What If MacArthur Became President in 1948?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Watch next: "Every Significant Mongol Successor State; How The Mongols Fell in 1857"
• Every Significant Mong... -~-
#possiblehistory #macarthur #ww3 #coldwar #koreanwar #usa #soviets #northkorea #china
What if MacArthur became president in 1948?
If you like the content please like, comment and subscribe, it helps smaller channels like mine to get noticed!
If you want to support the channel you can go to my Patreon or become a member! You will get early access to video's and will be allowed to suggest priority video subjects!
/ possiblehistory
/ @possiblehistory
www.buymeacoff...
Possible Extra's a channel where we do not necessarily history related stuff, like podcasts and more!
/ @theobserverph
Gaming Channel:
/ @deletedchannel1010
Feel free to follow or join our social media platforms:
/ possiblehistory
/ possiblehistor1
/ discord
/ possible_history0
Most of our music by Beta Records. He's great, check him out!
Link: goo.gl/peHHCX
A lot of other music by Kevin McLoad. The Copyrightfree Music Creator
/ kevinmacleodarchive
Thank you all for watching! To support the content consider leaving a like and a comment to help against the algorithm! For more weekly history content consider subscribing!
yes
Duh
Oh the amazing possibilities
How is the comment 2 weeks old??
@@Pianistax He's got patreon where he releases videos early.
MacArthur originally didn't want to use atomic bombs, he wanted to "salt" the area with radioactive material which would have been even more ecologically devastating.
😂😂😂😂
Scipio be like
Better than allowing the area to be salted with communism.
Good
Bruh
B-36s were introduced in 1948, while B-47 during 1951, hence Soviet heartland wasn't completely safe.
Also in 1952 the Mark 7 bomb comes into service, which can be carried by Canberras.
Soviets had lots of anti air but some bombs would go through
The US would have also used its nukes to disrupt and hopefully destroy the Soviet's nuclear production facilities. I don't see the communist govt lasting thru a couple of suicidal nuclear battles.
On the frontlines 'Not one step back' would turn into 'We surrender!' pretty quickly..
@Apsoy Pike - I'm not talking about their economic system, I'm talking about the huge gap between communist politicians and the grunts on the ground. Being told to keep fighting against nuclear annihilation would cause a total breakdown in the chain of command. Which we would have helped along by decapitation strikes on Moscow.
And Hitler did not have nuclear weapons to do the kicking. If he had he would have won.
@Apsoy Pike nah, shock value > damage
McArthur is literally an anime American in real life.
He ruled Japan as a shogun in the 20th century. Definitely an anime character.
I mean
Where do you think they got the inspiration?
He really isn't, this video paiting him as a nuclear maniac is completely unfounded and highly disputable.
Congratulations Mr. President on winning the election
"Uh huh, yeah great...wheres the nuclear codes?"
"Did you win?"
"Yes."
"At what cost?"
"The world."
Except for US mainland and Latin America, plus most of Africa and Australia
@@scottanos9981 with the environmental and economic impact those areas would be screwed
“At what cost?@
“Yes.”
MacArthur: “Oh well 🤷♂️”
(JFC I think it’s safe to say we dodged a bullet big time not having this guy as president)
@@scottanos9981 Which would have been affected due to the winds
One little issue (aside from the premise of course) is that Nuclear winter wouldn't be an outcome. It's not even certain that it could happen even if all of the REALLY big hydrogen bombs were used in the cold war. Newer modelling suggests that their would be less material in the atmosphere than previously thought and it would fall out of the sky faster. At the very least Nuclear winter is only conceivable possible with many megaton and up nukes going off near the surface. The smaller yield fission bombs of the day simply couldn't lift enough material into the atmosphere to make much of a difference to the global climate.
Modern nukes are also incapable of causing a Nuclear winter as even though they are fusion bombs they are deliberately small and rely on multiple smaller, more precise warheads rather than a big fuckoff bomb. The idea of nuclear winter was actually controversial at the time and it's possible Carl Sagan himself knew it was probably not true but it's myth and it's broad acceptance probably saved billions of lives.
I hope Nuclear war never happens but at least Nuclear winter isn't on my doomsday scenario list.
Idk about nuclear winter. There seemed to be some slight cooling during the heyday of atmospheric nuclear tests in the 50s and early 60s, which followed the devastating conventional air raids of WWII. But it never got as far as a hypothetical "nuclear winter".
178 nuclear bombs went off in 1962. And that's entirely peacetime nuclear explosions - perhaps as many as might have happened in a limited nuclear war, if not more.
The biggest nuclear bomb (the Tsar Bomba) went kaboom in 1961.
@@Rickyrab the contention and controversy was/is how long the particles stay in the upper atmosphere. In an all out nuclear apocalypse there probably would be significant cooling for a few weeks or months but the particles would mostly fallout fairly quickly. We see this with massive volcano's today. Fine Ash creates a cooling effect that doesn't last all that long.
