• What if Gen. Douglas MacArthur had refused to be relieved of duty

    From Byker@byker@do~rag.net to soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if,alt.history,us.military.army,soc.culture.usa on Sun Nov 24 12:33:33 2019
    From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

    While it wasn't made known until after his death in 1972, reportedly Pres. Harry Truman's most paranoid fear during the Korean War wasn't an escalation into WWIII. It was when he relieved Gen. Douglas MacArthur of command, and
    he feared the great I-shall-return war hero would refuse to step down, and
    the Chief Exec would have a military mutiny on hands. Being ever the dutiful soldier, MacArthur obeyed. MacArthur returned to the States to a hero's
    welcome and ticker-tape parades, while Truman was reviled and there were
    loud demands for his impeachment on Capitol Hill. His approval rating
    dropped to 23%, the lowest of any president EVER. He could only seethe as MacArthur toured the country, making patriotic, inflammatory speeches.

    He felt vindicated after what happened in France in 1958 and 1961, when the generals refused to withdraw from Algeria and France teetered on the brink
    of civil war:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfUXmOw2GC0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1958_crisis_in_France

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG8Rcr2nqbk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_putsch_of_1961

    Just think what might happen today if the Prez ordered action taken against protesting war veterans like when President Herbert Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to clear the "Bonus Army's" campsite in 1932. Army Chief of Staff Major General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks, assisted by one Major Dwight Eisenhower. The Bonus
    Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, with two
    deaths, and their shelters and belongings burned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOsIB5VMSQ

    Try that today and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would probably confront the President and say in effect, "Mr. (Mrs.?) President, we will no longer
    follow your orders." Game over...

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Dimensional Traveler@dtravel@sonic.net to soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if,alt.history,us.military.army,soc.culture.usa on Sun Nov 24 11:07:37 2019
    From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

    On 11/24/2019 10:33 AM, Byker wrote:
    While it wasn't made known until after his death in 1972, reportedly Pres. Harry Truman's most paranoid fear during the Korean War wasn't an
    escalation
    into WWIII. It was when he relieved Gen. Douglas MacArthur of command, and
    he feared the great I-shall-return war hero would refuse to step down, and the Chief Exec would have a military mutiny on hands. Being ever the
    dutiful
    soldier, MacArthur obeyed. MacArthur returned to the States to a hero's welcome and ticker-tape parades, while Truman was reviled and there were
    loud demands for his impeachment on Capitol Hill. His approval rating
    dropped to 23%, the lowest of any president EVER. He could only seethe as MacArthur toured the country, making patriotic, inflammatory speeches.

    He felt vindicated after what happened in France in 1958 and 1961, when the generals refused to withdraw from Algeria and France teetered on the brink
    of civil war:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfUXmOw2GC0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1958_crisis_in_France

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG8Rcr2nqbk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_putsch_of_1961

    Just think what might happen today if the Prez ordered action taken against protesting war veterans like when President Herbert Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to clear the "Bonus Army's" campsite in 1932. Army Chief of Staff
    Major
    General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks, assisted by one Major Dwight Eisenhower. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, with two
    deaths, and their shelters and belongings burned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOsIB5VMSQ

    Try that today and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would probably confront the President and say in effect, "Mr. (Mrs.?) President, we will no longer
    follow your orders." Game over...

    I think en masse resignations would be what happened rather than
    refusing orders and trying to stay in their positions.
    --
    "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Byker@byker@do~rag.net to soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if,alt.history,us.military.army,soc.culture.usa on Sun Nov 24 17:47:58 2019
    From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

    "Dimensional Traveler" wrote in message news:qrekdo$u0s$1@dont-email.me...

    On 11/24/2019 10:33 AM, Byker wrote:

    Try that today and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would probably confront the
    President and say in effect, "Mr. (Mrs.?) President, we will no longer
    follow your orders." Game over...

    I think en masse resignations would be what happened rather than refusing orders and trying to stay in their positions.

    The Chief Exec might take them seriously if he/she looked out an Oval Office window and stared down the barrels of a half-dozen tanks...

