WI: McCarthur has his way in Korean War
- Thread starter Bmao
- Start date
Susano
Banned
China take sofficially part in the Korean War, and sends even huger man waves. Either the UN Allies invest even more troops in the war, or they are swept away. Really, it was a right decision to sack McArthur. I dont think World War would yet happen, though. No side ha dan yinnterest in it, so to say.
Thande
Donor
It would be interesting (in the Chinese sense 
) if the US goes as far as to use nuclear weapons - which of course would not have that much effect on the actual outcome - which would in turn desensitise the world to the use of nuclear weapons, making WW3 all the more likely a few years down the road
) if the US goes as far as to use nuclear weapons - which of course would not have that much effect on the actual outcome - which would in turn desensitise the world to the use of nuclear weapons, making WW3 all the more likely a few years down the road Nothing happens as every one of the target MacArthur actually requested and was denied would later be hit during the war.
Of course it was correct to relieve MacArthur. If his interview was truthful then he deliberately committed the one action he had been specifically ordered NOT to do by his superior, thereby triggering a larger war. Many officers who have done this in history would have been grateful to simply be fired.
Of course it was correct to relieve MacArthur. If his interview was truthful then he deliberately committed the one action he had been specifically ordered NOT to do by his superior, thereby triggering a larger war. Many officers who have done this in history would have been grateful to simply be fired.
Yeah, but what if Truman gave MaCarthur the OK to bomb Chinese targets, and basically gave him a completely free hand at how to conduct the Korean campaign?
Whatever supplies or manpower MaCarthur needed, he got. THEN...what would happen?
I don't see it happening, you'd have to get a foreign policy retarded President to allow Mc Arthur to run amok. He was a prima donna, and while he did do some great things as a military leader, he wasn't well thought of by his soldiers in WWII, even if he came off looking well on the international stage. He helped Japan modernize, and gave them a foundation to become part of the international community.
His coup at Inchon was luck as much as strategy, and he defied the President, later, and caused alot of UN troops to die because of his eccentric notions of his infallibillity.
All in all, I consider him to be a liability to his country, rather than a hero. JMO
His coup at Inchon was luck as much as strategy, and he defied the President, later, and caused alot of UN troops to die because of his eccentric notions of his infallibillity.
All in all, I consider him to be a liability to his country, rather than a hero. JMO
MacArthur would cross the Yalu at Sinuiju/Dandong, and make a bee line for Anshan. From there, he'd just call in whatever he could get and go for Beijing. You'd certainly have the Chinese Civil War back going again, at least.
And a million Chinese "volunteers" fall on the UN supply lines with clubs and wipe out the invaders. 1950 nukes were not tactical weapons, the UN (read US) didn't have sufficient forces in Korea to sustain such an attack, and the USSR rolls over the Berlin Brigade & probably all of Germany.
You may get WW III, maybe not. You for sure get a worse Cold War featuring a significant defeat (or at least forced withdrawl under fire) for the West, and a greatly weakened taboo against use of nuclear weapons.
Not a pretty sight.
CalBear, actually, if that happens we probably get World War Three ending in the mid-late 1950s with the surrender of the USSR and PRC. Given the US edge in atomic weapons, air and sea power and the minor detail that the US is not recovering from 20+ million dead a few years earlier...
America attacking China at this time would have been insane. IMO, it would have galvanized Marxist forces all over the world, and distanced America from the allies it had. Personally I think it would have led to global war. Communism was still very idealistic, and conventionally well-armed, even if it didn't have the edge on nuclear weapons.
Yes, the US may possess more advanced weaponry, but manpower is a different story.
If they fought against both the PRC and the USSR, their sheer numbers might be able to overwhelm the US. China had about 600 million people at that time, while the USSR had about another 250 million or so, while the US only had about 150 million people. That's about a six and a half to one advantage, and the USSR and PRC also enjoy the advantage of a shared border.
Also, Stalin once brutally calculated that the Nazi invasion of 1941 was the equivalent of fifteen atomic bombs, so the USSR could survive a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the US. Considering the sheer landmass of the USSR, along with China, there simply wouldn't be enough targets to bomb.
Mao also calculated that even if 300 million Chinese were to die, there would still be three hundred million Chinese left to do the job. Also, if the Japanese couldn't conquer China while it was at war with itself, damned if I see how the US could once China was united under communism. I think you would need at least 15-20 million troops to keep China pacified, and I don't think the US had that kind of numbers.
So all in all, I think WWIII would have lasted even longer than WWII, possibly not ending until sometime in the 1960's, and I don't have any real idea on how it would end.
If they fought against both the PRC and the USSR, their sheer numbers might be able to overwhelm the US. China had about 600 million people at that time, while the USSR had about another 250 million or so, while the US only had about 150 million people. That's about a six and a half to one advantage, and the USSR and PRC also enjoy the advantage of a shared border.
Also, Stalin once brutally calculated that the Nazi invasion of 1941 was the equivalent of fifteen atomic bombs, so the USSR could survive a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the US. Considering the sheer landmass of the USSR, along with China, there simply wouldn't be enough targets to bomb.
Mao also calculated that even if 300 million Chinese were to die, there would still be three hundred million Chinese left to do the job. Also, if the Japanese couldn't conquer China while it was at war with itself, damned if I see how the US could once China was united under communism. I think you would need at least 15-20 million troops to keep China pacified, and I don't think the US had that kind of numbers.
So all in all, I think WWIII would have lasted even longer than WWII, possibly not ending until sometime in the 1960's, and I don't have any real idea on how it would end.
First I assume that PRC(and the USSR?) are the ones starting the world war. Second, the US has many allies which can add to the manpower figures massively while many of the Soviet Union's 'allies' will come over as soon as they think they can.
The likelihood of any nation continuing to fight, let alone effectively, after losing fifty percent of the total population is not hard to calculate. Likewise the Soviet position facing all of the former Axis AND all of the other Allies combined, when the country is missing half the generation of young men due to the little issue known as the Great Patriotic War.
The likelihood of any nation continuing to fight, let alone effectively, after losing fifty percent of the total population is not hard to calculate. Likewise the Soviet position facing all of the former Axis AND all of the other Allies combined, when the country is missing half the generation of young men due to the little issue known as the Great Patriotic War.
Yeah but whatever way it ends there is no way the Chinese and Russians are gonna end up on the White house lawn, their best hope is to keep GI's out of the Kremlin.
A US 'defeat' would be losing Europe, and losing South East Asia, the Islands (Japan, Australia etc.) are gonna be safe under the USN, no way the Russians and Chinese are going to build a navy to take down the USN, same probably applies to Africa, supplying troops in Africa via the Mid east and Suez from the Urals would be a nightmare, the only way to do it is via seatransport and the USN would scotch that. Most probably you would end up with a stalement livened up by occasiona nuclear strikes, one a week for the US, one every couple of months for the Commies, before a ceasefire is reached.
A US 'defeat' would be losing Europe, and losing South East Asia, the Islands (Japan, Australia etc.) are gonna be safe under the USN, no way the Russians and Chinese are going to build a navy to take down the USN, same probably applies to Africa, supplying troops in Africa via the Mid east and Suez from the Urals would be a nightmare, the only way to do it is via seatransport and the USN would scotch that. Most probably you would end up with a stalement livened up by occasiona nuclear strikes, one a week for the US, one every couple of months for the Commies, before a ceasefire is reached.