Volcano's also tend to put out a lot of sulfur dioxide which does create a medium to long term cooling effect beyond Ash. Nukes don't do this so they'd have even less lasting cooling effects.
I think the only way to make it happen is to launch the moon into the earth
MacArthur: Is the enemy defeated?
Pvt: Yes Sir!
MacArthur: Is America Safe?
Pvt: Yes Sir!
MacArthur: Are our Allies alive?
Pvt: Somewhat Sir!
***MacArthur lights up his corn-pipe***
MacArthur: Democracy Prevails Pvt, never forget that.
Really would be interesting to see in the second ww3 scenario when the US developed the Hydrogen bomb. They did so shortly after Korea in our timeline and in a WW3 scenario, they’d probably expedite its creation and use it to gain an edge over the sino soviet bloc.
Really loved the video- honestly would like a separate video on the second scenario.
One of the best alt hist guys on the site.
You are one of the best in alt history RUclipsrs 100%. You deserve way more subs especially compared to whatifalthist
Yeah I don’t know what it is about whatifalthist, he’s nice and all but… I HATE THAT GUY!
Isn't whatifalthist a Nazi?
@@skinwalker69420what
Both my pawpaws fought in Korea never regretted a second of it they told me when you fight for a just cause you know it they were mad they didn't get to go all the way and held that South Korea was the best and truest friend America had till the day they died and I'm proud to say the two nations I'd charge screaming through the gates of hell for are South Korea and Taiwan
i forgot what i was listening to halfway thru and my understanding of global history was shaken
If MacArthur was born in the gen z era you’d know he’d be a hearts of iron fan
MacArthur: I love the smell of nukes in the morning.
That is so sad. If you really think about it if MacArthur's plans went through billions of Chinese people would have had a much richer and better capitalist life versus dying by the tens of millions under socialism. The North Koreans would have had five generations of prosperity instead of their despair the Vietnamese would have led a much more beautiful life that they're finally only realizing now by introducing Western capitalism. So the world and those particular countries would have been exponentially better off so sad that MacArthur didn't win
Scenario 2 sounds pretty good in 2023!
7:44 dark? You mean perfect timeline
You support war against socialists and communists but many south americand and iraqis died because your country lies about everything
Totally worth it considering the state of China now.
Indeed 🙏
Great Video! Tons of effort but not enough attention. You deserve way more views!
*URANIUM FEVER*
"And North Korea is absorved into the south"
The nuclear missile fat man worse nightmare
Nice detail about Tibet there!
Go Doug!
“We did it MacArthur! We saved the Planet!”
Yaaay
MacArthur: *nods to himself* Better dead, then red.
Well duh, France gets blacked out. As a brit, that's a win. + With most of europe now gone that means the concert of europe will finally be secure and we can turn Spain into a new colony for our expats.
The world will now have centuries of peace.
Best timeline
The rest of the world : “And then what?”
MacArthur : “I'd finally rest and watch the sun rise on a grateful universe”
True hero
@@stepgo95 based
@@sirpepeofhousekek6741 and radioactive pilled
"What sun?"
"Which sun?"
He’d be seeing 2 suns rise
This is basically “What if Soldier TF2 became president?”
No more heavy weapons guy😢
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was based on MacArthur‘s rampant patriotism and disregard for any kind of life or value in foreign countries that He led charges into
@denifnaf5874 nah, Heavy Weapons Guy has a better sense of reasoning, this is totally the Soldier
@@benjaminmandeville4430I think he ment, no more of the heavy weapons guy, but you can interpret it anyway 🤷♂️
A comma could have helped
Fun fact: Some (South) Korean shamans say McArthur's ghost is still here and he is going to protect South Korea..
Based.
Mental slavery, can't protect yourself, waiting others to do it for you.
When I was stationed in Korea I learned that most South Koreans revere General McArthur
tell me more
McArthurs ghost haunts all of asia at this point 😂, dude just hates commies
Afterwards, MacArthur proclaims himself World Emperor and launches a Great Crusade to conquer the galaxy.
Plot twist: mac Arthur was the emperor of mankind undercover
@@fabioavaro7947 Lmao 😂
based
based
based
“Nuke em!”
“No!”
“Nuke em!!”
“No!!”
“Aw come on!!!”
“You’re fired.”
-Oversimplified
Quick history lesson
cringe
@@kyu6938 why do you feel the need to do that?
@@imnottellingyoumyname411 why do you feel the need to do *that*? you could have said nothing and moved along just like i could have, so stop whining
@kyu6938 I'm not whining I'm just asking why you wanted to tell them they were cringe, I probably should have added tone indicators so I am sorry about that
MacArthur was the quintessential "batshit General suggests military solution" trope from the movies.
He's the reason that trope exists
@beelllp that’s more Curtis LeMay
“We have to nuke the moon, Mr. President.”
@@Tmb1112 I saw something red on the mood Mr. President
He was a mix of both Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson and Gen. Jack D Ripper.