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Phil McGregor@aspqrz@tpg.com.au to soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if,alt.history,us.military.army,soc.culture.usa on Mon Nov 25 11:00:33 2019
    From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

    On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 17:47:58 -0600, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:

    "Dimensional Traveler" wrote in message news:qrekdo$u0s$1@dont-email.me...

    On 11/24/2019 10:33 AM, Byker wrote:

    Try that today and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would probably confront the >>> President and say in effect, "Mr. (Mrs.?) President, we will no longer
    follow your orders." Game over...

    I think en masse resignations would be what happened rather than refusing >> orders and trying to stay in their positions.

    The Chief Exec might take them seriously if he/she looked out an Oval Office >window and stared down the barrels of a half-dozen tanks...

    Maybe.

    It would also signal the end (or the beginning of the end) of anything resembling democracy in the Republic and its recreation as a Banana
    Republic or Military Dictatorship.

    I suspect that American military leaders might have understood this
    ...

    Phil McGregor
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Dimensional Traveler@dtravel@sonic.net to soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if,alt.history,us.military.army,soc.culture.usa on Sun Nov 24 19:24:54 2019
    From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

    On 11/24/2019 4:00 PM, Phil McGregor wrote:
    On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 17:47:58 -0600, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:

    "Dimensional Traveler" wrote in message news:qrekdo$u0s$1@dont-email.me... >>
    On 11/24/2019 10:33 AM, Byker wrote:

    Try that today and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would probably confront the >>>> President and say in effect, "Mr. (Mrs.?) President, we will no longer >>>> follow your orders." Game over...

    I think en masse resignations would be what happened rather than refusing >>> orders and trying to stay in their positions.

    The Chief Exec might take them seriously if he/she looked out an Oval Office >> window and stared down the barrels of a half-dozen tanks...

    Maybe.

    It would also signal the end (or the beginning of the end) of anything resembling democracy in the Republic and its recreation as a Banana
    Republic or Military Dictatorship.

    I suspect that American military leaders might have understood this
    ...

    I'm certain they understand that. A position on the Joint Chiefs is at
    least as much a political post as a military one.
    --
    "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From SolomonW@SolomonW@citi.com to soc.history.what-if,alt.history.what-if,alt.history,us.military.army,soc.culture.usa on Mon Nov 25 20:52:20 2019
    From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

    On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 12:33:33 -0600, Byker wrote:

    While it wasn't made known until after his death in 1972, reportedly Pres. Harry Truman's most paranoid fear during the Korean War wasn't an escalation into WWIII. It was when he relieved Gen. Douglas MacArthur of command, and
    he feared the great I-shall-return war hero would refuse to step down

    How could MacArthur refuse to be relieved? The police would have been
    called.




    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Rich Rostrom@rrostrom@comcast.net to soc.history.what-if on Tue Nov 26 13:09:01 2019
    From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

    In article
    <i8adnbr2kPBjUUfAnZ2dnUU7-I3NnZ2d@supernews.com>,
    "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:

    While it wasn't made known until after his death in 1972, reportedly Pres. Harry Truman's most paranoid fear during the Korean War wasn't an escalation into WWIII. It was when he relieved Gen. Douglas MacArthur of command, and
    he feared the great I-shall-return war hero would refuse to step down, and the Chief Exec would have a military mutiny on hands. Being ever the dutiful soldier, MacArthur obeyed. MacArthur returned to the States to a hero's welcome and ticker-tape parades, while Truman was reviled and there were
    loud demands for his impeachment on Capitol Hill. His approval rating
    dropped to 23%, the lowest of any president EVER. He could only seethe as MacArthur toured the country, making patriotic, inflammatory speeches.

    If Macarthur had refused an explicit lawful order
    from the commander in chief, he would have been
    arrested and court-martialed. Whatever the public
    may have thought, Macarthur had almost no friends
    in the Army aside from his toadies.

    Omar Bradley was then Army C-in-C and Chairman of
    JCS. He was anti-Macarthur, and urged Truman to
    relieve him.

    The probable effect would have been to discredit
    Macarthur. He would have to try to justify his
    defiance by claiming that he was right and everyone
    else was wrong about what to do in Korea. This
    would lead to a critical examination of his actions,
    exposing the bungling which allowed the Chinese
    attack to succeed.
    --
    Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdos.
    --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2