lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 2, 2024 15:38:16 GMT
So now we have World War III in 1950, if MacArthur dropped the bomb in 1945 and if he won a second term in 1948.  If he uses the nukes AND FOLLOWS GEORGE PATTONS IDEA OF USING THE HUGE US MILITARY IN EUROPE TO MOP UP WHAT REMAINS OF THE RED ARMY he kills the monster COMMUNISM before Joe is handed the A bomb by the traitors woking the Manhattan project. Soviets blasted back to the Stone Age means Mao and his genocidal followers are defeated and therefore will not be the threat to Western civilization they ARE NOW so no COLD WAR! The eastern Block slave "People's Republics" are free to decide their own destiny. They're Arte NO wars of "National Liberation", fueled by Soviet might. This allows people to continue on their path to independence in a more natural way than under communist puppet leaders. Africa has a chance to actually mature into civilized western style nations as does South America. The Middle East is not supplied with the vast quantity of weapons that allowed their natural genocidal hatreds the scope they had cubed the Soviets. Western Civilization continues to dominate this planet and its benefits are spread throughout the so called 3rd world. Blood Treasure and attention of the major power, the USA, is not wasted on war. NO NATO so the euros have to defend themselves. To bad Patton is not alive, sure think MacArthur would have unleash him in Korea and China. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Sept 2, 2024 23:23:53 GMT
Korea in the OTL had ROE's based on abject fear the ChiComms and the Soviets would jump in. IMOI, FWIW, my good friend In this ATL there would be no nations divided by artificial demarkations so no reason for wars. Also without the NATO and Soviet Blocks armed to the teeth even with Nukes just maybe the UN could fulfill its noble purpose. 1. There security council members provided the muscle and the general assembly provide the morale consent of the world influence the already long past utility of colonies into independent sates. The Muscle would be necessary to keep the internal factions from killing the babay nations long enough for them to handle their own affairs. 2. Make international aggression much less likely because the USA and other major powers of the Security council would be the hammer used by the UN to make the aggressors life a living hell and therefore not worth their aggression. 3. Without NATO vs The Soviets collective action for the best of the people of earth would have a chance. 4. Without Soviet muscle Mao would never get to commit the genocide he did AND his failure would substantially reduce foreign communists from taking on Tyler legitimate governments of developing nations. OK I'm Naive but I think the UN could have been a real force for the betterment of mankind given half a chance. That chance was never given by the COLD WAR.  and post WW II use it's influence to materially ease the transition from colonial status to Independednt nations |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 2, 2024 23:26:54 GMT
So now we have World War III in 1950, if MacArthur dropped the bomb in 1945 and if he won a second term in 1948. If he uses the nukes AND FOLLOWS GEORGE PATTONS IDEA OF USING THE HUGE US MILITARY IN EUROPE TO MOP UP WHAT REMAINS OF THE RED ARMY he kills the monster COMMUNISM before Joe is handed the A bomb by the traitors woking the Manhattan project. Soviets blasted back to the Stone Age means Mao and his genocidal followers are defeated and therefore will not be the threat to Western civilization they ARE NOW so no COLD WAR! The eastern Block slave "People's Republics" are free to decide their own destiny. They're Arte NO wars of "National Liberation", fueled by Soviet might. This allows people to continue on their path to independence in a more natural way than under communist puppet leaders. Africa has a chance to actually mature into civilized western style nations as does South America. The Middle East is not supplied with the vast quantity of weapons that allowed their natural genocidal hatreds the scope they had cubed the Soviets. Western Civilization continues to dominate this planet and its benefits are spread throughout the so called 3rd world. Blood Treasure and attention of the major power, the USA, is not wasted on war. NO NATO so the euros have to defend themselves.
That path is probably bloodier than OTL WWII as you have multiple nukes dropped on Soviet population centres while massive battles are waged across an already battered Europe and elsewhere in the world. Many more people will feel sympathy for the people of the devastated lands and also a lot for communist ideas after such a massive bloodbath and betrayal of a war time ally, US losses would also be huge as the Red army won't go down without a fight and it has a hell of a lot of men and equipment already in central Europe.
