oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Feb 18, 2021 20:06:58 GMT
"The Yalu disaster was completely predictable. The intelligence failure was the result of a policy maker’s determination that intelligence support his preconceived views, not challenge them. It is a timeless lesson."
Interesting and depressing condemnation of MacArthur and his mode of operation.  Sounds like a very good job that Truman later fired him and his plans for political office came to nothing.
It seems that Mao committed himself to Chinese intervention once the Inchon landing prompted the collapse of the NK forces. As such your still going to get attacks and given the coming winter, which the UN forces didn't seem fully prepared for plus the terrain and logistical issues you mentioned would have caused them problems but if MacArthur wasn't such an idiot it would have been markedly better for the UN forces and worse for the communists. The latter would have continued upping the ante I suspect and forced the defenders back some way but I suspect you might have avoided the 2nd occupation of Seoul and made a bigger imbalance in the losses of the two sides than OTL. Probably a shorter shooting war as well and perhaps SK being somewhat larger, which would make the capital more secure.
Have to agree with you Steve.
So for my alternate timeline to work I have to get rid of Mac After Inchon but before the UN crosses the 38th parallel. I guess, given his age and the strain of war, he might just get so sick he would have to be replaced. The question is by who? In the OTL Gen. Matthew Ridgeway took over but only after the ChiComs invaded and he did very well all things considered.
I think, as a parachute general, he would be far less likely to screw up the Intel. He would also be well versed in fighting outnumbered. Given that he KNEW he was not God he would be open to setting up the defensive line at the Korea neck. Omar Bradley thought very highly of him. Does not hurt to have a "Godfather" who is also Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Well that's it for now. I am open to ideas on how to make this work.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836 
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Feb 19, 2021 10:58:56 GMT
Interesting and depressing condemnation of MacArthur and his mode of operation. Sounds like a very good job that Truman later fired him and his plans for political office came to nothing.
It seems that Mao committed himself to Chinese intervention once the Inchon landing prompted the collapse of the NK forces. As such your still going to get attacks and given the coming winter, which the UN forces didn't seem fully prepared for plus the terrain and logistical issues you mentioned would have caused them problems but if MacArthur wasn't such an idiot it would have been markedly better for the UN forces and worse for the communists. The latter would have continued upping the ante I suspect and forced the defenders back some way but I suspect you might have avoided the 2nd occupation of Seoul and made a bigger imbalance in the losses of the two sides than OTL. Probably a shorter shooting war as well and perhaps SK being somewhat larger, which would make the capital more secure.
Have to agree with you Steve.
So for my alternate timeline to work I have to get rid of Mac After Inchon but before the UN crosses the 38th parallel. I guess, given his age and the strain of war, he might just get so sick he would have to be replaced. The question is by who? In the OTL Gen. Matthew Ridgeway took over but only after the ChiComs invaded and he did very well all things considered.
I think, as a parachute general, he would be far less likely to screw up the Intel. He would also be well versed in fighting outnumbered. Given that he KNEW he was not God he would be open to setting up the defensive line at the Korea neck. Omar Bradley thought very highly of him. Does not hurt to have a "Godfather" who is also Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Well that's it for now. I am open to ideas on how to make this work.
Illness or some accident could be a way of doing it. Or could someone, probably most likely Truman, finds out how delusional MacArthur is and how he seems to be ignoring a lot of warnings. Although given his popularity at the moment removing Mac would be a big and probably a deeply unpopular call for him.
I might have suggested an accident near the front but then it sounds like he rarely left Japan so that would be difficult but you might have something. Or while it would be a wild card some Japanese extremist angry at his behaviour during the war or position as governor of Japan attacks him. Not necessarily fatally but injured enough he has to withdraw from an active role. That, in this time period, would also be a reason for the UN army to halt or reduce offensive activity as there's some uncertainty as to what to do until a new commander takes over. A bit of a cheat possibly but it would meet your criteria quite well.
Steve
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Feb 19, 2021 15:17:59 GMT
Have to agree with you Steve.
So for my alternate timeline to work I have to get rid of Mac After Inchon but before the UN crosses the 38th parallel. I guess, given his age and the strain of war, he might just get so sick he would have to be replaced. The question is by who? In the OTL Gen. Matthew Ridgeway took over but only after the ChiComs invaded and he did very well all things considered.
I think, as a parachute general, he would be far less likely to screw up the Intel. He would also be well versed in fighting outnumbered. Given that he KNEW he was not God he would be open to setting up the defensive line at the Korea neck. Omar Bradley thought very highly of him. Does not hurt to have a "Godfather" who is also Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Well that's it for now. I am open to ideas on how to make this work.
Illness or some accident could be a way of doing it. Or could someone, probably most likely Truman, finds out how delusional MacArthur is and how he seems to be ignoring a lot of warnings. Although given his popularity at the moment removing Mac would be a big and probably a deeply unpopular call for him.
