PT-41 and MacArthur lost at sea

Here's the real clincher: who's gonna take charge of rebuilding Japan after the war?
That's a very good question and one that's kinda important to my potential RPG scenario. (This'll be the second time a visit to Japan to catch the premiere of Neon Genesis Evangelion and do some shopping Goes Horribly Wrong for the PCs :)).

Maybe Ridgway? He succeeded MacArthur historically when he was removed. Though he might be a little junior for the role in 1945. Eisenhower maybe? That'd almost certainly butterfly his presidency.
What would the effects on Japan be? The political system? The role of women?

Hmm, turning the country into a giant airbase might be interesting....
 
Though I haven't done as much reading on it as I would like (only 2 courses in undergrad), I do wonder how much of a tangible impact on Post-War Japan MacArthur actually had outside of his larger than life personality. My reading of post-war Japan lends a lot more importance to the bureaucrats and structures working behind the scenes rather than the "big personality" of MacArthur. A lot of his decisions do seem to be well within the realms of American Foreign Policy at the time and I'm having a difficult time seeing a potential replacement wildly deviating from them. The Land Reform and Political Reforms that happened in OTL are going to happen in TTL as well as will the attempt to break up the Zaibatsu mass unionization etc. The "Reverse Course" of OTL will also likely happen given the fact that his death isn't going to butterfly away the Cold War that forced the American occupiers to fast-track Japan's recovery over their reconstruction of it's society.

One could argue that without Mac, the Emperor might be forced to abdicate in favour of a regency. Though I'd grant that in all likelihood things might progress a bit further down this path I'm not sure that the Americans would go through with it in the end due to the destabilizing effect it would have on everything else they're trying to accomplish.

I'd also like to point out that if the Korean War happens in TTL a major landing behind North Korean Lines was standard doctrine for the US given their naval and air superiority. Now, the Korean war could very well not occur given the butterflies in TTL. I've always thought that if the Americans were to finish taking Okinawa with no Atomic Weapon or Soviet intervention in sight that they might land on the Korean Peninsula as a part of Nimitz' blockade strategy thus creating the possibility of a fully democratic Korea. At any rate, assuming a divided Korea still emerges post-war and Kim-Il-Sung still goes to war with the South, no MacArthur probably means that Inchon isn't selected as the landing point. However without Mac's hubris the landed army is probably much more focused on cutting off and destroying whatever enemy formations that they're able to trap instead of securing Seoul (which cost considerable time in OTL) which might lead to higher KPA casualties depending on where the landing takes place.
 
no MacArthur probably means that Inchon isn't selected as the landing point. However without Mac's hubris the landed army is probably much more focused on cutting off and destroying whatever enemy formations that they're able to trap instead of securing Seoul (which cost considerable time in OTL) which might lead to higher KPA casualties depending on where the landing takes place.

The only real alternative is the Kunsan area further south, which might lead to trapping 20% of the remaining NKPA strength vs the 50%+ that the X Corps trapped. The coast line sucks for large scale landing ops and there are very few options. Seoul itself cant really be bypassed and especially not by a army intending to gain speed through using mechanized or motorized units. Even for a light infantry army like the NKPA the road network that converged on Seoul is essential for sustained operations beyond it. Even today the options for bypassing Seoul are limited. If a effective barrier to the NKPA retreat is to be set, & a advance south to link with the 8th Army is to be made then Seoul is essential.

Macs staff, including his Chief of staff Ned Almond who became X corps commander, opposed the selection of Incheon/Seoul. Recommending Kunsan instead. The commander of the 1st Marine Div Lt Gen OP Smith did support the Incheon site. Note: Smith was Deputy Chief of Staff of the US 10th Army for the Battle of Okinawa. There he also supported a minority view of using a amphibious operation to flank and break the Japanese Shuri Line. In that case the senior commander rejected the concept.
 
I absolutely think this would butterfly the Korean War. With no MacArthur, the Pacific War will proceed more quickly. If it ends even a few months early, I don't see the Soviets getting an occupation zone in Korea at all. Korea is made independent as a whole state. I have no idea how this will affect China though. I would guess that Mao still wins out? I don't know as much as I should on the Civil War. My knowledge on China in that period has more to do with the internal ideological and personal battles of the CPC.
 
