WI Patton survived the car accident (If you believe the conspiracy theorists, assassination) and went on to run for the office of the President of the United States? How would he handle Korea?
PRESIDENT GEORGE S. PATTON!
- Thread starter Polish Eagle
- Start date
I wouldn't call apocalypse, but he could be more willing to turn Korea into a limited nuclear engagement and go into China. Not perhaps WW3, but pretty bloody.
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
How do you get him elected without him putting whole shoestores in his mouth?
Or without cursing out and threatening reporters who dare question him?
I'm trying to imagine him "debating" the likes of Adlai Stevenson. Patton all bluster and Stevenson saying witty remarks that cut him to pieces, making Patton storm off the stage in frustration.
This becomes pretty funny matching Patton up against famous figures.
Patton debating Truman. "Colorful" language from both.
Patton debating Strom Thurmond. Two men trying to out-angry each other.
Or without cursing out and threatening reporters who dare question him?
I'm trying to imagine him "debating" the likes of Adlai Stevenson. Patton all bluster and Stevenson saying witty remarks that cut him to pieces, making Patton storm off the stage in frustration.
This becomes pretty funny matching Patton up against famous figures.
Patton debating Truman. "Colorful" language from both.
Patton debating Strom Thurmond. Two men trying to out-angry each other.
Last edited:
wormyguy
Banned
Hmmm, it's hard to tell with Patton, he didn't live long enough and he didn't really expound upon his political views. I'm not even sure he was the type who would have wanted to run for the Presidency anyway.
I'm not sure we'd see WWIII, he wasn't an idiot, and the American people would never stand for it, no matter how much he might want it. US-Soviet relations definitely hit the deep freeze, though.
As for Korea, it's hard to tell. I think that he'd take a much more personal approach to the war effort - dictating tactics and the like. He'd probably send a larger US contingent to Korea, although he might alienate the UN allies. He would demand aggressive action and tactics the whole course of the war - the war is about winning, not "not losing" for him, for better or for worse. I'm not completely sure he would order nukings, on the one hand, he was the type who had the psychological capability to order a nuking without a second thought, while on the other, he might decide that nukes aren't "honorable" or "sporting" and take it as a personal challenge to defeat the enemy on the battlefield without the use of nukes, which is, after all, cheating, and therefore not worthy of one of the Great Generals of History.
I'm not sure we'd see WWIII, he wasn't an idiot, and the American people would never stand for it, no matter how much he might want it. US-Soviet relations definitely hit the deep freeze, though.
As for Korea, it's hard to tell. I think that he'd take a much more personal approach to the war effort - dictating tactics and the like. He'd probably send a larger US contingent to Korea, although he might alienate the UN allies. He would demand aggressive action and tactics the whole course of the war - the war is about winning, not "not losing" for him, for better or for worse. I'm not completely sure he would order nukings, on the one hand, he was the type who had the psychological capability to order a nuking without a second thought, while on the other, he might decide that nukes aren't "honorable" or "sporting" and take it as a personal challenge to defeat the enemy on the battlefield without the use of nukes, which is, after all, cheating, and therefore not worthy of one of the Great Generals of History.
I think you underestimate his intelligence. It would be more like: Stevenson saying witty remarks which Patton replies to with witty and scatological remarks. Stevenson storms off the stage in frustration.
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
I never said Patton was dumb, only tone deaf when it comes to politics.
I think you underestimate the temperments of both. The press would be on Stevenson's side and Patton's scat remarks probably wouldn't even get in the papers. So he loses.
Stevenson would hardly fold. Recall the scene at the UN where he faced down the Soviet ambassador during the Cuban Missile Crisis. You assume intellectual means weak when it isn't.
burmafrd
Banned
ANd you assume someone who was a master of tactics could not figure it out.
A man who had fought in 2 world wars is not likely to be intimidated by any politician.
Though to be honest I do not see Patton having any interest in politics at all. He really hated how political WW2 became. He was very blunt and practical.
As regards Korea he would have had MaCarthurs scalp for the screw up as regards not preparing for the Chinese to attack. If Mac had done just the basics we could have held at least half of NK.
Nukes=he would have b een practical about it. At that time we had a HUGE advantage in not only delivery capability but number of bombs over the Russians. He would have told them to sit down and shut up or we would wipe them out. Stalin even towards the end was fairly pragmatic and would have done just that. Now I doubt he would have authorized nuking China- but possibly a tactical use.
A man who had fought in 2 world wars is not likely to be intimidated by any politician.
