A Different UN Commander For the Korean War

[Simon]

Suppose that MacArthur slips in the bathroom and cracks his head, chokes on a noodle, gets caught having opium and hooker parties, or for some reason isn't available for command of the UN forces when 1950 rolls around and Kim Il-sung decides to go on an excursion to the south coast. Who do people think would be his replacement? My original reaction was Ridgway since he took over in our timeline but I'm not sure if he'd be senior enough to take charge straight off the bat, General Lawton Collins looks like a good candidate.

The next major question has to be how does the war progress? Unless there's a serious change in culture the American troops garrisoning Japan are still going to badly undertrained and ill-equipped which doesn't bode well for things. As such assume that events run roughly as our timeline with the UN forces being pushed back into the south and around Pusan, do the Inchon landings still happen? If the UN are able to turn things around and push the North Koreans back, out of South Korea and up towards the Chinese border the next question becomes do the Chinese form their compulsory volunteer army and throw a couple hundred thousand troops over the Yalu? Doing some searching around people seem to split into roughly two groups - both agree that MacArthur was a vainglorious arse but where they differ in that the first saying that the Chinese intervention was kind of foreseeable but MacArthur wasn't really to blame too much, and the second that he was a bloody moron for his inaction/stupid actions and not recognising what was blindingly obvious.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Suppose that MacArthur slips in the bathroom and cracks his head, chokes on a noodle, gets caught having opium and hooker parties, or for some reason isn't available for command of the UN forces when 1950 rolls around and Kim Il-sung decides to go on an excursion to the south coast. Who do people think would be his replacement? My original reaction was Ridgway since he took over in our timeline but I'm not sure if he'd be senior enough to take charge straight off the bat, General Lawton Collins looks like a good candidate.

Either may be a bit too junior. Mac was not a 'army' commander but a sort of theatre commander. Look for somebody with just a few years of political experience.

The next major question has to be how does the war progress? Unless there's a serious change in culture the American troops garrisoning Japan are still going to badly undertrained and ill-equipped which doesn't bode well for things. As such assume that events run roughly as our timeline with the UN forces being pushed back into the south and around Pusan, do the Inchon landings still happen?

Possiblly, mac was not the only commander who saw the potiential of a amphibious attack with the object of Seoul. Others took a more conservative view and thought the amphib op should be further south, but what with the capability of the time some sort of major amphib. op. was near certain.

If the UN are able to turn things around and push the North Koreans back, out of South Korea and up towards the Chinese border the next question becomes do the Chinese form their compulsory volunteer army and throw a couple hundred thousand troops over the Yalu?

Yes, their reasoning and logic had nothing to do with MacArthur. Any US leader that ordered UN soldiers (but nor ROC troops) into north Korea will trigger the Chinese reaction. China gave warning they would intervene if US.UN forces went north.

Doing some searching around people seem to split into roughly two groups - both agree that MacArthur was a vainglorious arse but where they differ in that the first saying that the Chinese intervention was kind of foreseeable but MacArthur wasn't really to blame too much, and the second that he was a bloody moron for his inaction/stupid actions and not recognising what was blindingly obvious.

 

[zert]

Not sure who the head general might be but if the UN troops stayed away from the Chinese border could that lessen the Chinese reaction?

 

[DoomBunny]

Collins is Chief of Staff from 1949-1953, so he's probably not available for command in Korea. Ridgway is his Deputy, so a little more available.

 

[JimTheB]

Truman should really have bitchslapped Doug for even thinking about crossing the 38th parallel, as UN Resolution 84 didn't authorise anything more than ejecting North Korean troops from the South. He'd surely comply under direct orders from his CinC and would remain in post, making an alternative commander a moot point.

 

[Mysterion]

WI Patton had still been around? Would his aggressive streak have just made things worse, or ended the war sooner?

 

[Blackfox5]

Truman should really have bitchslapped Doug for even thinking about crossing the 38th parallel, as UN Resolution 84 didn't authorise anything more than ejecting North Korean troops from the South. He'd surely comply under direct orders from his CinC and would remain in post, making an alternative commander a moot point.

To be honest, I don't think Truman really had a choice. By cutting off the North Koreans around Busan, the entire army was more or less destroyed. Not going into North Korea at that point would not have made sense to most people - liberal, conservative, American, or not.

Even those people who thought the Chinese might intervene, probably were not concerned. China had performed badly against the Japanese, and the US had defeated Japan. If China intervened, most probably thought the Chinese would be slaughtered (which to be honest, they were - but it didn't stop Mao from pouring in troops, and the Chinese troops were better organized since they had one leader, not multiple warlords, and Soviets were supplying Mao to the hilt so their forces were not dependent on the Chinese economy).

Where Max really dropped the ball was by not taking an attack seriously and making sure his forces proceeded more carefully up North Korea just in case they were attacked. The UN forces still would have been driven back, but they would have restored their lines much farther north than they did IOTL.

 

[modelcitizen]

WI Patton had still been around? Would his aggressive streak have just made things worse, or ended the war sooner?

Patton might have had a more visceral response from the Soviets for their experience with him viz Europe, maybe.


Hey... 1950....

EISENHOWER?

Eisenhower, Dwight, anyone?

 

[Simon]

Yes, their reasoning and logic had nothing to do with MacArthur. Any US leader that ordered UN soldiers (but nor ROC troops) into north Korea will trigger the Chinese reaction. China gave warning they would intervene if US/UN forces went north.

I can kind of understand them not wanting UN, read US forces on their border. Do you think that there might have been a diplomatic way to work around things if maybe discrete back channel overtures were made in advance? Something along the lines of a DMZ along the border, guaranteeing that all/the vast majority of UN forces will leave after the war and any remaining will be based/won't operate north of Pyongyang, or were their minds made up?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

There may have been a third way between UN (US) forces invading the north and witholding entirely. The ROK Army had already been marching north with the intent of liberating the other half of the homeland. By handing over maximum material and air support to the ROKs the US can aid & albeit the norths liberation. If the Chinese themselves intervene then the US Army can move north itself.

My take is the Chinese would not have intervened en mass in a Korean intermural fight. They'd have made the effort to rebuild the NKPA, but the cost of launching 300,000+ soldiers south of the Yalu was not to be taken lightly. (Thirty years ago I'd been able to cite exact sources to support this. Now it is just dim memory.) This leads to two probable events. One the US Army has a breather & recover period of a few months, perhaps all winter. Second, both sides begain escalating their support of their Koreans which elevates risk both would eventually move their armies into the disputed region.