Patton in Korea/MacArthur in the White House
- Thread starter BiteNibbleChomp
- Start date
- Status
Your use of short, 3-4 paragraph sections really helps make the flurry of events a lot easier to read and follow, which is great for the shorter time spans your updates cover. I love the narrative style you've used for this TL, it's quickly become one of my all-time favorites in the post-1900 forum.
Take your time. Just becauce you do not update every day does not mean it is abandoned. I know stories were there are months between posts
Let me add my congratulations for a well-done TL. When I use an historical character in a TL I try, as much as possible, to have him speak and act the way he did in OTL. You have done an outstanding job so far in capturing that about Patton. I look forward to your upcoming posts. Hope you have a very happy New Year.
What the public knew was a sanitized version, where an unsuccessful effort had been made to free POW's. That it was a reckless grab for glory wasn't. Lives were lost on another Patton vanity project. Patton never inspired his men the way his publicity machine would have us think. Ike, and Bradley, the men Patton so resented, did a lot to protect Patton's image, and salvage his career. If the public had seen Patton up close, and in action they wouldn't have been so captivated with him. It's no wonder George C. Marshal determined that Patton wound never rise above command of an army. Although 8th Army was technically just an army, in WWII it would have been an army group. It was also an international coalition, dealing with the most sensitive political issues.
Why not try some Kipling? I must admit to being new to Patton's poetry; I do like it possibly because it is quite Kiplingesque. Of course, you could write your own in the style....
chankljp
Donor
Just a bit of my thoughts on the last entry....
If Truman ends the Korean War right now with a negotiated peace with the PRC, giving them official diplomatic recognition as well as the ROC's sit in the United Nations Security Council in exchange for them ending hostilities and recognising a fully reunified Korea under the ROK, the communist camp can honestly walk out of this claiming to have won a geopolitical strategic victory.
Borrowing a bit of contemporary political lingo, leftists around the world could claim something along the lines of, 'The imperialists were playing tic-tac-toe while Comrade Stalin was playing 4D chess. The capitalists could only think in the short-term: They see a wall and they attack it; When the see an army, they charge at it... While we revolutionaries were able to think in the long-term and the cause of the world revolution!' In that by giving up communist control over half of Korea (A country that they will retroactively claim was culturally not ready for socialism, not to mention of minimal economic value, and that the Soviets would end up having to massively subsidise to keep afloat anyway), the global communist camp was able to:
A 'stab in the back' myth might even develop, as people like McCarthy claiming that this outcome which allowed the communists to 'snatch victory from the jaws of defeat' in Korea was the result of Soviet spies and communist sympathisers having penetrated and influenced the US government. One way or another, all of this will have massive butterflies down the line far beyond just the Korean Peninsula...
If Truman ends the Korean War right now with a negotiated peace with the PRC, giving them official diplomatic recognition as well as the ROC's sit in the United Nations Security Council in exchange for them ending hostilities and recognising a fully reunified Korea under the ROK, the communist camp can honestly walk out of this claiming to have won a geopolitical strategic victory.
Borrowing a bit of contemporary political lingo, leftists around the world could claim something along the lines of, 'The imperialists were playing tic-tac-toe while Comrade Stalin was playing 4D chess. The capitalists could only think in the short-term: They see a wall and they attack it; When the see an army, they charge at it... While we revolutionaries were able to think in the long-term and the cause of the world revolution!' In that by giving up communist control over half of Korea (A country that they will retroactively claim was culturally not ready for socialism, not to mention of minimal economic value, and that the Soviets would end up having to massively subsidise to keep afloat anyway), the global communist camp was able to:
- Gather valuable combat data on the performance of their new generation of post-WW2 Soviet military hardware such as the MiG-15 against their American counterparts at minimal lost of Soviet lives.
- Forced the Americans to 'sell out' Chiang Kai-shek's ROC over in Taiwan, negatively affecting the US' diplomatic reputation of sticking by their allies that have fallen on hard times later down the line.
- Getting the PRC, a government with a population of five hundred million, a sit at the UN Security Council as one of the five permanent members. Increase the representation of the communist cause in one of the world's most important political body, so that the USSR will no longer be a lone communist voice on the council.
