Stahlheim wrote:
Suppose the DPRK never decided to invade South Korea or the Korean War ended on a much more decisively victorious note with full reunification under Seoul without Chinese intervention.
Lots of ‘what-ifs’ for Korea but I’ll point out that to anyone watching at the time SOMEONE was going to start something as both sides were fully involved in “re-uniting” Korea. The US in fact withdrew large amounts of WWII equipment from the South because they were aware that Rhee would use it no matter who technically “owned” it. (In fact while on paper as being ‘redeployed’ to Japan the majority was dumped off-shore)
Either way, Harry Truman decides to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and run for a third term in 1952, noting that the great socioeconomic reforms promised in his "Fair Deal agenda" has yet to be fulfilled. Dwight Eisenhower declines to challenge a sitting former President and in a sudden revival of the conservative wing, Robert Taft wins the GOP nomination. After a grueling campaign in which Taft alienates many traditional GOP voters with coded appeals in favour of "States' Rights" without winning too many compensating ballots in the South, Truman is elected to a third term. How does this Truman administration go?
Eisenhower isn’t going to back down as long as Taft insists on following isolationist policies. Had he simply agreed to consider, (note Ike didn’t ask him to actually promise to DO so, just to consider doing so) keeping to the “common defense” policy for Europe Ike would have not run. Anything less and Ike’s going to run or find an internationalist Republican to do so and since the majority of the Republican party agreed with Ike…
Some possibilities:
-Especially without the problems of OTL Korean War, President Truman is far more openly critical of Joe McCarthy possibly hastening his downfall.
Note without the Korean war McCarthy actually doesn’t have enough popular fear to push his agenda. He can get some general traction from anti-Communism but without the ups and downs of Korea the second Red Scare had been on the decline by 1950. In general though it can and will still be used if possible as a political tactic since it was a Republican talking point since the end of WWII. It just won’t be as bad or as dependent on one individual as it was OTL. Eisenhower was already calling HUAC to task for overzealous reaction in 1947 and most Republican’s agreed with him
-Truman was much more skeptical of foreign intervention in places like Iran and Guatemala, thus he may take a more consistently anticolonialist stance boosting America's image in the Third World compared to OTL.
Take this with a rather large grain of salt though. Truman was just as willing to use US force to re-shape the world because he, like every President saw everything BUT what was going on in Europe as a ‘side-show’ which needed to be settled (in America’s favor) quickly, quietly and especially cheaply. Keep in mind he’d overseen the creation of the CIA in part to have a ‘direct action’ ability short of the use of the US military. Iran was in support of the British, (and it can be argued that they actually did more of the planning and execution with the US as a ‘cut-out/fall-guy’ if things went bad) and it’s just as likely Dulles will use it to convince Truman to intervene in Guatemala in the same way as OTL. (Having Iran fail mind you would likely lead to more care in intervening with Guatemala and quite possibly no Bay of Pigs at all which has major butterflies)
-Truman probably continues to push for Taft-Hartley repeal, national health insurance, and similar social reforms but I'm not sure if they would pass without large Democratic congressional majorities.
Less general fear of Communism would mean there would be less pressure to oppose such measures with the proper planning. Americans were and are in fact generally supportive of such efforts but when any suggestion of ‘Socialism’ (and by that they meant Communism) is knee-jerk opposed and grounds for questioning ones loyalty…
-Richard Nixon is somewhat less publicly prominent compared to OTL without being Vice President though he of course remains a talented and ambitious politician
He was an off-the-cuff suggested candidate for the 1946 election which arguably was likely to end in the Democrats defeat anyway. The main problem was the Congressional committee couldn’t find consensus on any known candidate but compromise had been close severeal times during the meeting.
-OTOH, I wonder if a longer Truman administration with abovementioned effects on the Red Scare might keep Ronald Reagan a labour liberal (albeit a very anticommunist one). Perhaps Reagan decides to challenge Richard Nixon for his US Senate seat from California in 1956...
