Switch Eisenhower and MacArthur, how does WWII proceed?

IF Mac got the gig, would he have brought his familiar staff with him to Europe? Generals Sutherland, Willoughby, and some of the "Bataan Boys"?

British Intelligence would have raised hell with Churchill to not allow the German-born Willoughby, earlier known as Adolf Charles Weidenbach (MacArthur called him my "pet fascist"), to be involved in the European theater in any way, shape or form. Churchill would have gone to Roosevelt (or CIGS Brooke would have gone to Marshall) about this. Willoughby would have remained in the United States.
 

Driftless

Donor
British Intelligence would have raised hell with Churchill to not allow the German-born Willoughby, earlier known as Adolf Charles Weidenbach (MacArthur called him my "pet fascist"), to be involved in the European theater in any way, shape or form. Churchill would have gone to Roosevelt (or CIGS Brooke would have gone to Marshall) about this. Willoughby would have remained in the United States.

From what I've read of Willoughby/Wiedenbach; quite a number of American commanders below Mac's staff level would have been content for Willoughby to sit the war out in a Japanese POW camp.
 
It was not just a matter of who could manage fractious allies. Marshall appointed Eisenhower because Ike was the smartest general he had. Eisenhower had strategic sense and honed it to a high pitch during the war. MacArthur had very bad strategic sense, as shown by his inept strategy for defending the Philippines and then his strategy for focussing on reconquering the Philippines (a personal ego obsession that ignored far more important goals). And then his foolishness in sending troops to the Chinese border in the Korean war rather than just pushing the North Koreans back in a manner that would end their adventurism but not force the Chinese to get involved. He would have been a disaster as supreme commander in Europe. Among other things, he'd surround himself with second-raters. No Bradley or Patton need apply. In the case of Patton, Ike understood him like a psychiatrist--he knew when and where to unleash George's unique talents. MacArthur would have buried George in an insignificant job.
Just pushing North Korea back to the previous common border it's not the way American and most other countries fought during the early 2 mid 20th century. So I guess everybody would have been happy if we just pushed Germany back to its original borders I don't think so. Had MacArthur had his way in Korea we wouldn't we wouldn't be worried about about the north having nukes. There would be no North.
 
Just pushing North Korea back to the previous common border it's not the way American and most other countries fought during the early 2 mid 20th century. So I guess everybody would have been happy if we just pushed Germany back to its original borders I don't think so. Had MacArthur had his way in Korea we wouldn't we wouldn't be worried about about the north having nukes. There would be no North.

Oh they could have just taken Pyongyang. It was going up towards the border with China, which didn't yet have troops in the fight, that was truly reckless. The war in Korea was not a full-fledged war; the comparison to the total war against Nazi Germany is not apt. It could be argued that MacArthur's attempting to "have his way" resulted in the current situation--a North Korea with nukes. It could also be argued that the Chinese weren't exactly eager to go into North Korea and if the U.S. had shown more restraint they wouldn't have. Furthermore, in the 20th century there are many examples of less than total victory: the Poles forced the Bolsheviks back after World War One but did not pursue them; the Western alliance did not occupy Germany at the end of WW I (a war in which MacArthur fought); George H.W. Bush forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait but did not overthrow him; Stalin did not overthrow the Finnish state after the Winter War but just took territory and demanded reparations; the Paraguayans did not seek total victory over Bolivia in the Chaco War--they just wanted them out of their country. Was the U.S. different in Korea because of its size? It had largely disarmed after WW II and had to scramble to prepare for even this limited action.
 
Last edited:
Oh they could have taken Pyongyang. It was going up towards the border with China, which didn't yet have troops in the fight, that was truly reckless. The war in Korea was not a full-fledged war; the comparison to the total war against Nazi Germany is not apt. It could be argued that MacArthur's attempting to "have his way" resulted in the current situation--a North Korea with nukes. It could also be argued that the Chinese weren't exactly eager to go into North Korea and if the U.S. had shown more restraint they wouldn't have. Furthermore, in the 20th century there are many examples of less than total victory: the Poles forced the Bolsheviks back after World War One but did not pursue them; the Western alliance did not occupy Germany at the end of WW I (a war in which MacArthur fought); George H.W. Bush forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait but did not overthrow him; Stalin did not overthrow the Finnish state after the Winter War but just took territory and demanded reparations; the Paraguayans did not seek total victory over Bolivia in the Chaco War--they just wanted them out of their country. Was the U.S. different in Korea because of its size? It had largely disarmed after WW II and had to scramble to prepare for even this limited action.
To be more specific I think the straw that broke the camel's back when it came to China getting involved in Korea was crossing the Yalu. Mac was pretty negligent when it came to preparing for a potential Chinese response. Even when UN forces got whacked by the 1st Phase Offensive he wasn't worried. To say that he got caught caught with his pants down by the 2nd Phase would be an understatement.
 
So I guess everybody would have been happy if we just pushed Germany back to its original borders I don't think so.

Way to compare two completely disparate situations. This is basically a non-sequitor.

Had MacArthur had his way in Korea we wouldn't we wouldn't be worried about about the north having nukes. There would be no North.

What nonsense. MacArthur did get his way in Korea with a pell mell advance to the Yalu. The Chinese pushed his shit in as a result. The military disaster the US Army suffered against the Chinese rests on MacArthur’s head.
 
Way to compare two completely disparate situations. This is basically a non-sequitor.



What nonsense. MacArthur did get his way in Korea with a pell mell advance to the Yalu. The Chinese pushed his shit in as a result. The military disaster the US Army suffered against the Chinese rests on MacArthur’s head.

Would never have happened under Patton's watch, he would have given one of his swearing littered speeches and pulverized the Chinese. Patton was always worried about a 'lack of war' because he would be out of a job.
 
Would never have happened under Patton's watch, he would have given one of his swearing littered speeches and pulverized the Chinese. Patton was always worried about a 'lack of war' because he would be out of a job.

Amusing, but in seriousness Patton probably wouldn't have let the Army's discipline go to pieces like MacArthur did. He would have done what Ridgeway ultimately did and replaced all the deadwood with officers who actually knew proper field skills. That would indeed have made a pretty big difference against the Chinese attack.
 
Top