'Not to fear, Mao Zedong is here' is going to be my new phrase I use whenever I enter a room
IKR
不怕，毛泽东来了
All might question mark
Nice pfp
And then millions perish
MacArthur during World War II : 😎
MacArthur during Korean War : 💀
“Stalin is more collected” A sentence I never thought I’d hear
I hate that man with an undying rage, but when it came to attacking other nations or when he made a move he was very collective in that sense. He was able to hide all of his actions behind Germanies attacks at the beginning and middle of ww2. I mean think about it, they invaded the other half of poland at almost the same exact time, who was supposed to be france, Britain and Americas ally and yet nobody cared. He did the same thing to the Czech and Finland, and again nobody cared. Ukraine and the 9 million killed in the red famine, still nobody cared. This always leads me to believe FDR was in bed with the Communists, i mean he was able to convince Churchill of all people to meet face to face with the mass murderer himself.
McArthur at the end. "I have brought peace freedom, justice, and security to my new empire, I mean democracy."
More like
McCarthy: Democracy led to this? Uhh… screw this bro (Turns America into a constitutional monarchy, basically keeping things the same, but now there’s additional “monarchs”with 0 power.)
@@orrorsaness5942 *You have become the very thing you swore to destroy*
“If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy!”
@@HeadsetHatGuy Lol
President Eisenhower: Former President McCarthy has done a great damage to America. We have gained the world, but it lost its soul. America’s soul was sold by McCarthy to… The Military Industrial complex… but there’s hope! We can help America regain its soul, but it will be so twisted that it would be almost unrecognizable. While I can restore it by bringing back democratic processes, protecting civil rights and liberties, and preserving states rights… but it would NEVER return to just a neutral republic it once was. It will stay an empire until the day of its death. That’s the price this republic’s sin upon this world. Nevertheless, we must make the most of this… and rebuild from the rubble… hopefully… for a better future.
@Apsoy PikeEisenhower (Who just nationalized the UN): I didn’t do that. You did it yourself. (McCarthy then gets promoted to the Vanguard against Comminism created by McCarthy himself because he thought the house of unamercan committe was too lenient on Communism.
Harry Turtledove wrote a trilogy called The Hot War about similar topic. MacArthur isn't president, but Truman uses nukes against China which escalated into WW3.
The USA and the Allies win, but their losses are massive. Funnily enough, since Korea becomes a 3rd class theater, the fighting stalemates similarly to our own timeline.
Oh, the irony.
@@lunathedungeonmaster4720 Indeed, so much irony there
I’m currently on the third book!
Turtledove is a biased author often as not. I regard his books as of little merit.
@@starmnsixty1209 Please give us a link to a source of your books.
The moment I saw this I giggled in excitement of the possibilities for chaos.
Real
XD
Same 😂
C H A O S
Yup
Patton wanted to rearm Germany and attack Russia at the same time. Two of our top generals that had actually been in the field and commanded armies in the victory wanted to end communism. One died in a suspicious automobile accident and the other was relieved of command. That’s interesting in and of itself. This scenario was actually a lot more possible than people realize.
Yep.
they both had misunderstood the nature of the game. Ask yourself, who gave the USSR the blueprint for the nukes?
When McCarthy started his hunt for Communist spies in the dep. of state, who stalled him?
The cold war was completely different from how it's portrayed.
I hope the would've been out of command sooner.
Would’ve been based af.
Godddddd you make me so sad for what couldve been
Really wish they would make a fps game based on the second scenario
Full scale war in the 50s would be a fun game
what i've asked for
seemingly nobody cares about the korean war, and even less for the alternate scenario of war in a nuclear environment within a korean war that has spiralled into tactical nuclear armament.
An operation unthinkable game or series would be awesome
@spazzey it's what I thought battlefield 2020 would have been
@@spazzey0 Amen! America takes over the world intensifies
Cringe comment
European: Now your rule over a dead ruined world, all there is, all there will ever be... is silence
MacArthur: Yes... it is beautiful... The silence.
Nyet
Oh snap
I love MacArthur
I wouldn't have it any other way.
War will be too feared to happen, centuries of peace.
MacArthur be like: I cant shake of the feeling that all of this is somehow my fault
For it to be a "his fault" it would need to be a mistake 😎
-Tens- _Hundreds_ of millions dead
Southern Manchuria is an irradiated wasteland
Venerated Communism and leftism in general
Absolute decimation of Eurasia
Cause of WWIII
United States is the global hegemon of ashes
Yeah, MacArthur would be on the level of Hitler in terms of reputation in some/most areas of the world.
It's only your fault if you lose
@@bones6448
Trump said something similar about captured soldiers not being heroes.
My Kaiser.
"but sir, they're not combatants, they're civilians!"
MacArthur: "in a war scenario, every single person is a combatant, corporal..." *scooby doo laugh intensifies*
This guy was considered a good successor to Emperor Hirohito by the Japanese. If a hypermilitaristic society likes him so much even when leading what's pretty much a puppet state with extremely limited resources, just imagine what he'll do as a president of the US.