IMHO even if the Pacific campaign proceeds more rapidly, let's say Okinawa done 6 months earlier, I vote against the invasion of Japan. The Navy and the USAAF were against the invasion, it was Mac who was the biggest advocate. More blockading/bombing earlier - with Okinawa 6 months early you can have B-17's and B-24's as well as mediums bombing Kyushu for sore, and perhaps parts of Hokkaido given the distances. During this time you might see Korea or Taiwan invaded to "close the ring", if Korea is taken there is no way the USSR occupies any of it, as in winter/spring 1945 they are still occupied advancing against Germany. In fact, it is certainly possible that if the US takes Korea in the spring/summer of 1945, Chiang might just have troops brought there to attack across the Yalu against the Japanese (who are now cut off) and it also allows him to get a legitimate foothold in Manchuria which here can be supplied through Korea during the civil war as opposed to needing US air transport.

Another advantage to the six month advance of the timetable is that defense in places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa are less complete, and the flow of reinforcements and materiel to these (and other) spots is reduced making these campaigns less costly.

While the personality/persona of MacArthur was of value in Japan, I agree with the poster who said essentially all of the reforms/reshaping were the work of the bureaucrats/New Dealers who did the work. No matter who was the American shogun, the Japanese were going to toe the line.
 
The advance in timetable by 6 months doesn't require and invasion, as the president still knows about Instant Sunshine in a Can being prepared.
 
Up until the success of the first Trinity test the planning was on the assumption that invasion would be needed. Even after atomic weapons were shown to work, it was still not clear that Japan would surrender if they were used. If the Central Pacific campaign is 6 months ahead, then success of the Manhattan Project is still in the future and not guaranteed, so invasion planning would be going on - although absent Mac I expect that blockade and bombing will be the order of the day.
 
Primary reason for sending MacArthur to Australia was to provide proof the US would not allow Australia to be invaded. In lieu of MacArthur, the US may need to send some other bigwig down there. They'll probably eventually send some Army troops to assist with New Guinea, but in terms of providing an initial figurehead I wonder if they might send an admiral instead. I can't think of any obvious candidates from Army or Navy.
 

Driftless

Donor
Primary reason for sending MacArthur to Australia was to provide proof the US would not allow Australia to be invaded. In lieu of MacArthur, the US may need to send some other bigwig down there. They'll probably eventually send some Army troops to assist with New Guinea, but in terms of providing an initial figurehead I wonder if they might send an admiral instead. I can't think of any obvious candidates from Army or Navy.

How about Malin Craig - George Marshall's predecessor? At the time, he would have been considered a high profile appointment, but since he had retired, he didn't have another duty assignment.
 
Death is too easy for dugout Doug.

PT-41 goes down in the storm but dugout Doug somehow survives and makes his way to an uninhabited island. He's found years after the year has ended and serves as the inspiration for a 1960s era sitcom starring Bob Denver. :evilsmile:
 
Primary reason for sending MacArthur to Australia was to provide proof the US would not allow Australia to be invaded. In lieu of MacArthur, the US may need to send some other bigwig down there. They'll probably eventually send some Army troops to assist with New Guinea, but in terms of providing an initial figurehead I wonder if they might send an admiral instead. I can't think of any obvious candidates from Army or Navy.
There was a thread that discussed this months ago. Various names were brought up. It was suggested that Admiral Thomas Hart would assume command since he was commander of the Asiatic Fleet and the most senior officer available already in theater. Hart went on to briefly command ABDA.
After Hart returns to the states it is anybody's guess. Again it was suggested the Southwest theater could eventually be put under Aussie command with Blamey as commander.
General Brett was suggested as another short term commander. Brett was already in Australia waiting for MacArthur to show up.
I think with no MacArthur Nimitz would run the war in the Pacific. As a compromise the Army basically runs the ETO as OTL. The Navy runs the PTO with less Army troops.
My suggestion is that if the Army insists it needs a General in the Pacific (in the name of inter-service rivalry) then Marshall should send Frank Andrews to the Pacific hopefully butterflying away his death in 1943. Andrews was a Marshall protege. Andrews was also a USAAF General so he could be Hap Arnold's man in the Pacific. The way I see it have Andrews start out in the southwest Pacific getting the situation there stabilized. Once the Marianas are captured and the B-29s are brought online Andrews takes direct command of Twentieth Air Force and runs the air war against the Japanese home islands.
 
There was a thread that discussed this months ago. Various names were brought up. It was suggested that Admiral Thomas Hart would assume command since he was commander of the Asiatic Fleet and the most senior officer available already in theater. Hart went on to briefly command ABDA.
After Hart returns to the states it is anybody's guess. Again it was suggested the Southwest theater could eventually be put under Aussie command with Blamey as commander.
General Brett was suggested as another short term commander. Brett was already in Australia waiting for MacArthur to show up.
I think with no MacArthur Nimitz would run the war in the Pacific. As a compromise the Army basically runs the ETO as OTL. The Navy runs the PTO with less Army troops.
My suggestion is that if the Army insists it needs a General in the Pacific (in the name of inter-service rivalry) then Marshall should send Frank Andrews to the Pacific hopefully butterflying away his death in 1943. Andrews was a Marshall protege. Andrews was also a USAAF General so he could be Hap Arnold's man in the Pacific. The way I see it have Andrews start out in the southwest Pacific getting the situation there stabilized. Once the Marianas are captured and the B-29s are brought online Andrews takes direct command of Twentieth Air Force and runs the air war against the Japanese home islands.

