Patton in Korea/MacArthur in the White House

[chankljp]

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.

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.

 

[mrmandias]

Truman's proposed deal is pretty out there, to the point I'm a little surprised he is proposing it seriously. Even more surprised that his people aren't telling him its a complete nonstarter.

 

[chankljp]

Truman's proposed deal is pretty out there, to the point I'm a little surprised he is proposing it seriously. Even more surprised that his people aren't telling him its a complete nonstarter.

I supposed the peace deal COULD fly, if:

(1) China launches a massive counter offensive against the UN's current defense line, which, while successfully repelled, managed to inflict heavy casualties.

(2) The Soviets put their forces in Europe on a state of alert, with Stalin informing Truman that he is uncomfortable with so many Western troops being so close to Vladivostok. And that he would consider escalating the situation if the fighting is not resolved soon.

But even in that case, such as peace deal, even if rational, will do to Truman what the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis did to Khrushchev, in that it will be seen as a victory for the 'other side'... Especially the now fired Patton start running his mouth at the press now that he is no longer in the military anymore, letting the public know exactly what he thinks about such a deal.

 

[mrmandias]

I supposed the peace deal COULD fly, if:

(1) China launches a massive counter offensive against the UN's current defense line, which, while successfully repelled, managed to inflict heavy casualties.

(2) The Soviets put their forces in Europe on a state of alert, with Stalin informing Truman that he is uncomfortable with so many Western troops being so close to Vladivostok. And that he would consider escalating the situation if the fighting is not resolved soon.

But even in that case, such as peace deal, even if rational, will do to Truman what the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis did to Khrushchev, in that it will be seen as a victory for the 'other side'... Especially the now fired Patton start running his mouth at the press now that he is no longer in the military anymore, letting the public know exactly what he thinks about such a deal.

I can see that. But I still don't think it would make it through Congress.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

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....

Interesting idea... I'll have a read and see if there's any good ones that fit the TL
Certainly I won't be writing any myself... I tried a couple of times thinking "hey Patton might write something about his experience in Korea" but they were terrible. Best not try that again

That's too strong a word - nothing bad happened. "Farce" maybe

Yeah, that works better. Thanks

OTOH, how long will Patton tolerate Macarthur stealing his thunder?
...
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.

There's probably going to be a hundred different opinions about this one, but my thought is that Patton probably wouldn't care all that much. For one, Patton seems to have thought highly of Mac based on their interaction in 1918 and then per this 1945 quote to General van Fleet:
"Jim, the war is all over. The SOBs won't fight any more. I would like to go to the Pacific but they [BNC: Washington?] won't let me. There is already a star in that theatre and you can only have one star in a show", the star being Mac.
There's also the matter that Mac is just about the only person who actually wanted Patton to stick around on the battlefield - Truman fired him, Bradley helped stick the knife in, Ike won't want him back in Europe (and Patton's grumpy at him too). I feel like that would matter a lot more to Patton than the glory would (the classic example of 'Patton wanting glory' is his interactions with Monty in both 1943 and 1944... in both cases Patton talks a lot of being able to beat the Germans before Monty if only his plan was followed instead).

Patton could also just as easily blame the press for making MacArthur the hero instead of MacArthur himself... the press are the ones that raised the stink about the slapping incident and then Knutsford.

At this point his mind isn't exactly thinking 100% rationally any more either... there's a lot of explanations that can work to twist the outcome here.

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.

Thanks for putting Martin on my radar

What's left of the Nork government and army, anyway?

Hardly anything. Kim fled, and the remaining NKPA units (if they can be called that) get their orders from Peng now.