Reagan supported both FDR and Truman and was pro-business as well as anti-Communist so it’s arguable his politics wouldn’t change all that much. His change came in 1952 but by 1950 he was already a member of the ‘right-wing” branch of the Democrats so it’s not likely Truman serving longer will change that since in part it was Truman’s positions which contributed to the change despite his initial support.
Something to keep in mind with a longer Truman Presidency and no Korean war is that Truman’s budget policy prior to 1950 was to spend on domestic funding first and primarily and then spend ‘whatever’ was left over on the military with the primary being given to the Air Force and, (as the only service capable of delivery of the same) atomic weapons development. OTL at the outbreak of the Korean war Truman ordered the US Navy to blockade North Korea only to be informed that he had so reduced the Navy by this point they had neither the manpower nor ships available to do so. And this was just as true of the Army as well as it was under-equipped, lacked training and there was a dire shortage of transport available to move troops and equipment. Without the Korean war there was no incentive for Truman to stop this downsizing and in fact Truman’s Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson had said in 1949 that there was no need of either a Navy or Marines, (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals) with the advent of atomic weapons and the Air Force. (This did not mean the Army got a free ride either as it was seen as ONLY a defensive force)
Now mind you from 1946 to the middle of 1949 the mostly Republican Congress actually agreed with this since they saw the budget deficit as the greatest “enemy” of the US, (stop me if this sounds familiar) and that the over-large US military should bear the brunt of cuts and downsizing. They only began to push back when those cuts began to have significant effects in their own backyards. (The plan to take away Marine Corps aviation and later Naval aviation and give them to the Air Force caused some political concern. See above) The outcome in 1949 was the Navy LOST that battle and had no Korea happened they would have lost their carriers and likely the Marine corps would have been de-commissioned soon after. (Maybe, that literally takes an act of Congress to do)
And before you think things changed when Eisenhower came around you’d be wrong. Once the US was out of Korea he again prioritized the Air Force and atomic weapons over the Navy and Army and in fact was planning even MORE cuts to both since now with missiles we didn’t even really need that much of an Air Force and the CIA could take care of the ‘small’ stuff…
As a side-note there was a good reason why MacArthur didn’t run for any office OTL, nobody really wanted him as a politician and it’s not likely he’d be able to ‘manage’ a political campaign. He had a “high” approval rating with the public but not so much anyone in power or the military and that would have been used against him in any campaign. And Eisenhower did not want to run and the only reason he agreed to do so was because Taft as above. I’d add that he was never going to seriously consider taking a back-seat to Truman and frankly Truman only considered offering him the primary spot in 1948 because he, (and most everyone else) didn’t think he could win against Dewey. More to the fact Eisenhower and Dewey were friends and Dewey was the one who suggested the Republican’s talk to Ike. I’ll also point out that Truman was in fact specifically exempted from the 22nd Amendment as he was covered by the ‘grandfather’ clause in that act and this had been agreed upon before it was even presented to Congress. So it would never get to any court in the first place.
If MacArthur had used his “Old Soldier” speech to announce a run for office you would have seen a lot of people sitting in silence with no applause or support. They DID applaud him BECAUSE they knew what he was going to say in advance and he’d agreed NOT to seek office. Neither the GOP or Democrats would have accepted him as a candidate, yes he’d burned that many bridges already. Now having said that he “might” have been acceptable as a Vice Presidential candidate but only barely as at the time “Vice President” was literally and figuratively seen as a “back-up President” and generally neither involved or included in high level discussions and decisions.
Truman knew this well as he’d been only marginally involved in the majority of FDR’s polices and decisions and had to be extensively briefed on what the hell was going on when FDR died. Part of the reason he even entertained the idea of asking Eisenhower to run (as President mind you while he’d be Vice President) was because he’d hoped to remain President in everything but name but that’s not how Ike worked. (in fact when Ike was elected he greatly expanded and used Nixon as VP in ways that had never been done before. Including him in policy making and decisions which was one reason his lack of support for Nixon’s campaign out of proportionally affected Nixon’s elect-ability)
As to what a MacArthur Presidency would look like I’d suggest an actual topic on it as GETTING him there is a journey that may be ASB itself
Randy[/quote]
