Loving it, as usual. I can't wait to hear peoples thoughts on MacArthur's ranking as President, relative to Eisenhower and his contemporaries IOTL.
TBH it's less of a stretch than Patton coming back in 1950 was. Plus I think it sets up the last three chapters betterFind this unconvincing - Churchill still there in 1956?
I'll see if I can't open the poll again once chapter 48 is posted. Should be interestingLoving it, as usual. I can't wait to hear peoples thoughts on MacArthur's ranking as President, relative to Eisenhower and his contemporaries IOTL.
They would have to flip over a lot of rocks to come up with somebody worse than Louis Johnson. Under his guidance the US came this close to having basically a littoral Navy and no Marine Corp. Also the Nautilus would never have been built, so butterfly away that part of the triad. Ironically we have North Korea to thank for saving the US Navy.
Great analysis, can definitely see the B-70 happening TTL.
I do think you might be underselling Mac's support for air transport here though... in Korea airlifts were at least as important as shipping for getting troops and supplies to the front in the early days of the war (indeed, IOTL at least they're probably the reason NK didn't get to Pusan, though ITTL that's less clear). Mac (especially with Allen as SecDef), would be more the sort to push for B-52, B-70 and some sort of transport, and if something had to be cut he'd start looking at the Navy... despite how much his campaigns relied on the Navy, I don't get the impression that he was ever very impressed with them, except when Halsey was involved.
Mac's CIA is a clown show. After Ajax there's no way he's trusting them with anything more important than the filing of papers.
Can definitely see Sputnik causing an even bigger panic than OTL, as the Air Force realises "oh hell we really screwed up our missile program quick better do something!"
Beat me talking about 'Big' Atlas.Just to be clear it's not Mac I'm worried about here or even Allen, the Air Force was very specifically NOT interested in a dedicated transport service or transports really till the mid-60s OTL and Vietnam. They just "assumed" MATS (specifically the NAVY half of the service) would cover most of it and they would 'buy/rent' civilian assets to cover the rest. On the other hand, sure I can't convince you to build a jet powered XC-99? Rule of Cool and all that?
Another thing I'll quickly point out is that one of the 'reasons' that OTL the advocates got the Air Force interested in actually developing the Atlas missile was the coming advent of the thermonuclear bomb and it's shrinking in size. It's kind of a 'catch-22' at the moment but the Atlas the Air Force is currently (1955/56) considering is one that does not fully assume that miniaturization it going to happen as "soon" as the advocates think it is. This is the five engine 'monster' Atlas, (actually slightly down-graded from the original seven engine behemoth) which if proceeded with likely won't fit in a silo but WILL be a match for the Soviet R7 and then some
(Hint, hint )
Beat me talking about 'Big' Atlas.
Though I figure they could just make a bigger Coffin launcher
Heh- no I think I would have remembered that.They could and I suspect they would* but the Coffin's were interim and everyone fully understood how vulnerable they were. On the converse side it's actually a chance to have a very big propaganda piece that you know damn well isn't really useful, (much like ALL the early Atlas deployments where them even working if needed was a really, really good question ) but 'shows' everyone you did NOT actually fall behind. (And then in the background you are frantically developing Titan and Minuteman to actually come up with a solution)
*Did you every happen to see the early 'construction and launch' proposal from Convair? They literally drive it out the factory door on a erector/cradle drive it a couple miles away to the "launch facility", erect it, put propellant in it and fire it off at the "enemy". Rinse repeat as if it was a 'simple' V2 operation while under 'fire' by nuclear weapons...
(Model work was kind of cool too )
Your shoutChurchill is still PM. I wouldn't mention him this late in the story if he wasn't going to do something important
Certainly peripheral to your story but how is Churchill dealing with Greece and Cyprus. He was after all far more sympathetic to the Greeks than Eden, you don't have the OTL bad blood between Papagos and Eden dating back to 1941... and as early as 1913 he had been the one to initiate and actively pursue plans for union of Cyprus to Greece.Churchill is still PM. I wouldn't mention him this late in the story if he wasn't going to do something important
Now you've got me interested I like the idea of Churchill supporting enosis, the real question (at least as far as the TL is concerned) is whether a handover to Greece is possible by the middle of 1956*, and whether Turkey would tolerate it without resorting to war (IMO if Churchill said "do enosis" Mac would back him no questions asked... Turkey doesn't strike me as something Mac would find particularly important).Certainly peripheral to your story but how is Churchill dealing with Greece and Cyprus. He was after all far more sympathetic to the Greeks than Eden, you don't have the OTL bad blood between Papagos and Eden dating back to 1941... and as early as 1913 he had been the one to initiate and actively pursue plans for union of Cyprus to Greece.
So Winston quietly tiping the scales towards negotiating union of Greece and Cyprus (and securing British bases in both Cyprus and Crete out of it) and outright revolt not happening in Cyprus looks to me a pretty plausible outcome. And one that means Greece remains closely linked to Greece to the present day.
Yes and yes I think. There was some rather limited nationalist agitation over Cyprus in Turkey but as of 1954-55 the Turkish political class was generally uninterested, it was to a large degree British policy that brought Turkey into the mess as a way of foiling Greek aspirations. On top of which Greece and Turkey were rather friendly and closely linked since 1930.Now you've got me interested I like the idea of Churchill supporting enosis, the real question (at least as far as the TL is concerned) is whether a handover to Greece is possible by the middle of 1956*, and whether Turkey would tolerate it without resorting to war (IMO if Churchill said "do enosis" Mac would back him no questions asked... Turkey doesn't strike me as something Mac would find particularly important).
* = Any later than this and I can't exactly make even a passing reference to it in one of the updates even if it might happen later.
And if something were to happen to Nasser in Egypt?In the bad scenario... Turkey in 1955-56 simply did not have the military means to challenge enosis partcularly one done under British auspices. No landing craft, a surface navy numerically inferior to the Greek and rather worse trained, the whole mid and upper ranks of the Greeks are ww2 veterans, with the British in and US pressure it's not even fun. So saber rattling, the pogroms happening on schedule... and enosis happens on schedule. BUT in this case you've probably very much boosted the Nasserists within the Turkish army. Come the 1960 coup you may well end up with Turkes running the show and turning Turkey towards the Soviet Union.