MacArthur was the Defacto Shogun of Japan
he was the last shogun of japan
@Wo! Wo! Acting like it's a negative.
I heard Trump once teleported to WW2 & flew P-47's
"I am death, destroyer of worlds"
MacArthur is just a hoi4 player
MacArthur the First Hoi4 player
lol
@@MrBranFlake are you my brother from another dimension
@@Trollge398 idk mayb
@@MrBranFlake it took you 3 weeks to reply
MacArthur wasn’t crazy, he was just too based for his time.
So, no lol
Virgin peaceful solution vs chad provoke nuclear war
Yeah, imagine being concerned with the deaths of millions of people
@@ap6480 he was going to use them on military targets, and to liberate over 20% of the world from authoritarianism and mass famine and oppression? worth it
If Patton didn't die in this timeline, he most definitely would participate in the war. Don't know about Eisenhower though.
This theory isn't as far fetched as it might first seem. Macarthur very nearly ran for President in 1944 after the US high command came to favor the Navy's island hopping campaign, much to Macarthur's annoyance, however was persuaded to remain as general, receiving a promotion too. In a deal with FDR to stop him from running as the Republican candidate in 1944.
MacArthur wasn’t a nuke happy mad man tho
If it would have kept FDR out of office I'm all for it.
@@night6724 he did want to nuke China though
E
MacArthur wouldn't have deliberately wanted nuke war but he probably would trigger one.
Great stuff as always! Mcarthur is one of the most fascinating figures in military us history!
IKR
Flynn playing his hand at becoming just as infamous
And also Japanese history
5:29 i think that's enough justification to erase the reds
Reds: Exist
Causus Beli: Reds EXIST.
I think this comment is enough justification to rework the American education system
@@ap6480 How so? Communists are the worst.
@@ap6480 Why so? Communists are the worst.
@@ap6480 Why do you say that? Communists are the wyrst.
It's always interesting to think that the period between 1945-1950 or so is the only time in human history where one nation could take on the rest of the globe combined and win. And that said nation just.... didn't do it.
It is interesting for sure. Literally nothing but our own national self control stopped us. We take out our enemies and anyone who stands against that shall be turned to ash
Thing is, they couldn't do it. Nukes can wipe out armies, but they can't guard factories or occupy towns.
@@1krani Occupation would be an entirely different beast than winning the war would be, sure. But the USA did have the 4th largest population in the world at the time with ~150 million compared to the world's 2.5 billion. Keep in mind Britain in 1913 for example held an empire of 412 million with a core population of 46 million. The ratio's about twice as bad, but the US wouldn't have to be paying many costs associated with having rival powers around, such as a standing military, which could instead be diverted into maintaining public order. I also hate to use this line of thinking, but the population would likely also be considerably lower after, y'know, a nuclear war had just concluded.
The real problem would likely be that the American population wouldn't have the stomach for carrying out the operations that would be needed in order to pacify local populations. The military would carry it out, as it had carried it out in guerilla conflicts such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and elsewhere, but these were always extremely unpopular with the civilians back home and in our timeline lead to political pressure being applied against the military, resulting in 'premature' withdraws. And also the fact that the Americans at this point would be near-universally hated for putting the world through nuclear hellfire for their own gain.
@@adamperdue3178 this American empire would fall apart even faster than the British one. The Americans would be seen as devils which destroyed the world for their own gain. Revolutions and uprisings would be common around the entire world, and even the most indoctrinated US soldiers would have their doubts about the morality of their actions having seen the incomprehensible bloodshed caused by the war.
Additionally, the American economy would quickly come crashing down, as it was and still is largely based on exports and trade. After having devastated all major developed economies and potential markets, and having everyone in this markets despise the Americans, the American civilian industry would fail. The end of this WW3 would not be the end of all wars, it would be the beginning of a massive series of uprisings, revolutions and civil wars that would likely span the rest of the 20th century.
@@chungus816 almost certainly it'd fall apart. There's no way to maintain that level of control around the world with such a minority population back home. Colonial powers often kept control by pitting local tribes against each other, but the Americans would be the #1 enemy in most areas, so that wouldn't really work.
I disagree with your points on the economy and trade though. The USA is, and has historically been, the major economy that has the lowest external trade with the rest of the world (as a percentage of GDP). At the end of WWII, the USA comprised half of global GDP, with the rest of the industrialized world being completely bombed out other than Canada and Australia (which would both be easily taken). The USA wouldn't come out of the war unscathed, as depending on when this scenario takes place, the Soviets would have *some* nukes too, and the capacity to use them against the USA, but the rest of the world (that doesn't just immediately surrender) would be significantly worse off, and dependent on the US to rebuild. The USA would be weaker than in our actual timeline as an absolute value, but more dominant as a percentage.