@Anarch King of Dipsodes @chankljp @mrmandias
Re China and the UNSC seat
I think it is worth starting off by mentioning that the US and UN never really had a clear goal in Korea beyond either "restore status quo" or "reunify Korea under Rhee". The first won't happen ITTL for obvious reasons, and as for the second, if Mao just says "no" when asked politely to withdraw behind the Yalu, then they're stuck. Truman, and everyone else involved, will know this too... if Mao wasn't willing to fight, he wouldn't have entered in the first place, so they're going to have to offer him something in exchange for peace. The alternative is to either push through the ~300k or more Chinese opposite Ridgway (which Ridgway thinks isn't a good idea), or to hope China gets sick of the war (and this is likely going to do more damage to Truman's position come 1952... at least a quick peace means he can bring the boys back home and hope something else comes up to distract voters from any concessions made to China before the election).
For Truman, the fight in Korea hasn't exactly gone well: Patton spent 4 1/2 months doing nonstop damage to US relations with Rhee (intentionally or not...), and then sparked a PR disaster for Truman when he defied orders about keeping quiet about invading China (not only does Truman have to deal with the fallout of firing a popular general, he also has to deal with the faction saying "hey, actually invading China might not be such a bad idea now that we swept through NK"). MacArthur is claiming all of the credit for every victory in Korea, meaning Truman basically gets all the negative press for the war (and McCarthy will be using Truman as a political punching bag, although he was doing that plenty as things were..). I can imagine him being more than a little sick of the matter at this point - whatever he does, he gets criticised.

Regarding the UNSC seat, the intention was always for this seat to represent the power that controlled the huge Chinese population, and IMO the stubbornness of both the PRC and ROC about the whole 'One China' issue is the only reason it wasn't given to the PRC much earlier than the 70s. The whole point of those five seats was for them to represent the five strongest world powers - the ROC in 1951 certainly didn't fit in that category. Giving the PRC the seat is, at least viewed a certain way, a way of saying "let's stop being silly about this China matter", and part of the proposal Truman has offered is a condition that the PRC give up its claim to Taiwan/Formosa (with the assumption that the ROC will do likewise re the mainland), so American interests won't be harmed any more than they are under the status quo.
Per this page, "Truman would have been willing to maintain some relationship between the U.S. and the Communist government, but Mao was unwilling"... plus he never seemed that enthusiastic about backing Chiang in the first place (or at least, that's how I've read it). The British had already made an effort to recognise the PRC in January 1950 (although Mao was a bit funny about it, so this full recognition didn't occur until the 70s), so it isn't like the entire western world was wholly determined not to concede an inch to Mao either.

Furthermore, what Truman is proposing is intended to be offered to the UN, not directly to Mao... this is far from the final peace deal

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.

Dewey was backing Ike as early as October 50, and Warren's making his own run... yeah I'd have to say they're not exactly in Mac's camp right now.

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.

I wasn't aware he had much left...

- BNC

 

[Rickshaw]

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.

Thing is you are forgetting, it is the UN who would be making the deal, not the US. Truman could always just shove all the responsibility towards them. The US Media would produce the story that the US Administration wanted. In Vietnam and Gulf War II, yes, there was an anti-war movement but it took several years for it to develop, in the case of Vietnam and it was largely seemingly drowned out by the Jingoism of the media in the case of Gulf War II. No one really entertained the view that the Weapons casus belli was an outright lie, which it basically was. The UN would offer a seat to the PRC. Washington would voice a protest but it would not stop the UN from accepting Beijing into the General Assembly. They are not offering a seat at the Security Council.

 

[Oda]

Getting Chiang kai shek to give up Mainland China is ...going to be hard

 

[bguy]

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.

Another possibility is a Taft-MacArthur ticket. (IOTL Taft did sound MacArthur out about the possibility.) And of course if MacArthur is Taft's veep then he would ascend to the presidency in July of 1953 when Taft is struck down by cancer.

Getting Chiang kai shek to give up Mainland China is ...going to be hard

I can't see Mao agreeing to give up his claim on Taiwan either.

 

[mrmandias]

Regarding the UNSC seat, the intention was always for this seat to represent the power that controlled the huge Chinese population, and IMO the stubbornness of both the PRC and ROC about the whole 'One China' issue is the only reason it wasn't given to the PRC much earlier than the 70s. The whole point of those five seats was for them to represent the five strongest world powers - the ROC in 1951 certainly didn't fit in that category. Giving the PRC the seat is, at least viewed a certain way, a way of saying "let's stop being silly about this China matter", and part of the proposal Truman has offered is a condition that the PRC give up its claim to Taiwan/Formosa (with the assumption that the ROC will do likewise re the mainland), so American interests won't be harmed any more than they are under the status quo.
Per this page, "Truman would have been willing to maintain some relationship between the U.S. and the Communist government, but Mao was unwilling"... plus he never seemed that enthusiastic about backing Chiang in the first place (or at least, that's how I've read it). The British had already made an effort to recognise the PRC in January 1950 (although Mao was a bit funny about it, so this full recognition didn't occur until the 70s), so it isn't like the entire western world was wholly determined not to concede an inch to Mao either.