I might have suggested an accident near the front but then it sounds like he rarely left Japan so that would be difficult but you might have something. Or while it would be a wild card some Japanese extremist angry at his behaviour during the war or position as governor of Japan attacks him. Not necessarily fatally but injured enough he has to withdraw from an active role. That, in this time period, would also be a reason for the UN army to halt or reduce offensive activity as there's some uncertainty as to what to do until a new commander takes over. A bit of a cheat possibly but it would meet your criteria quite well.
Steve
Agree removal of Mac after Inchon and the hugely successful UN counter offensive, politically he was untouchable.
That said, to maximize the pause while a new CO takes over, he will have to be incapacitated very quickly.
I don't like the Japanese extremist idea. Mac would become a martyr and it might be much harder not to carry out his "Brilliant" plan for total victory. Best bet, IMO, is something undramatic like a debilitating illness requiring a long period of recuperation.
I'm having second thoughts about Ridgeway. He was the logical successor and he was on the spot so the transfer of command would be very rapid and maybe not allow the pause needed to reevaluate the intel and establish the defensive posture at the neck?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,984
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 19, 2021 15:19:51 GMT
Agree removal of Mac after Inchon and the hugely successful UN counter offensive, politically he was untouchable.
[/quote] Until he wanted to nuke China that is. |
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Feb 19, 2021 15:22:42 GMT
Agree removal of Mac after Inchon and the hugely successful UN counter offensive, politically he was untouchable.
Until he wanted to nuke China that is. [/quote] Guess he was full of pride. He did give both FDR and Truman headaches. Despite this, he's still welcomed in the Philippines for his promise of liberation as well as after he got sacked, he was welcomed as hero upon his return to the United States. I'd be surprised if Mac did not go near the Yalu. He was overconfident China would not respond in a surprise in kind. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Feb 19, 2021 16:03:25 GMT
Until he wanted to nuke China that is. Mac was not the only one to look into the possibility of using Nukes in Korea.
At a press conference on 30 November 1950, Truman was asked about the use of nuclear weapons:
Q. Mr. President, I wonder if we could retrace that reference to the atom bomb? Did we understand you clearly that the use of the atomic bomb is under active consideration?
Truman: Always has been. It is one of our weapons. .
|
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Feb 19, 2021 16:35:27 GMT
Until he wanted to nuke China that is. Mac was not the only one to look into the possibility of using Nukes in Korea.
At a press conference on 30 November 1950, Truman was asked about the use of nuclear weapons:
Q. Mr. President, I wonder if we could retrace that reference to the atom bomb? Did we understand you clearly that the use of the atomic bomb is under active consideration?
Truman: Always has been. It is one of our weapons. .
The U.S. did prepare nuclear weapons in Tinian and Okinawa incase it needed to be done. I would like to think Truman would have used it only if things were getting desperate. However, he was also considering not to escalate the conflict with the Soviets which just tested their first bomb a year prior. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Feb 19, 2021 22:14:39 GMT
Mac was not the only one to look into the possibility of using Nukes in Korea.
At a press conference on 30 November 1950, Truman was asked about the use of nuclear weapons:
Q. Mr. President, I wonder if we could retrace that reference to the atom bomb? Did we understand you clearly that the use of the atomic bomb is under active consideration?
Truman: Always has been. It is one of our weapons. .
The U.S. did prepare nuclear weapons in Tinian and Okinawa incase it needed to be done. I would like to think Truman would have used it only if things were getting desperate. However, he was also considering not to escalate the conflict with the Soviets which just tested their first bomb a year prior. RDS-1 ( AKA Joe-1 in the US intel community) was a copy of our "Fatman" weapon (thanks to Klaus Fuchs) was detonated in August of 1949. I wonder how many operational weapons the Soviets had by Dec 1950? I think the answer is ZERO.
" RDS-3 was tested on October 18, 1951, being air-dropped. It was the first such test of a nuclear device by the Soviets, known as Joe-3 in the West. It was detonated at an altitude of four hundred meters."
Source: Podvig, Pavel (ed.). "Soviet Strategic Nuclear Forces". Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
|
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Feb 20, 2021 6:45:22 GMT
The U.S. did prepare nuclear weapons in Tinian and Okinawa incase it needed to be done. I would like to think Truman would have used it only if things were getting desperate. However, he was also considering not to escalate the conflict with the Soviets which just tested their first bomb a year prior. RDS-1 ( AKA Joe-1 in the US intel community) was a copy of our "Fatman" weapon (thanks to Klaus Fuchs) was detonated in August of 1949. I wonder how many operational weapons the Soviets had by Dec 1950? I think the answer is ZERO.
" RDS-3 was tested on October 18, 1951, being air-dropped. It was the first such test of a nuclear device by the Soviets, known as Joe-3 in the West. It was detonated at an altitude of four hundred meters."
Source: Podvig, Pavel (ed.). "Soviet Strategic Nuclear Forces". Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
According to this graph, this would give us an idea how many bombs the USSR had in 1950.  |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 23, 2021 2:36:27 GMT
We don't need that graph, really. The Soviets did not have a deployable atomic bomb in December 1950. Joe-1 was more in the realms of a device.