I think there would be at least a generation or so before the real big problems would crop up. There would be tense peace until maybe the 1970s, when most areas have finally rebuilt. The reality would be that unless the Americans suddenly developed an appetite to do the funny mustache German plan of 'land clearing', there's no way to hold back the wave of anti-American sentiment, and the US gradually pulls back out of costly occupation zones, such as China, India, subsaharan Africa, etc... As it gets worse, they'd probably install puppet governments in Western areas, which would just immediately collapse as soon as the USA pulls out.
Ultimately I think they'd certainly keep Canada, Australia/NZ, a lot of underpopulated islands, and they may or may not keep the rest of the new world (depends on how hard the collapse is) while leaving Eurasia entirely.
Warning: This will have a TON of nukes
So like half a bomb
Suggestion: what if the Gustavus Adolphus survived at Lützen
What if Charles survived Fredriksten?
Great Eric Flint thirty-two the Ring of fire good series
Well at least the world war trilogy is concluded in this timeline.
If I could go back in time, I’d show Truman what the world would is like today, and tell him to just let MadDog Doug loose
Also tell him the line said by a man in purple: the hardest choices require the strongest will. That will get him going
ok but why? communism is pretty much non existent anymore, chinas economy is nearly completely capitalist
Judging by the map, this alternate timeline also involves the failure of the Indian independence movement and the continuation of the British Raj
No he just used a 1945 map and edited it a bit
he forgor 💀
Everything in europe and Asia: destroyed by nukes and war
Greece turkey yugoslavia and albania:
Well guess we are in charge of europe o-o
America (Puts the countries under “martial law” aka annexation): No your not.
One additional problem: Dean Acheson, Harry Truman's Secretary of State, declared South Korea "outside the defense perimeter of the United States" early in 1950, which gave Kim Il-Sung the green light to invade a few months later. With a MacArthur administration, his SecState wouldn't have blurted out that gaffe, and the Norks would probably have been deterred from attacking the South in the first place. 🤔
The Philippines' agricultural industry in Luzon would've been devastated by nuclear fallout. The Hukbalahap, the WW2 communist guerillas in Central Luzon would get new recruits as the landlords would abandon their workers on their own devices and would use nuclear war as propaganda against the US and the recently established 3rd Philippine Republic. Then would start raids on unaffected areas in southern Luzon and Manila.
President Manuel Roxas will evacuate Manila due to the nuclear fallout and proximity of communist raids, would establish Cebu City as the new capital of the Philippines.
As a Filipino, I never knew that! Incredible.
Agreed.
Interesting
Counterpoint
The Archbishop of Manila rallies the Catholic faithful and establishes the Crusader State of the Philippines, swearing vengence against both the Heretic Americans and godless commies
Sometimes the over exaggeration of eradicating communism inhumanely causes more trouble and even make people think that communism is the only way.
Before anyone says that North Korea wouldn’t invade with MacArthur at the head of the US, Stalin actually tried to get Kim to cool down in our timeline (Khrushchev mentioned this in his writings).
You know you messed up when even Stalin is telling you to calm down.
This is true stalin was not down with Kim's craziness...that tells you something
Ah, yes. The based timeline.
Genocide timeline
Freedom timeline 🇺🇲🛢️🇺🇲🛢️🇺🇲🛢️
@@troy5094 Genocides are almost always justified. But more importantly, B A S E D lol
@@Griggs58 yes, I'm sure the Uyghur genocide that the Chinese government is currently perpetrating is fully justified and absolutely based.
@@troy5094 which one of the thousand the communists committed?
At 4:06 it says "270 to win". WRONG! At that time Washington, DC didn't have the right to vote, and Alaska and Hawaii weren't states yes, so it only took 266 electoral votes to win. Your fact checking is lacking.
Important to note, the USSR actually had far less nukes in 1948. In theory they had around 20, however by 1960 they only had 4 icbms, meanwhile the US would have many by only 1952, more than half of which were stationed in the pacific! All of these factors made china even more scared of the korea problem. Up until about 1958 the US policy was that ANY conflict with ANY soviet force would almost 100% trigger full scale nuclear war.
McArthur was right
Honestly I think MacArthur would be fine with the ending scenario. Sure most everyone else got fucked up but america came out the other side stronger than ever
The gigachad timeline
thats not giga chad timeline thats bad timeline
Agreed.
@@germanreich2.0 its the best timeline, assuming proper post war actions by the united states, almost 100 million lives are saved
@@AmericanCaesarian I Don't think any lives would be saved In thus timeline
@@germanreich2.0 what do you mean America would be the top superpower.
The big question in the last scenario is whether Western Europe even joins the war or not. NATO is a purely defensive alliance, and given the risk of nuclear destruction, having not yet recovered from WW2, public distrust of MacArthur due to his use of nukes, and the whole thing being caused by essentially a war of American aggression in a far-off country, I'm not sure the UK, France, Italy etc would want to get involved once the conflict escalates.
The Soviets might attack Europe anyway, or might choose to respect their neutrality so they can only fight on one front, much further away from Moscow, but IDK.