- BNC

That may have been how the diplomats who sat up the UN saw it, but I guarantee that is not how the American public or Congress sees it in this time period.
Also, 'willing to maintain some relations' and 'willing to give an extremely powerful position to an enemy as a reward for losing' are two very different things.

I continue to think its unlikely that Truman even proposes this, way more unlikely that anyone who works for him takes it seriously, and flat unbelievable that it would get anywhere on the US side. Honestly if Truman proposed this seriously I could see him getting impeached.

 

[mrmandias]

Trying to be constructive--the most I think Truman could get away with would be an agreement to hold the Chinese UN seat vacant until the PRC and Taiwan are able to peaceably resolve their differences blah blah blah

 

[ejpsan]

The Korean War was becoming more and more unpopular with the American people as it kept going.
A lot of the troops fighting in Korea were veterans of WW II and they were angry about being recalled to service, examples include Ted Williams and New York Yankees Second Baseman Jerry Coleman who both were Marine Corps pilots in WW II and called back to service for Korea.
The United States doesn't have to vote for the PRC to get the ROC seat as it happened IOTL 1971, all it has to do is to make sure that the PRC has enough votes to win.
The United States can make a big show of continuing to support Chiang and the ROC while pushing for an independent Taiwan.

 

[mrmandias]

The US can veto giving the PRC the seat. There is no way this happens without US backing, and everyone knows that.

 

[RanulfC]

Um... Patton died years before Ike ever even decided to run. He most certainly did not think either of those things, because he never had the opportunity to. He was dead.

So he was dead, it's happened to him before and he got over it...
Ya, that was me mixing my time-lines, maybe too much early New Years, or late Egg-Nog i don't know where that came from.

I'd be interested if you have a source for this - the only thing under "public office" in D'Este's biography is the following:

In August [1945] a reporter interviewing Patton asked what his future plans were. He replied he would stay in the army until there was no chance of further fighting, "and then he supposes he will get out." Asked about a congressman's attempt to have him named secretary of war, Patton scoffed that he did not want the job. He was also horrified when some prominent right-wing Republicans proposed that he become a candidate for president, but as an absolutist. He told Everett Hughes: "I am like Sherman. I would not run if nominated, nor serve if elected! I intend to remove my insignia and wristwatch, but will continue to wear my short coat so that everyone can kiss my ass." Other propositions emerged but were rebuffed. Patton may have sounded like a darling of the Right, but he never seriously contemplated running for public office nor was he swayed by the various offers floated by those who would have misused him as their own mouthpiece.

My interpretation of that passage is that Patton wasn't personally interested in public office, because he would have hated doing the job (admittedly, at this point he hated just about everything that wasn't killing Germans or communists), not necessarily a belief that Generals shouldn't run. Unless you have something that says otherwise?

Patton won't be running for any offices himself TTL.

I was basing some of it on some notes I had on his feelings about Grant as a General and then President but didn't source them Essentially he seemed to agree with Washington's (not sure how I transferred that to Ike...) initial feelings but later felt that while he made a good President it was an exception that proved the rule and that later Generals made bad politicians)

Mac was plenty popular. When he was sacked huge crowds of people came to his speeches and celebrated his return. Gallup had him in first place for "Most Admired Man" in 1951 (just ahead of Ike, who won 1950 as well as every year 1952-60), and he also won in 1946 and 1947. TTL he also has a near-total victory in Korea to his credit (sure, Patton did most of the heavy lifting, but Mac stole the credit in the papers*). He might not be quite as popular as Ike was, but he could certainly put in a decent showing if he makes a serious effort (something he never did IOTL).

* = This is something he could definitely do - how many of Mac's subordinates in the Pacific does anyone remember? Or Walton Walker, who is totally forgotten in the popular telling of the Korean War. All of the reporters in Korea were people Mac put there.

