Macarthur nukes and invades China, KMT reaction?

If Macarthur nukes and invade China during the Korean war, what would the KMT in Taiwan’s reaction be? Would the Chinese support the CCP? How would the UN invasion of China look like? Would it be 1937 round two?
 
I don't imagine the KMT would be very happy about 10's of 1000's of their relatives being vaporised, It would also turn all Chinese, Communists or not, against the US.
 
If Macarthur nukes and invade China during the Korean war, what would the KMT in Taiwan’s reaction be? Would the Chinese support the CCP? How would the UN invasion of China look like? Would it be 1937 round two?
how is he invading China? We are barely holding on and he diverts forces for a half assed invasion? Truman will stomp him hard
 
I don't imagine the KMT would be very happy about 10's of 1000's of their relatives being vaporised, It would also turn all Chinese, Communists or not, against the US.
Disagree with that.KMT doesn’t really give a shit about civilians—neither did the CCP.Both parties had a rather atrocious record against civilians.
 
How? MacArthur had no nukes and there is no contemporary evidence that he actually ever lobbied for the use of nukes. In a 1954 interview, he claimed to have come up with some sort of crazy plan to use salted bombs to "seal off" the Korean peninsula, but no documentation detailing such a plan being circulated among the Far Eastern staff has ever emerged and there is no record of MacArthur ever even discussing the use of nuclear weapons at the time. In fact, when Truman claimed that was one of the reasons he fired MacArthur, MacArthur got him to recant the statement by threatening him with legal action.

There's a tendency (which Truman didn't help with his statements) to assume all military decisions coming out of Korea were MacArthur's prior to his relief, but he actually had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Neither how they would be used, or whether they would be used.
 
Why was MacArthur fired by Truman?
Well, to quote Truman...
I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.
So yeah. Insubordination, with being a dangerously egomaniacal dipshit as just adjacent to the whole thing.
 
Why was MacArthur fired by Truman?
As Worffan101 correctly stated insubordination. MacArthur had been ordered not to issue any unapproved public statements. He had written a letter to the Republican Senate Leader, which was read on the floor of the Senate, criticizing administration policy over the Korean War, and China policy. Truman rightly fired Big Mac. Generals cannot openly criticize, or speak contemptuously of the president, or government policy. If a general can't follow their orders without violating their conscience they have to resign. The only exception is if the order is illegal. MacArthur was making a political statement by forcing Truman to fire him, so both sides made their points.
 
Well according to this website, it states Macarthur never requested authorityto use nukes though Truman and many others believed he did : https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/what-if-the-united-states-had-used-the-bomb-in-korea/

Did he personally want to nuke China thougg?
Truman never thought MacArthur requested the authority to use nukes. The question is a straight up preposition, did he or didn't he? Truman knew he hadn't. Truman often tried to misled the public, by distorting the historic record, or even stating outright falsehoods. He was generally not a reliable source for detailed information. He's owed credit for setting up the Cold War policy of containment, and national security establishment, but he was always willing to stretch the truth to defend himself, and his actions.
 

MrHappy

Kicked
If Macarthur nukes and invade China during the Korean war, what would the KMT in Taiwan’s reaction be? Would the Chinese support the CCP? How would the UN invasion of China look like? Would it be 1937 round two?
It strikes me that there would be no UN invasion of China without some further resolution by the UN Security Counsel. I've always understood Resolution 84 as permitting UN armed actions anywhere within the two Koreas as necessary to end North Korean aggression and resestablish the old intra-Korean border. As such, MacArthur had no legal authority to conduct any operations outside of N. or S. Korea, not even limited bombing, let alone have UN commanded troops actually cross into another country.

Inasmuch as Taiwan supported the other Korean War resolutions, its position on a resolution authorizing an attack on the PRC would answer one of the Admiral's questions. Recall that Nat'l China was a full member of UN Sec. Counsel and would have had veto power over any "UN" force authorization that included the use of nukes. So if they had any objections abount incernerating so many fellow Chinese, a veto would be likely. That then would leave the US acting solo (or possibly supported by a much smaller coalition of nations), and that brings us to the previously mentioned 500lb gorilla that MacArthur was never going to get Truman to sign-off on either or both (i) nuking targets in the PRC; and (ii) invading the PRC .