I agree with keeping Admarial Hart, good man who followed his orders to keep the Asiatic Fleet a force in being, and not to throw it away unnecessarily. I'vet thought about a scenario where Hart goes to see MacArthur when notified of Pearl Harbor and is more aggressive about speaking to Douglas (Hart was the only person who could use MacArthur so besides his wife in the P.I. do to a lifelong family friendship) Hart finds the General catonic, calls his Fleet Surgeon, who declares the General incapicated due to a strole. Hart takes command.. Hart orders WP Orange to begin, authorizes an air strikes on the airfields of Taiwan , supported by recon from his PBY's.
 
I agree with keeping Admarial Hart, good man who followed his orders to keep the Asiatic Fleet a force in being, and not to throw it away unnecessarily. I'vet thought about a scenario where Hart goes to see MacArthur when notified of Pearl Harbor and is more aggressive about speaking to Douglas (Hart was the only person who could use MacArthur so besides his wife in the P.I. do to a lifelong family friendship) Hart finds the General catonic, calls his Fleet Surgeon, who declares the General incapicated due to a strole. Hart takes command.. Hart orders WP Orange to begin, authorizes an air strikes on the airfields of Taiwan , supported by recon from his PBY's.
In that situation I don't think that the Army would stand for Hart taking over unless it came from Washington (meaning Marshall and President Roosevelt) directly. Sutherland, MacArthur's chief of staff will still try to protect his boss. If anything Wainwright would assume command. Either way by the time all this command drama is worked out the Japanese will be bombing Clark Field as OTL.

What you could have is Hart forcing Sutherland to let Wainwright take command and execute war plan orange. After that he notifies Washington of MacArthur's condition and volunteers to take the General with him out of the Philippines. The only way this works is if MacArthur doesn't "snap out of it" or really had a stroke.
 
Maybe be nice to Dougie and leave him a pistol to regain his honor?

(Please do Dougie!):evilsmile:
I would be happy with Hart slapping MacArthur:
(Hart slaps a sobbing Mac on the face)
Hart: "Get a hold of yourself man! Act like a General of the United States Army!"
MacArthur sobs softly to himself.
 
While MacArthur's staff would attempt to "protect" him, and as Army folks they would not be happy with Hart, the reality is as staff officers they were NOT in the chain of command. If Mac is out of it (wounded, dead, nervous breakdown) Hart is the senior man overall, and Wainwright is the next senior Army officer in the chain of command. The coterie of sycophants like Sutherland et al can't do much about normal succession, and it would do my heart good to see them ending up either as POWs or transferred elsewhere to languish. Given their performance in the PI as staff officers, their careers are going nowhere. They were very good at kissing Mac's butt, preventing any information that would contradict his prejudices from coming forward, and crushing anyone who dared to say bad things about mac or his strategy or policies. Absent Mac, nobody would be interested in having them around.
 
What if PT-41 is lost with all hands during the storm on the night of March 12-13 1942?

- would the administration keep the news secret, and/or pretend MacArthur is alive and well in Australia for as long as possible?
- if the news is released, how does the loss of MacArthur impact US moral?
- who takes his place as ground commander in the pacific?
- what is the impact to the pacific campaigns (e.g., are the Philippines bypassed)?
- what is the impact to the Korean War?

Ric350
World peace and the end of poverty
 

Driftless

Donor
While MacArthur's staff would attempt to "protect" him, and as Army folks they would not be happy with Hart, the reality is as staff officers they were NOT in the chain of command. If Mac is out of it (wounded, dead, nervous breakdown) Hart is the senior man overall, and Wainwright is the next senior Army officer in the chain of command. The coterie of sycophants like Sutherland et al can't do much about normal succession, and it would do my heart good to see them ending up either as POWs or transferred elsewhere to languish. Given their performance in the PI as staff officers, their careers are going nowhere. They were very good at kissing Mac's butt, preventing any information that would contradict his prejudices from coming forward, and crushing anyone who dared to say bad things about mac or his strategy or policies. Absent Mac, nobody would be interested in having them around.

What are some of the better done alternate timelines where Mac is out of command? I'm sure this scenario has played out here numerous times, so I'm fishing for the (subjective) cream-of-the-crop ;)

THere's this one: What if Mac is captured?
 
Last edited:
Top