Ya that was the thing though once Mac was no longer surrounded by competent media men who could 'handle' the press, (and frankly press that allowed themselves to be handled rather openly) he quickly began to run afoul of 'bad' press and suffered for it. The other part of the problem is Mac is NOT a politician and Taft is and that was something Eisenhower could actually deal with given his post-war (and arguably during the war) experience. Given the right combination of support, well you might make a convincing case. I'd read it

Randy

 

[mrmandias]

The Korean War was becoming more and more unpopular with the American people as it kept going.

OTL

 

[ejpsan]

OTL

I know but the discussion is about the potential of a peace deal that gives the PRC a seat at the UN.
One side is saying that it would be a sell out by the Truman Administration of Chiang and the ROC, I am saying that a peace deal that unifies Korea and bring the "Boys back home" in 1951 would be very popular as many of the American troops served in WW II and were recalled to serve in Korea and they did not like it.
The original novel "MASH" by Richard Hooker is a more accurate take of those who served in Korea at the time then the 1970 movie and the later television series.
Having the UN seating the PRC over the opposition of the Truman Administration insulates Truman from most criticism except from the most rabid Anti-Communist.
Keeping the commitment to the independence of the ROC will also blunt any criticism.
What we must remember that this is BiteNibbileChomp's timeline and it will be the Author's decision which way this timeline goes in.

 

[mrmandias]

I know but the discussion is about the potential of a peace deal that gives the PRC a seat at the UN.
One side is saying that it would be a sell out by the Truman Administration of Chiang and the ROC, I am saying that a peace deal that unifies Korea and bring the "Boys back home" in 1951 would be very popular as many of the American troops served in WW II and were recalled to serve in Korea and they did not like it.
The original novel "MASH" by Richard Hooker is a more accurate take of those who served in Korea at the time then the 1970 movie and the later television series.
Having the UN seating the PRC over the opposition of the Truman Administration insulates Truman from most criticism except from the most rabid Anti-Communist.
Keeping the commitment to the independence of the ROC will also blunt any criticism.
What we must remember that this is BiteNibbileChomp's timeline and it will be the Author's decision which way this timeline goes in.

I'm saying you are dead wrong. America was extremely anticommunist in the 50s. Bringing the boys back home with a bribe to Red China will not be popular at all. OTL the war was unpopular because it seemed like it wasn't going anywhere and there was no real point. My mother's uncle was one of your WWII vets recalled to the colors and he was absolutely dissatisfied . . . because he felt like his time was being wasted. "They should have sent us home or allowed us to kick commy butt" was his attitude. That would be pretty typical.

 

[ejpsan]

"They should have sent us home or allowed us to kick commy butt" was his attitude. That would be pretty typical.

I understand that sentiment but the scenario I am thinking of is that the PRC is out of Korea and that would in my very ignorant opinion constitutes a kicking of "commie butt".
If the price is while committing to defend Chiang and the ROC, the PRC gets the UN seat would be unpopular at first but it will later become somewhat acceptable.

 

[Sceonn]

The PRC is already out of Korea for all practical purposes. It would be different if the deal came earlier but once past Pyongyang it became politically dicey to sign off on, worst still at the Yalu. And all this in the backdrop of a relentless push forward that Patton spearheaded.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

So he was dead, it's happened to him before and he got over it...

Very true.

Ya that was the thing though once Mac was no longer surrounded by competent media men who could 'handle' the press, (and frankly press that allowed themselves to be handled rather openly) he quickly began to run afoul of 'bad' press and suffered for it. The other part of the problem is Mac is NOT a politician and Taft is and that was something Eisenhower could actually deal with given his post-war (and arguably during the war) experience. Given the right combination of support, well you might make a convincing case. I'd read it

I've got a few thoughts on how to make it work, hopefully you like them once I can put them together into some more updates!

snippity snip

Honestly I hadn't expected that peace deal proposal to be quite so controversial . I'll give it some more thought, an edit to the TL might be necessary

- BNC

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Honestly I hadn't expected that peace deal proposal to be quite so controversial . I'll give it some more thought, an edit to the TL might be necessary

- BNC

For me, ITTL North Korea invades the south, and after the kicking of commie butt, ceases to exist!!! This, and not any potential disposition of the UN security council seat, is the true telling point. A communist country invades a democracy, and after the dust settles, the communist country (and it's aggression) are solved in a permanent way!

Just my two cents worth...