Also is MacArthur attacking the Soviets before the Japanese are forced to surrender or waiting until afterwards. He can't do it until several months after Germany is defeated unless that is somehow delayed OTL while means he's got to find some excuse to keep the large US forces in Europe rather than demolishing them or sending some to the Pacific as OTL. Not going to be easy saying "I'm keeping a massive force ready to attack our war time allies as soon as some lethal new weapons - which no one knows for sure will work until the Trinity test - are available.
Then there's the aftermath with much of Europe and Asia further devastated and in disorder. From your comment about no NATO I presume your planning on leaving the survivors to pick up after the mess MacArthur made. Going to be very bad for US business with no one to sell to and most people viewing them - or at least the current leadership as some sort of rabid dogs. He would go down as an even worse Genghis Khan.
China I don't know what would happen. Sending ground troops into a quagmire there would be a hell of a task, as well as undermining the KMT as western lackeys while you start nuking places there and you definitely alienate everybody. Mao might be defeated but he might not as US attacks prompt more and more people to rally to him.
In reality I can't see MacArthur getting away with such insanity. There are too many checks and balances in the US system plus also I can't see the bulk of the US population or military going along with such behaviour.
In the unlikely event of such a POD and following MacArthur Presidential victory I could see him seeking to play hardball with Stalin but how that would work out I don't know? Thing there would be a vastly different Yalta Conference here if one at all.
The sort of mass death campaign won't be practical materials until a lot more nukes are available so what happens happens to keep the US armed to the teeth until then? Then makes them go into kill mode. Also even Churchill would be unlikely to support such a programme and he's likely to be replaced by a Labour government as OTL and they definitely won't support such a policy.
The suggested idea, as well as being a mass death scenario, both in terms of millions, possibly tens of millions killed in the supposed fighting and then the far vaster numbers left to survive in the chaotic hellhole that would be left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 4, 2024 14:20:07 GMT
That works for me. If he uses the nukes AND FOLLOWS GEORGE PATTONS IDEA OF USING THE HUGE US MILITARY IN EUROPE TO MOP UP WHAT REMAINS OF THE RED ARMY he kills the monster COMMUNISM before Joe is handed the A bomb by the traitors woking the Manhattan project. Soviets blasted back to the Stone Age means Mao and his genocidal followers are defeated and therefore will not be the threat to Western civilization they ARE NOW so no COLD WAR! The eastern Block slave "People's Republics" are free to decide their own destiny. They're Arte NO wars of "National Liberation", fueled by Soviet might. This allows people to continue on their path to independence in a more natural way than under communist puppet leaders. Africa has a chance to actually mature into civilized western style nations as does South America. The Middle East is not supplied with the vast quantity of weapons that allowed their natural genocidal hatreds the scope they had cubed the Soviets. Western Civilization continues to dominate this planet and its benefits are spread throughout the so called 3rd world. Blood Treasure and attention of the major power, the USA, is not wasted on war. NO NATO so the euros have to defend themselves. To bad Patton is not alive, sure think MacArthur would have unleash him in Korea and China. ITTL he may never have had the car accident which killed him, so it seems not out.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 4, 2024 15:59:17 GMT
To bad Patton is not alive, sure think MacArthur would have unleash him in Korea and China. ITTL he may never have had the car accident which killed him, so it seems not out.
Plus OTL that wasn't until Dec 45 so if somehow this idea became possible the war between the US and USSR would be in full steam by then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 4, 2024 20:51:16 GMT
oscssw, as difficult as it may look like, defeating the "Bolshies" after WW1 would still be more feasible than what you suggest. In case someone's interested in what my ideas about Wallace as short time POTUS are: {Spoiler}He fires Stimson, welcomes Stalin as an ally against Japan, and forces the European Allies to give up their colonies in the Americas (except Newfoundland and the Falklands) in exchange for all the weapons and money they received during the war. So Wallace can proclaim that the American continent was free from colonialism now.