I think a plausible AH outcome with a unified Korea has the UN holding a line along the Yalu R., but nothing more.
 
The UN could never invade China, or even hold the line of the Yalu River. They never had the manpower to do that. The best they could have done was hold a line from Wonsan-Pyongyang. The only contingency the JCS would recommend the use of nuclear weapons was if the 8th Army was forced out of Korea. The JCS recommended that if that happened the USA should fully mobilize, blockade the Chinese Coast, and nuke select industrial targets in China. The United States couldn't suffer such a humiliating defeat, without massive retaliation. It's fortunate for China, and everyone else that they weren't more militarily successful. Eisenhower's implied threat to use Atomic Annie to break the stalemate in Korea, in 1953 was just to add more pressure on the Chinese at the peace talks, to accept the UN terms, and end the war.

Post Cold War records revealed that Stalin had engineered the whole Korean War to embroil China in a war with the U.S. While fighting America, China would be dependent on Soviet military, and economic aid, keeping them in the Soviet Orbit. Stalin correctly feared that China would take an independent line. China, and Russia are not natural allies, but rivals. Imperial Russia had taken vast border areas from Manchu China, in the 19th Century, and Stalin feared Mao would want them back. The Korean War delayed the Sino/Soviet Split by over 10 years.

The Soviet Union was the biggest winner of the Korean War. Stalin had successfully manipulated everyone, and advanced Soviet Policy. Japan was the other major winner. The Americans ended the occupation earlier then planned, restoring her full sovereignty. The Peace Treaty ending WWII was perhaps more favorable to Japan then it otherwise might have been. The Americans wanted Japan on their side in the Cold War. They secured an American Alliance, that made her the Center Piece of U.S. East Asian Strategy. Japan's Economy was kickstarted by industrial demand generated by the war, and she received access to U.S. Markets. For Japan war made good business.
 
What happens to Japan with no Korean War? Also could an earlier split make the Non-Aligned movement more than a fiction?
 
What happens to Japan with no Korean War? Also could an earlier split make the Non-Aligned movement more than a fiction?
You could start a whole TL out of no Korean War. The effects were global. Although Stalin succeeded in his goal of keeping China tied to the Soviet Block, he caused the West to rearm, and launch a massive nuclear arms buildup. When the Berlin Blockade started in 1948, the U.S. had 12 disassembled A-Bombs, by 1953 it had hundreds, and had tested the H-Bomb. Since then the world has lived in the shadow of nuclear annihilation.
 
Yeah, you know Stalin was planning something when the Soviet delegation was absent during the UN vote to intercede in Korea.

ric350
 
No need for invasion but I would have used the.A Bomb. I'd have halted after taking Pyongyang but then told Mao - you intervene in Korea and we nuke you.Surely MacArthur fdid want to use the Bomb?
 
You could start a whole TL out of no Korean War. The effects were global. Although Stalin succeeded in his goal of keeping China tied to the Soviet Block, he caused the West to rearm, and launch a massive nuclear arms buildup. When the Berlin Blockade started in 1948, the U.S. had 12 disassembled A-Bombs, by 1953 it had hundreds, and had tested the H-Bomb. Since then the world has lived in the shadow of nuclear annihilation.
So no nukes. Maybe biochem cold wars instead
 
No need for invasion but I would have used the.A Bomb. I'd have halted after taking Pyongyang but then told Mao - you intervene in Korea and we nuke you.Surely MacArthur fdid want to use the Bomb?
It wasn't as straight forward as that. Both Washington, and Tokyo missed the clues that China would intervene. They thought it would be enough that only ROK troops would move up to the Yalu, though some Americans did reach it. Just threatening China like that would be dangerous. The Americans worried about the Soviet reaction. If they thought there was a high probability of Chinese intervention the UN wouldn't have invaded NK. They might have let the ROK go in, without Allied ground troops, it would've been hard to stop them anyway. There is no evidence that MacArthur ever even talked about using the bomb with anyone, at the time.
 
Top