Economically, Western Europe had recovered by 1950. Britain and France had reached their prewar production levels by about 1947.
Well, Stalin was unlike Trotsky and was for "socialism in one country(which is USSR)", so I doubt he'd invade Europe _needlessly_
@@DovahFett USSR have restored, too
@@DovahFettthe UK only ended rationing in 1954, so it did take a while for things to get back to some sense of normal.
Europe would likely not join indeed, and if they promise the USSR to not accept american nuclear bombers, the USSR would definitely leave them alone, since no europe means he can get the same kind of isolation as the US.
Europe and china in ruins, communism reduced to nothing and Russia conquered. What was it all for? A better world.
@@ravecrab23 Despite our degradation, I'd rather America rule the world than any other country. We're far from perfect and slowly declining though we are not so far lost as every other country. Now, technically America rules most of the world already.
@@aarayfett8349south america would disagree
@@alexanderballa6152 I have little concern for a continent, akin to Africa that is the rest of the world's playground.
Personally,I like Mc Arthur.
but without nukes
Great alternative scenario, I'm glad I sucribed
Same man
Better dead than red
i like him except his involvement in ww1, interwar period and cold war
"Nuke 'em"
"No"
"NUKE 'EM!"
"NO!"
Ah a man of culture I see
@@Xilir2009 mhm
Oversimplified Reference
@@loaderstation5277 yes
What if France was divided after the Napoleonic Wars and everyone got a piece of it that would be interesting with Russia Prussia and Austria in the coming decades with their future Wars
What about Patton, if he didn’t die questionably and got home? He was very popular, likely could’ve ran. Would be cool to see!
What was the relationship between Patton and MacArthur
Patton would be MacArtur's vp
His popularity wouldn’t have lasted. The man was incapable of talking to the public without making some kind of gaffe. Eisenhower disliked him because of that, and could have dashed any hopes of a Patton presidency by running himself, as unlike Patton, he _could_ give a speech without causing a controversy.
Well. We wouldn't have a russia now. Whether that's a good thing or bad idk.
@@DovahFett I agree in parts. He oft said what he said to create polarization and news. Much as I have disdain saying it, like trump not a trump or Biden fan and politically separate from this matter just using him as a comparison. Their ideals were different but they used polarization to gain so much more popularity. Patton also had immense influence and money, i believe being the general with the most diverse investments and wealthiest which concerned many people. That would’ve gone a looooong way in running. As much media criticism he got, he got as many and more cheers due to his polarizing ability and capabilities leading. His troops went from loving to hating to becoming excruciatingly loyal to him in the end. Would be interesting to see it play out. I do agree that he was so polarizing and was disliked by Ike due to it. Ike was an absolutely amazing president and one of the last true ones we had. I agree he could’ve probably beaten Patton but Patton would’ve polarized the ever living hell out of it, if he even would’ve wanted to run against Ike who he really did admire.
Really? Our country would have been just as screwed as it is today. I knew an old soldier who served with MacArthur in the Philippines in the 1920s. In fact, he was MacArthur driver. He told me that MacArthur was an arrogant, condescending ass who looked down on enlisted men. He said if Ssgt's stripes and pay had not been an incentive, he would never had been his driver. He said MacArthur treated him as if he were nothing and inconsequential
Impossible. Wouldn't have been perfect, nothing is.
But alot less communism. And that's a good thing.
6:53 at that time Bomber Command and SAC could reach Moscow with their B-29s, B-36s and B-50s, the soviet Air Force and Air-Defence force would struggle to intercept such aircraft. Further in July of 1952 the Americans would have access to both the Canberra and the Mark 7 nuclear bomb, an aircraft the soviets simply wouldn't be able to intercept.
Turkey ascended to NATO in 1952. From Turkey, which, unlike USSR during WW2 (nice Ally) would allow US to use its territory for air bases, good old B-29 can reach St.Leningrad, much less Moscow.
And from Norway(founding NATO member) you can bomb up to Crimea, with Baku oil fields being a bit out of reach
@@Poctyk A B-29 with either a 5,000lb bombload at high altitude or a 12,000lb bombload at medium altitude can reach Moscow form Kent. They have an operational radius of 1,400 Nautical Miles.
Kaiserreich be like
Yup
We lost the New England. We lost the Old England.
Either way, we're getting ourselves back an England.
~ King Edward
more like TNO with American retaliation and domination.
What if Austria had allied with France after the end of the Franco-Prussian War?
I think MacArthur would have won in 1948 to be honest. It's 3 years after the war ended and he is still fresh in the minds of Americans at the time as being a hero of the Pacific War, arguably being even more popular than Admiral Nimitz.
moral of the story: macarthur should have been president
I’d have to agree with MacArthur with this one
You're insane, then
@@Centurion97 Better that than a communist.