Though to be honest I do not see Patton having any interest in politics at all. He really hated how political WW2 became. He was very blunt and practical.
As regards Korea he would have had MaCarthurs scalp for the screw up as regards not preparing for the Chinese to attack. If Mac had done just the basics we could have held at least half of NK.
Nukes=he would have b een practical about it. At that time we had a HUGE advantage in not only delivery capability but number of bombs over the Russians. He would have told them to sit down and shut up or we would wipe them out. Stalin even towards the end was fairly pragmatic and would have done just that. Now I doubt he would have authorized nuking China- but possibly a tactical use.
If China is a radioactive waste who will beat on India in the 1960s?
America?
During the time he was General he said, to paraphrase, he didn't care if a man was a n***** as long as he got the job done or would do it. So there's your civil rights factor there.
He also, I suppose, would be anti-Communist severely, but could hate McCarthy for dragging the nation into the muck of a witch hunt against who he could see as decent Americans, and may be Conservative on many things socially but I'd think he'd be Eisenhower like economically. And, he'd probably be Reagan-esq on war, if not more hawkish.
Lack of tact is not necessarily bad. The voters could see it as honest and down to earth, along with an everyman factor.
mowque
Banned
The man was nuts. He isn't going to win.
He'll probably get caught slapping one of his aides around...
Well, Patton I think would be good for civil rights, emphasizing capacity of military service over skin color. He fancied himself so much a soldier, that I don't think the racialist politics of the day would have swayed him much. Which is another reason why he'd have a hard time getting elected, I think.
On the other hand, everyone who is militaristic isn't inevitably doomed to fail in American politics. Patton, his present history evident, is a dynamic enough figure to rally people around him. And should he have surrived, his legend...with some of his own prodding in a presidential campaign...might have become even bigger. Propaganda has its role, and assuming he would consent to run, and win, no doubt there would be a strong Patton legend enhancing wing afoot.
I do see him viewing Nuclear Weapons as more 'big-bombs' than doomsday everyone dies in agony devises. And one of the big butterflies might be more people view them that way as well, bringing more death, but less nuclear hysteria to the 50's and post 50's world.
I don't think, after or in a world in which, other powers gained nuclear parity, Patton would have been immune to mad or the semi-mad he might have faced, and moderated. However, I don't think he would have 'squandered' american nuclear superiority. Nor do I think he would have missed the opprotunity to try, through the bullypulpit, to convience Americans -and the world - that dying from a nuke was no different from dying from a firebombing, or an enemy-soldiers' projectile. And thereby made the idea of nuclear war, for better or worse (porbably for worse) less horrifying the the near magically evil abilities most people ascribe to nuclear weapons today suggest.
On the other hand, everyone who is militaristic isn't inevitably doomed to fail in American politics. Patton, his present history evident, is a dynamic enough figure to rally people around him. And should he have surrived, his legend...with some of his own prodding in a presidential campaign...might have become even bigger. Propaganda has its role, and assuming he would consent to run, and win, no doubt there would be a strong Patton legend enhancing wing afoot.
I do see him viewing Nuclear Weapons as more 'big-bombs' than doomsday everyone dies in agony devises. And one of the big butterflies might be more people view them that way as well, bringing more death, but less nuclear hysteria to the 50's and post 50's world.
I don't think, after or in a world in which, other powers gained nuclear parity, Patton would have been immune to mad or the semi-mad he might have faced, and moderated. However, I don't think he would have 'squandered' american nuclear superiority. Nor do I think he would have missed the opprotunity to try, through the bullypulpit, to convience Americans -and the world - that dying from a nuke was no different from dying from a firebombing, or an enemy-soldiers' projectile. And thereby made the idea of nuclear war, for better or worse (porbably for worse) less horrifying the the near magically evil abilities most people ascribe to nuclear weapons today suggest.
If Patton did survive the automobile accident that killed him in December 1945, and consequently decided to seek the Presidency in either 1948 or 1952, assumingly as a Republican, he would have done so through conventional means, arrive at the convention and hope to be nominated. For Patton to arrive at the convention and claim the nomination there seems the most logical choice. Patton never struck me as the type that would have patience to campaign via the primaries, and win the nomination through them. Then again campaigning via primaries didn't become fashionable until John F. Kennedy's bid for the Presidency in 1960. However, the ultimate question is whether his campaign would have been taken seriously? Sure, Patton was a successful General during the Second World War, but would his maverick status diminish his chances of winning the nomination?
Last edited: