraints he was under. I don’t particularly agree with plenty of his choices, but I also am not foolish enough to think the choices I’d have made with the bonus of hindsight would actually have turned out better for the country. I wager most possibilities to run the occupation would have done worse. But President really has little in common with General, at the end of the day. (Exceptions like the pretty darn good President Grant notwithstanding)

In Japan he was de facto dictator, in America he’d have Congress.
 
Last edited:
well from what i have heard he was indeed friends with some of the high profile conservatives but his ideas closely matched that of a new dealer someone who supported Roosevelt with the new deal.
I cannot say that I've heard this before. Could you provide a link or something for me to read more about it?
 
I’m not nearly as well read on MacArthur as you, however I did read that he consulted with the ACLU to help with crafting the ideas civil liberties in occupied Japan and Korea.

Could that inform his social policy?

Yes, it very well could. However I still do think he would be mostly uninterested in domestic policy. I also think its possible for MacArthur to be more forceful in enforcing desegregation, although not necessarily out of his opinions of civil rights, but more out of ego
 
Yes, it very well could. However I still do think he would be mostly uninterested in domestic policy. I also think its possible for MacArthur to be more forceful in enforcing desegregation, although not necessarily out of his opinions of civil rights, but more out of ego
His ego? How so?
 
His ego? How so?
Idk if ego is the right word, I just couldn't think of a better one. What I mean is that I don't expect MacArthur to really give a damn about how using federal troops inside the US looks politically or how many "unwritten rules" he breaks. Given his tendency to surround himself with loyal yes men, I also don't imagine there would be too many dissenting voices inside his administration telling him things like "hey, using troops in Arkansas looks undemocratic/a violation of states rights/whatever other argument is being made". I also don't think arguments like "don't do this or we'll lose more seats next election" would influence MacArthur very much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top