- With an American ally in the form of the ROK now sitting right across the Yalu River, even if no American troops will be stationed north of the 38th Parallel, Mao will understandably feel greatly threatened. Making him much more hostile against the US than he always is, while pushing him deeper into the arms of Moscow.
A 'stab in the back' myth might even develop, as people like McCarthy claiming that this outcome which allowed the communists to 'snatch victory from the jaws of defeat' in Korea was the result of Soviet spies and communist sympathisers having penetrated and influenced the US government. One way or another, all of this will have massive butterflies down the line far beyond just the Korean Peninsula...
Last edited:
I never knew about Task Force Baum before this thread. I find it interesting that the task force was drawn from 4th Armored Division. And who was the brand new commander of 4th AD (only 9 days on the job) when this mission was launched? Why, it was Bill Hoge; the man who built the Alcan Highway, the man who captured the Ludendorff bridge, and in this time line, the commander of X corps after Ned Almond was sent back to Tokyo. It's amazing how the same names keep popping up.
Very good.
Macarthur has dodged the bullet of screwing up in Korea and getting fired.
OTOH, how long will Patton tolerate Macarthur stealing his thunder?
That's too strong a word - nothing bad happened. "Farce" maybe.
Patton hasn't noted this or resented it? During the Inchon period, it definitely appeared that Patton was quite conscious of how he was showing up Macarthur, and that Macarthur knew it. Did he perhaps decide that since he was going to die, he didn't care? But now he's not dead, and he'll have nothing to do while convalescing except read how Macarthur Did It All.
ISTM that once Truman is gone, Macarthur moves to the top of Patton's grudge list. And does he really want to help Macarthur beat Taft or Eisenhower?
1952 is quite a ways off. There's lots of time for things to happen. Macarthur's a clever publicity hound, but not a real politician, and he's 70. I think most Republican leaders would oppose him for the nomination; I'm pretty sure both Warren and Dewey would.
Republican House leader (and former/future speaker of the house) Joseph Martin was a strong supporter of MacArthur if I recall correctly. Most of the Republicans in congress were rather conservative, and as such originally supported MacArthur in the run up to the 1952 election, however they switched to Taft when Mac faded. ITTL, if MacArthur is still running strong as the election approaches, I would expect him to maintain the support of the conservative Republicans in congress, and Taft may even decide not to run.
WRT to the suggested deal: rump NoKo gets written off, while the PRC gets recognition and a UN seat (including the permanent Security Council seat?): IMO, not going to fly. It would be seen as betraying an ally and rewarding an enemy - not only of the US but of the UN: Chinese troops marched into Korea to attack UN forces.
Furthermore, the PRC is barely two years old at this time. In fact there were still pockets of resistance on the mainland, IIRC. There were people who thought that the RoC could invade the mainland - including some PRC leaders.
It's way too early to recognize the PRC as a Great Power.
PRC withdrawal from Korea isn't that big a payoff. Only about 10% of the country, and pretty much the least useful part. The loss of the northeast is important (assuming the RoKs actually take it). The terrain is rough, but unless the PRC is willing to foot a very large bill going forward, UN forces can grind down the Nork remnants with firepower. What's left of the Nork government and army, anyway?
The PLA has just received a very bloody nose for minimal gains. I really doubt that Mao will double down, rather than cut his losses.
Furthermore, the PRC is barely two years old at this time. In fact there were still pockets of resistance on the mainland, IIRC. There were people who thought that the RoC could invade the mainland - including some PRC leaders.
It's way too early to recognize the PRC as a Great Power.
PRC withdrawal from Korea isn't that big a payoff. Only about 10% of the country, and pretty much the least useful part. The loss of the northeast is important (assuming the RoKs actually take it). The terrain is rough, but unless the PRC is willing to foot a very large bill going forward, UN forces can grind down the Nork remnants with firepower. What's left of the Nork government and army, anyway?
The PLA has just received a very bloody nose for minimal gains. I really doubt that Mao will double down, rather than cut his losses.
chankljp
Donor
Absolutely. An outcome in which for all intents and purposes, saw the communists being seemingly REWARDED with their aggression in the form of the PRC getting a sit at the UNSC would almost be worst compared to if the UN have just stopped at the 38th parallel and not advance into the north. Since in that case, at least it would have been seen as a draw overall.
