was 1948 a poisoned chalice?

[kodak]

In the US, the elections of 1928 and 1976 were essentially doomed to be full of bad times and economic and diplomatic woes for the winner, and are generally referred to as poisoned chalice elections.

Considering Truman had one of the most controversial presidencies ever and he polled at 22% at one point in 1952 (the lowest rate ever from what I can find), was his second term from 1949-1953 doomed to be bad between Korea, and the various domestic and foreign incidents that marked it?

 

[Indicus]

I doubt it. It was only so bad for Truman because the Democrats had held the presidency for five terms. In any case, Dewey would most likely be reelected even if Korea still went bad, although by a modest margin, say, 370 or so.

 

[Emperor Julian]

A Republican might bomb the fuck out of Korea and avoid a controversy with MacArthur.

 

[dw93]

I personally don't think so. Korea and the fact that as someone else stated, that the Democrats had held the White House for 20 years is what made it rough for Truman. If Dewey won in '48, unless he really messed up, he'd probably be re elected. 1928, 1976, and in my opinion, 2004 are better examples of poisoned chalices.

 

[Kaiser K]

Not necessarily, the Democrats could have theoretically won 1952 if Eisenhower hadn't been the Republican candidate, even after everything that happened in Truman's second term.

 

[Magnum]

How about Dewez wins '48, and then the Democrats convince Ike to run on their ticket in '52, after the latter is disappointed by Korea?

 

[Tovarich]

A Republican might bomb the fuck out of Korea and avoid a controversy with MacArthur.

The US already did 'bomb the fuck out of Korea' OTL.

The level of devastation was so great that to this day people in the DPRK are more frightened of the US than they'll ever be of the Kims, and the Kims don't even have to try very hard to keep them that way.

I doubt unleashing MacArthur could've added much to the appalling mess left behind.

 

[thekingsguard]

I personally don't think so. Korea and the fact that as someone else stated, that the Democrats had held the White House for 20 years is what made it rough for Truman. If Dewey won in '48, unless he really messed up, he'd probably be re elected. 1928, 1976, and in my opinion, 2004 are better examples of poisoned chalices.

This pretty much. So long as Korea doesn't become a total clusterfuck, most of the events of this period are manageable, and for a President, survivable.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

And, there's a possibility Korea wouldn't even happen - if the North decides the U.S. is too willing to defend the South, they might choose not to invade.

That brings up another interesting point, though - would N. Korea invade later then? Or, would they just settle into a period akin to East and West Germany wheret they are content to stare across the border at each other without a war?

 

[Derek Jackson]

And, there's a possibility Korea wouldn't even happen - if the North decides the U.S. is too willing to defend the South, they might choose not to invade.

That brings up another interesting point, though - would N. Korea invade later then? Or, would they just settle into a period akin to East and West Germany wheret they are content to stare across the border at each other without a war?

Note also South Korea was led by a less than perfectly democratic Nationalist

WI the South invaded?

 

[An Oklahoman]

The US already did 'bomb the fuck out of Korea' OTL.

The level of devastation was so great that to this day people in the DPRK are more frightened of the US than they'll ever be of the Kims, and the Kims don't even have to try very hard to keep them that way.

I doubt unleashing MacArthur could've added much to the appalling mess left behind.

I highly doubt the majority of modern North Koreans fear the us because we "bombed the fuck out of Korea." Given that the majority of northern Koreans were born after the Korean war, I think it's more so the perpetual fear mongering of the North Korean government and false horror stories that the DPRK govt. spews forth to keep their people afraid of the "bogeyman USA."

 

[An Oklahoman]

No such thing as Inevitability

The thing is, with all due respect, I personally don't buy into the "poisoned chalice" theory. Nothing is predetermined in history. Rather it is people's actions or lack thereof that determines the ultimate outcome of history. Of course there are events that are beyond the control of the President, but ultimately it is how the President reacts that makes the difference.

 

[AdmiralBlake]

In my view yes

1892, 1928, 1948, 1976 and 2004 were all poisoned chalices

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Unless we stopped at the 48th parallel, Korea was always going to become a mess. The Chinese were not going to let North Korea be overrun in 1950 and since nobody took the Chinese seriously or credited them as a independent actor from the Soviet Union, that was bound to be a military catastrophe. Attacking the Chinese directly would have prompted an even more pro-longed and costly war then the OTL Korean War. And attacking the Chinese with nukes probably would have been the trigger for WW3.

 

[Tovarich]

I highly doubt the majority of modern North Koreans fear the us because we "bombed the fuck out of Korea." Given that the majority of northern Koreans were born after the Korean war, I think it's more so the perpetual fear mongering of the North Korean government and false horror stories that the DPRK govt. spews forth to keep their people afraid of the "bogeyman USA."

Yes, and the reason that 'fear mongering' is so successful and easy is because the horror stories aren't actually false, merely in the past a bit.

Contemporary USA isn't the same as 1950 USA, happy to just destroy 85% of North Korea from the air because 'they're just commie gooks', I know that and you know that.

But it still happened.

 

[1940LaSalle]

And, there's a possibility Korea wouldn't even happen - if the North decides the U.S. is too willing to defend the South, they might choose not to invade.

That brings up another interesting point, though - would N. Korea invade later then? Or, would they just settle into a period akin to East and West Germany wheret they are content to stare across the border at each other without a war?

You raise a good point: with the GOP in the White House after the '48 election, you'd have John Foster Dulles as SecState, and he stood for no nonsense from the communist bloc of the day. I doubt Pyongyang would have tried to challenge US foreign policy if it were led by Dulles rather than Acheson, since (I suspect!) they'd have a pretty fair idea of what might happen.

Later than that? By, say, the mid-1950s, Seoul has had enough time to consolidate its position so that the notion of a grab by the North would be rather unpalatable. I'd suspect it'll degenerate into a long period in which each side makes faces and rude gestures across the border at each other. (Can you imagine what might happen if a North Korean mooned a South Korean?)