@@bidenator9760 absolute brainworms
@@bidenator9760 better dead than red
@@Centurion97 Better dead than red
One thing to also keep in mind. Kim was seen as a hero at this time due to him fighting the Japanese to free Korea. (Imagine if the US was invaded by Canada and the Iroquois immediately after the Revolutionary war and they killed Washington). The unified Korea in the first scenario would probably be pretty unstable.
Kim Il Sung was so popular that the offical US and south korean stance was that he was actually an imposter.
Kim was seen as a hero, but not as heroic as George Washington since there were a lot of other freedom fighters against the Japanese.. US probably just made another hero figure (let's not hope it's Rhee Syng Man) to rule Korea..
Actually the usa did try invading Canada. They lost.
@@zZ38PYB50guA9PUuDhAI Syngman was the opposite of a resistance fighter, the US literally couldn't prop up any resistance fighters because they were all communist and hated the US for keeping the japanese in power for a while surpress their people's councils and maintaining the forced protistution system the japanese created.
@@rawnature8148 Right, but not in the way I described it in the original comment.
What if the USA immediately after the peace of ww2 (1947-48) dropped 4-5 of their nukes on an unsuspecting Soviet Union? - I call it operation mars
That was actually threatened by Truman when the Soviets were late leaving Iran after WW2. That would be an interesting scenario to explore how long a war fatigued US population would support a war to push the USSR out of an area they took during the war with the Germans would last.
@@jjquinn295 yea, other things could be where would the be dropped, how do other nations react, do they surrender like Japan, how are they divided up, and would this establish some idea of America being the only nation to have nuclear weapons
People love to downplay how much power the US had during the short-ish period of nuclear supremacy but the US 100% could’ve ruined the soviets potential for standing against the US.
That was Patton’s plan. He wanted to “meet the Russians in Berlin, and keep rolling to Moscow”
@@cottonin226that wont happen soveits are just gonna develop nukes much much faster
What if Patton attacked Russia like he wanted to?
He would've of lost
@@JDDC-tq7qmnope bc British France Germany Poland Italy Finland would gang up on them in they never had good logistic then USA or British USA still had a big army of 14-15 mil only lost 300k man in add on British in others plus Paxton plan n we had nukes gg
@@FURYSaiyan lol Russia had the biggest army ever assembled plus countries like Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria would join the Soviet cause don't forget Japan although battered was still in the war and Soviets would've helped the Japanese against the Americans Soviets could also count on Communists China for support Soviets by 1945 were the moat battle hardened army in the world Zhukov, Konev and Rokosovsky would outclass Patton, Eiswnhower and Montgomery Soviets had 6 million troops in Central Europe no chance for the Americans
@JDDC-tq7qm by that point the red army was still dependent on US aid. The introduction of the B-36 in 1948 also threatened moscow with nukes. Only a few years later would he have likely lost, at that point the Soviets would've had their spine broken either by nukes or by starvation.
@@JDDC-tq7qmassuming japan would ally with the Soviets shows how insane you are.
Macarthur was correct
Nope . But he would be remembered alongside hitler
@@jacksmith-mu3ee womp womp
@@IM3PMN hey the shoe fits .
Don't pretend it doesn't
One thing you didn't really cover is how could MacArthur actually do all this. The President has lots of power over the military, nukes, and overall foreign policy, but it's far from a "they can basically do as they please" thing. Even more so at that time, when Congress declaring war was still a thing. Korea set the precedent for that, but Truman maintained that it was not a war the entire time for political reasons. I don't see how MacArthur would be able to escalate the conflict to such a major degree without Congress declaring war. It would also be tough for him to get the American people on board with all this, and I think how they respond/impact things is an interesting and important factor.
I understand that you wanted to dive into more of the "What if MacArthur's vision became reality" of course. But I suggest a third alternative timeline: where MacArthur still escalates the conflict, but is constrained by political realities, and can only escalate in a limited fashion.
If one nuke gets dropped on a Russian or Chinese city is it then a fully esclated war, you cant escalate in a "limited fashion" when nukes are involved.
There was no precedent for nukes at the time so really it’s all about if Mac can convince the US military which seems likely especially since it’s the pacific theater
@@damonedrington3453 This is about Korea, not WW2.
@@rayquaza1245 yes, during Korea there had only been two nuclear bombings in history and both were still very fresh on the minds of people, but also which were pretty unanimously agreed-upon. There was no official precedent for how this kind of thing was supposed to go mid-war as an actual tactical battlefield weapon.
Well, there's supposed to be this thing called something like "cherks and burlances" to limit presidential power, but the system is biased in favor of congress
Based MacArthur! 💪🏻
MacArthur is right about China
Sweden belongs to Finland
@@scottanos9981 Now it's too late.
God forbid someone challenges the US hegemony
bro, 2nd scenario is just a late operation unthinkable scenario.
This would have saved the world. Ruzzia and China are now preparing for total anhalination
I believe you've overestimated the Soviets ability to do anyting, after WWII they were very broke.