Of course he faces opposition from up to 90% of the people for this, and even breaks with his own party, going back to the Progressives as their candidate. They still lose badly.
When his presidency threatens to endanger the progress of the war, the Republican POTUS-elect decides to take the reigns on December 4th (hey, FDR set a precedent). Which becomes the new day futures POTUSes take over the government.
Wallace still gets an official portrait in the White House, but his successors prefer to hide it behind a scarlet curtain and talk as little about him as possible.
"Henry" was in the Top 50 of names for boys during the 1940s, but now it becomes almost as rare as "Benedict" in the US.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 5, 2024 13:37:17 GMT
oscssw , as difficult as it may look like, defeating the "Bolshies" after WW1 would still be more feasible than what you suggest. In case someone's interested in what my ideas about Wallace as short time POTUS are: {Spoiler}He fires Stimson, welcomes Stalin as an ally against Japan, and forces the European Allies to give up their colonies in the Americas (except Newfoundland and the Falklands) in exchange for all the weapons and money they received during the war. So Wallace can proclaim that the American continent was free from colonialism now.
Of course he faces opposition from up to 90% of the people for this, and even breaks with his own party, going back to the Progressives as their candidate. They still lose badly.
When his presidency threatens to endanger the progress of the war, the Republican POTUS-elect decides to take the reigns on December 4th (hey, FDR set a precedent). Which becomes the new day futures POTUSes take over the government.
Wallace still gets an official portrait in the White House, but his successors prefer to hide it behind a scarlet curtain and talk as little about him as possible.
"Henry" was in the Top 50 of names for boys during the 1940s, but now it becomes almost as rare as "Benedict" in the US.
That sounds more practical and could explain a Republican victory in the election. Stalin was already technically an ally although I assume your suggesting something more? Can't see him going to war with Japan until the war with Germany is defeated.
What is supposed to happen to all those colonies? Their got no real structure ready in most/possibly all cases for any independent government so this would be a recipe for chaos. Possibly some agreement for a speedy move towards independence in say 5 years or so at least I would say. Might have a better chance with offers for some colonies in the Far and Middle east. Still going to be deeply unpopular with Churchill and De Gaule especially but given Washington's whip hand in terms of war debts, provided Wallace can get Wall Street to agree. Especially for those currently under Japanese occupation as long as economic interests there are protected.
Mind you by the sound of this such agreements may just about be agreed or still in negotiation when the Republicans win.
I doubt an hand-over immediately in November but probably in January, which was IIRC the precedent FDR set. - Actually that seems to be wrong as according to wiki, in 32 at least he didn't assume power until March 33, as was traditional.
If MacArthur took over in January then its going to be an interesting 180 in relations with the USSR but how far would he be willing to go and how quickly. He can't simply declare that after Germany and Japan are defeated he intends to destroy the USSR, or even drive them back to their pre September 39 borders. The Red army is already deep into Poland and advancing rapidly through the Balkans and there appears to still be a lot of fighting against Germany and Japan. Plus the US even more than Britain I think has spent 3 years seeking to present the Russians as gallant allies and good friends and the idea of another massive war after the Axis are defeated is not going to be attracted to the American people, let alone other powers in the alliance.
Its likely that the new President would meet Stalin in some equivalent of the OTL Yalta Conference but what does he say and do there? Can he organise some incident that will trigger a US-Soviet war where it looks like the Soviets are responsible and can he do it say shortly after Germany surrenders? Before that is impractical and he can't wait too long after it because of the demands to demobilize both a lot of the men in Europe as well as changing at least some of wartime industry and restrictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 8, 2024 1:09:01 GMT
Well, I was planning to use this in a special TL.
Re: MacArthur - I think he wouldn't be able to run in 1944, for the same reason as IOTL - he has a war to run. And frankly, IMO it's better if he won't become POTUS.
|
|
