Douglas MacArthur

Hi All I've always been curious and I apologise if this has already been comented on but what if Douglas MacArthur had died during his flight to Australia from the Phillipines. I do know when his B-17 flew into Australia the AA gun-crews there was a moments hesitation of firing on an unknown aircraft, it was that hesitation that stopped them long enough to realise it was a B-17 not a Japanese aircraft. What if they fired on his B-17 and destroye it with all hands, or he could have been caught on the PT boat from Manila to Mindinaou.

What if he died who would have taken over would the defence of Australia been taken over by Blamey and would he have had control of the theatre and defence of Australia or who would be the new US theatre commander.

What abou the Korean war how would the butterfly affect it ie no MacArthur=no Inchon landings.
 
Probably there would have been a unified US theater command, as the major reason for the formation of the SW Pacific Command was to give MacArthur something to do. More resources for the Navy's efforts, no liberation of the Philippines; if and when Korea happens, things are definitely going to be pretty interesting.
 
Welcome aboard and great WI! :)

Hmmm...Mac gets the Balbo fate. Interesting. Well, I'll have to guess the Navy gets more of its way. Does the US still island-hop, or does it go right for the heart of Japan?

In Korea, assuming it's not butterflied into something completely different, I doubt there's an Inchon landing as only Mac was crazy enough to try that there with those crazy tides.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Time for the happy dance if you are an American or Australian assigned to the Southwest Pacific.

Time for serious tears if you are a resident of 1946-? Japan.
 
Query 1) Was Inchon really McArthur's own concept. Without him does Korea get worse?

Query 2) Could a differant approach have changed the nature of the Korean War?

Query 3) How much was McArthur resposible for the way Japan developed in OTL?
 
Welcome aboard and great WI! :)

Hmmm...Mac gets the Balbo fate. Interesting. Well, I'll have to guess the Navy gets more of its way. Does the US still island-hop, or does it go right for the heart of Japan?

In Korea, assuming it's not butterflied into something completely different, I doubt there's an Inchon landing as only Mac was crazy enough to try that there with those crazy tides.

As for the island hopping, I think that still happens- the Central Pacific campaign was very similar to the last Orange plans of the late 1930s, such an offensive was what the Navy wanted to do under the Rainbow plans once the stragegic situation permitted a US offensive in the Pacific, and without MacArthur in the mix, the Army probably gets sidelined in directing the PTO.
 

Markus

Banned
Time for the happy dance if you are an American or Australian assigned to the Southwest Pacific.


You got me curious! You read Eric Bergerud´s books about the SWPA and he´s quite pro-Mac, stating that his only(?) post-PI screwup was Buna. Afterwards he got good at winning battles with comparatively light losses, while the number of KIA and WIA in the Central Pacific went through the roof.

Comment, recommended reading?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Query 1) Was Inchon really McArthur's own concept. Without him does Korea get worse?

Query 2) Could a differant approach have changed the nature of the Korean War?

Query 3) How much was McArthur resposible for the way Japan developed in OTL?

Inchon was mostly MacArthur.

A different approach would have utterly altered the Korean War. Had UN forces under MacArthur's command stopped at the PRC's demanded 50 mile distance from the PRC/DPRK border the War would have been over in 1950.

MacArthur's remarkably enlightened leadership as Military Governor effectively created post-war Japan. His actions were literally perfect in virtually every instance (and I despise the guy, so for me to type the preceding...). Japan would be a totally different, and probably much poorer and less stable, place without the "MacArthur Shogunate".
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You got me curious! You read Eric Bergerud´s books about the SWPA and he´s quite pro-Mac, stating that his only(?) post-PI screwup was Buna. Afterwards he got good at winning battles with comparatively light losses, while the number of KIA and WIA in the Central Pacific went through the roof.

Comment, recommended reading?

MacArthur was obsessed with being "MacArthur". His single minded desire to "return" cost the U.S. thousands of additional losses (Just Peleiu resulted in nearly 2,000 KIA and it would never have even been considered if it hadn't been part of the planning for the invasion of the PI. That it took place even after it was decided it was no longer critical is simply the cherry on top). His unwillingness to listen to actual trained professional engineers about the entire concept of building air bases on Leyte resulted in a nearly meaningless campaign that cost an additional 3,500 U.S. KIA to take ground that was useless for the stated reasons for the invasion.

His treatment of Australian troops during the war was just this side of criminal, a total waste of damned good infantry.
 
I also think that a lot of the initial success of the PRC intervention can be laid at MacArthur's feet- his desire to roll back communism (he was in bed with the McCarthy crowd politically,) disregard of the potential threat of PRC intervention, and overconfidence led him to push his forces very far, very fast, causing the forces at the front to become spread out too far, often in questionable positions without good lines of communication or retreat. This made it much easier for the PLA to isolate and defeat many subunits of UN forces in detail.
 
Inchon was mostly MacArthur.
Had UN forces under MacArthur's command stopped at the PRC's demanded 50 mile distance from the PRC/DPRK border the War would have been over in 1950.

So if it wasn't for MacArthur, the UN forces and South Korea might have actually ended the war in a better position than OTL?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
So if it wasn't for MacArthur, the UN forces and South Korea might have actually ended the war in a better position than OTL?

While it assumes that the PRC wasn't just talking and was altually ready to live with the 50 miles buffer (which most sources agree to be the case), then yes, the war is over by December of 1950, perhaps a month or two later.

The DPRK army had ceased to exist. The only safe place of its aircraft was across the Yalu. Without the PLA intervention the UN "wins" the war and there is no Korean DMZ as we know it today, just a rump DPRK that is a pure PRC client.

The butterflies from that ending are the size of 747s.
 

Markus

Banned
(Just Peleiu resulted in nearly 2,000 KIA and it would never have even been considered if it hadn't been part of the planning for the invasion of the PI.

Ahh, that one. The official US history lays a lot of the (tactical) responsibility at the feet of the Gen. Rupertus. It says he rushed things, the Army used siege tactis that reduced the rate of advance but reduced the casualties even more. But the article also says the battle was strategically superflous.


His treatment of Australian troops during the war was just this side of criminal, a total waste of damned good infantry.
Hmm, Bergerud does critizise Mac´s PR but he also states Mac did not order the Aussies to do anything they did not want to do. He particularly defends the decision to send them towards the DEI, while the US Forces liberated the PI.
 
Top