They might be ably to jury rig one or two semi-operational bombs from their nominal total of five, but where are they going to attack? The chances of getting through to anything important in Western Europe are fairly small and anything in the CONUS is out of the question.
What are they going to do afterwards? The USA didn't have enough bombs at the time to carry out OFFTACKLE, but was ramping up production and had increasing numbers of B-36s, whilst the Soviets didn't have the MiG-17s capable of countering it.
|
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Feb 23, 2021 8:16:35 GMT
We don't need that graph, really. The Soviets did not have a deployable atomic bomb in December 1950. Joe-1 was more in the realms of a device. They might be ably to jury rig one or two semi-operational bombs from their nominal total of five, but where are they going to attack? The chances of getting through to anything important in Western Europe are fairly small and anything in the CONUS is out of the question. What are they going to do afterwards? The USA didn't have enough bombs at the time to carry out OFFTACKLE, but was ramping up production and had increasing numbers of B-36s, whilst the Soviets didn't have the MiG-17s capable of countering it. The USSR only had 5 bombs in 1950. So the Allies could chug the lost of 5 cities while the USA at this period had 300 bombs. The motherland would be saturated with atomic weapons. From the other forum regarding a 1948 World War III scenario over the Berlin Crisis, here's what I found, quoting other users. MiG-15s could shoot down a B-29. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 23, 2021 8:59:24 GMT
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Mar 1, 2021 14:58:34 GMT
I can be a cold blooded bastard when required but reading LeMay's diary entries was very disheartening. It must have been a soul searing experience to make decisions on how to get the most out of nuclear strikes. I know someone had to do it but I thank God it was not me. So I am in a bit of a quandary. I am both disgusted and impressed with LeMay.
I have always contended LeMay was the right man to create and develop SAC but the wrong man to decide to use it.
Simon, you wrote this is not your first rodeo and have been studying and thinking about "The Unthinkable" for 17+ years. What is your take on LeMay?
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Mar 1, 2021 17:31:02 GMT
Senior,
My take on LeMay is that he was the ideal man to forge and shape SAC as a weapon. It needed a real hard-arsed commander to develop the Sunday Punch and hone it to a fine edge, particularly given that it involved making new doctrine as it was learnt; there was an extra dimension to what SAC was designed for compared to WW2 strategic bombing. The sheer power that was yielded was both an awesome and terrible responsibility, in the original sense of both words.
Doing that type of job and thinking in the manner required to ultimately carry it out takes a very particular type of man and a rare one at that. Certainly a warrior. However, when you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. The decision to use the Sunday Punch would then come from a different perspective than one more divorced from the process and ideally that second type of figure is the better one to make the decision to let slip the first type, such as LeMay and Power.
For the bulk of the 1950s, that was Eisenhower and I don’t think he did a bad job of it. Detachment from the inner workings of SAC allowed him to treat it as a weapon in the arsenal and not the inevitable resort for every circumstance. Now, this may seem to grate a little against the position of the Eisenhower Administration post New Look and the definitive shift to nuclear war fighting and mass retaliation; however, Ike did manage to be the circumspect figure at the top who could manage the hawks in his administration just as much as he could those whose involvement in the “how-to” of a thermonuclear war sometimes obscured their judgement on the “why and when” of the same. It was the same approach that had worked so well in commanding the Allied Expeditionary Force and gave him a better sight of the big picture than many generals whose mastery of the battlefield art was better than his.
In the Great War, Jellicoe was given command of the Grand Fleet in part because his temperament could be relied upon; as Churchill said, he was the only man who could lose the war in one day. He was given the power, as it were, because he could be relied upon not to use it, within the scope of his role. LeMay was on a much tighter leash do a mirror image reason - that level of power is best not left in the hands of those who have made it, as their perspective is ever affected by their role in the making.
LeMay in charge of SAC sent the message to Moscow that the USA was deadly serious, but by taking the decision out of his hands, it also meant that his judgement was not very literally the ultimate one. War in all its forms is enough hell to change a man and to shift his judgement. That the Cold War never went hot is testament to all of the men at all of the levels who were prepared to do the unthinkable and, thank the Lord, never had to. I’m personally grateful to all of them.
I guess you could say that I very much agree.
|
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Jul 6, 2021 13:09:51 GMT
It is my understanding that the proximal cause for the chinese intervention in Korea was the approach to the Yalu of the UN forces. Had MacArthur stopped them 100 miles south of the Yalu, I don't believe the Chinese would have intervened.
The war wouldn't have ended at the time the UN entered and began fortifying the proposed defensive line. However, as someone else mentioned, the North Koreans would have required massive support in all forms (military, food, financial, etc.) to maintain any kind of "country". It is extremely likely that they would have been a puppet of the chinese in short order. Its entirely possible that the Chinese would have required a land corridor to the Sea of Japan between the Russian border and the rest of north Korea as the price of their assistance and then spent 10 years turning it into a port, both for commerce and for military purposes.
I supposed its possible that the Russians could have made the north koreans a puppet, but that would require facing down China over this.
Belushi TD
|
|
Sounds like a very good job that Truman later fired him and his plans for political office came to nothing. 