By 1945 they had 6 million battle hardened troops in central Europe the Soviets went through he'll compare to Americans 😂
@JDDC-tq7qm While the Soviets certainly did go through hell fighting the Germans, I would be remiss to assume that they went through anything worse than what the Americans did fighting the Japanese. In 1945, the Russians were broke. The Germans they conquered were broke, and the countries they took over were broke. The only country that had any money at all was the United States.
Alternate History Mao and Stalin: We were bad, but now we're good
Truman removes MacArthur for disobedience, it get's him impeached. This would lead to MacArthur becoming Republican Candidate and winning. Eisenhower would run as Dem.
Terrifying scenario, great video as always
0:22 "his head was big but his balls were bigger"
I really like that second ending. Truly a better world.
@JackSmith-mk1ru
No one really cares about the flu
B-29s could reach far into the Soviet Union already in 1948. Maybe not Moscow, but certainly the western areas.
Macarthur should have marched straight to Moscow
I could not agree more, nothing says America like sendin those Texans to war with the commies!
Yee haw!!!!
He would've faced the same result as Manstein 😂
How would this affect culture though? The second timeline where USA wins WW3.
Liberal democracy just won a war against communism, but at the cost of such destruction. In the first timeline communism became more popular, but in this one, communism actively participated in nuclear bombing, and lost, with no nations in the world remaining communist. So that would likely discredit it.
And with fascism recently defeated, communism nuked out of existance while trying to nuke the rest of the world, and liberalism being what started the catastrophe, what would be the ideology that becomes dominant?
MacArthur crowns himself Global Caesar and looks for aliens to wipe out
The Imperium of Man
Pretty sure crises that were already boiling in America would be worsened as a result of the devastating war.
Maybe monarchism? Highly unlikely but they could say that the age of feudalism was better because there was not such nuclear destruction back then and people lived more peaceful lives. The most likely outcome though is that liberal democracy remains dominant, though it's more critiqued and contested that in our timeline
@@genghiskhan5701 Conservative Constitutional Monarchism.
Every other nation, including Israel and America becomes conservative and constitutional monarchist due to lack of faith in liberal democracy.
Why not absolute monarchy? It’s too similar to communism and Fascism, and in Russia directly led to communism, so absolute monarchy and theocracy would be discredited as well.
McCarthy strong arms the leaders of the world to submit to him and the USA conquers the world.
Either Queen Elizabeth, Emperor Hirohito, McCarthy, or a Washington Dynasty becomes Monarch
USA USA USA USA
The most overestimated general of world war II
I think scenario 1 is more likely but heavily disagree on the rise in pacifism, and communism, but I do agree on the increase in neutral sentiments and especially the high demand for nuclear weapons to maintain security.
Yeah i think both blocs would become radicalized and everyone in between would just become more neutral.
@@joshuaanonymous868 amen 🙏
@@joshuaanonymous868 Plus alot of people miss the impact that the President AFTER a given President has on cementing, or washing away their legacy, with things emphasized by a follow up president having more long term domestic impact even if the next President after that tries to turn things back around. As a result its very important, at least for the domestic ideological and political impacts to figure out who is President AFTER MacArthur. Considering a lot of factors I think Eisenhower would succeed MacArthur in 1956 and maintain as well as enflame American Militarism. Although im not sure if he would win re-election in 1960 or would even run for a second term due to his growing health issues at the time. If he does run again I think its a coinflip of him winning, or JFK. Mostly dependent on how much better or worse Civil Rights development has happened under Eisenhower and MacArthur
Am I the only one that kind of likes this timeline? Yes, a bunch of countries are destroyed pretty badly, but they can rebuild, as they have not been structurally abused and ruined by communism. With communism gone, this timeline automatically becomes so much better.
Japan got hit by two nuclear bombs but still rebuild very quickly and becamed prosperous
@@dragonfire3727 Exactly. Just like west germany. Bulgaria had been virtually left intact after the war, yet west germany overtook them regarding developmental status by 1950, despite the fact that german cities were basically nothing more than a pile of rubble. Communism is a disease.
It's easy to recover from nukes then from corruption and political instability.
@@eidoneverchoosen1171 I think it'd be easier to recover from a literal asteroid striking earth than from a few decades of commie rule
No......the difference between dropping two tiny atomics on two cities is NOT the same as throwing nukes all over the place
Nuclear weapons of the 50's were so many levels more destructive than the atomics of the early 40's
You would have rendered the world into a glowing Stone Age and then had to contend with birth defects in all organic things plus the physical damage to infrastructure would have been immense
The difference in popular vote does not matter for 1948 though. California, Illinois and Ohio were all within a 1 percent margin and would have tipped the election to Dewey in our timeline
Macarthur was actually a potential candidate in the 1944 election (you can find pins on google about it). He was considered for the republican nomination but obviously with the war still going on he was more focused on other things
@JackSmith-mk1ruand a trash general too
« Pls daddy truman give me 50 nukes to win the war these asians are too strong🥺🥺🥺 »