Any outcome at this point that ends with the PRC getting any sort of concession in the peace deal would be seen as a 'Heads I win, tails you lose' situation. I mean, from the perspective of the American public, what kind of message is being sent to the communists and especially Stalin? 'Hey. If one of your puppets decide to launch an illegal invasion against a neighbor, they either win and gain new territory... Or lose badly, and you end up getting another communist ally in the UNSC in exchange for giving up a worthless puppet!'
If this peace agreement gets though, together with him firing Patton, Truman's public approval is going to get absolutely DESTROYED comes time for the next election. And if an international crisis similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis happen in TTL, historians will likely blame it on Truman's weakness when coming up with the Korean peace deal emboldening the Soviets.
When has an invasion ever been "legal" under international law?
I think the PRC would have come out of this deal a lot better than when they went into it. The American public are easily manipulated into believing what is wanted of them, unfortunately. Just look at Vietnam and Gulf War II. In both cases the US Government manipulated "the message" in the media to the point it was not recognisable. The Gulf of Tonking and the "Weapons of Mass Distraction" were almost complete fabrications. America swallowed them both. If they were told that this was the only way to end the Korean War they would swallow it. McCarthy though, would be a problem. He was already roasting the State Department over the "loss of China" to Communism. Think what he'd do about Taiwan and Korea?
I think the PRC would have come out of this deal a lot better than when they went into it. The American public are easily manipulated into believing what is wanted of them, unfortunately. Just look at Vietnam and Gulf War II. In both cases the US Government manipulated "the message" in the media to the point it was not recognisable. The Gulf of Tonking and the "Weapons of Mass Distraction" were almost complete fabrications. America swallowed them both. If they were told that this was the only way to end the Korean War they would swallow it. McCarthy though, would be a problem. He was already roasting the State Department over the "loss of China" to Communism. Think what he'd do about Taiwan and Korea?
Taft supporters were in control of many of the states Republican parties and only an IOTL credentials fight that gave Eisenhower the delegates from several Southern states with the help of Nixon delivering the votes from California.
The delegates from other states that were not controlled by Taft supporters were pledge to Favorite Sons and there was only a few primaries at that time.
As long as there is a pledge for the United States to defend Chiang and the Republic of China and the liberal deployment of the Seventh Fleet having the PLA leave Korea will be seen as victory over communism by the American people.
The seating of the PRC in the UN and the Security Council does not have to presented as a quid pro quo for any peace deal it only requires that the United States does not veto the membership.
The delegates from other states that were not controlled by Taft supporters were pledge to Favorite Sons and there was only a few primaries at that time.
As long as there is a pledge for the United States to defend Chiang and the Republic of China and the liberal deployment of the Seventh Fleet having the PLA leave Korea will be seen as victory over communism by the American people.
The seating of the PRC in the UN and the Security Council does not have to presented as a quid pro quo for any peace deal it only requires that the United States does not veto the membership.
Could the U.S. get the number of Security Council seats expanded, then both Chinas get one?
chankljp
Donor
There is absolutely no way that either the ROC or the PRC would ever accept such a deal, since doing so will require that the officially recognize the other side as legitimate.
I wouldn't go nearly so far as to say "America swallowed them both". The entire anti-war movement was sparked by Vietnam, just as the collapse of neoconservatism was sparked by Iraq. To pretend that Americans just blindly believed both and that there was no political backlash is rather silly to be quite honest. Sure, it did take several years for the backlash to gather, but this circumstance is different for several reasons. First, unlike in Iraq and Vietnam, only one party has egg on their face if Truman makes this peace deal. A lot of the most prominent democrats voted for the Iraq war and therefore were not in a position to properly attack it until new faces with clean records came in. Likewise, LBJ escalated Vietnam, and being a democrat, the democrat establishment couldn't then blast Republicans for supporting the war. This scenario is different, as nearly all of the Republicans will likely be against such a peace deal from the beginning, allowing them to hammer home their message much sooner than was viable in either of the other two cases.
marathag
Banned
Which means it was blessed by the President.
Not doing a thing, is still making a choice:
Truman, the Man who lost two Chinas
- Status