What If MacArthur Became President in 1948?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лют 2023
- 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.buymeacoffee.com/Possible...
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.
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
“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
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
“Nuke em!”
“No!”
“Nuke em!!”
“No!!”
“Aw come on!!!”
“You’re fired.”
-Oversimplified
Quick history lesson
This is basically “What if Soldier TF2 became president?”
No more heavy weapons guy😢
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
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
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
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.
MacArthur wasn’t crazy, he was just too based for his time.
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
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
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.
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"
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.
The moment I saw this I giggled in excitement of the possibilities for chaos.
Real
XD
Same 😂
C H A O S
Yup
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.
"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.”
“Stalin is more collected” A sentence I never thought I’d hear
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
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.
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?
MacArthur was insanely based, simply said
MacArthur is the type of guy to go 20 points above the infamy limit to invade some minor uncivilized Asian countries.
20? try, 40,000
He was such a gamer he played before badboy was infamy.
But i am
I edited my comment as I finally get the joke now
@@daffa9488 not in 1836 they're not.
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
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. 🤔
MacArthur during World War II : 😎
MacArthur during Korean War : 💀
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
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.
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
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
Well at least the world war trilogy is concluded in this timeline.
Warning: This will have a TON of nukes
So like half a bomb
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
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.
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
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.
If Patton didn't die in this timeline, he most definitely would participate in the war. Don't know about Eisenhower though.
5:29 i think that's enough justification to erase the reds
Reds: Exist
Causus Beli: Reds EXIST.
You are one of the best in alt history UA-camrs 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?
@@cbtillery135what
Congratulations Mr. President on winning the election
"Uh huh, yeah great...wheres the nuclear codes?"
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
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
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.
@@change9517 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.
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
The last scenario would make a great post apocalyptic novel, set in the 70s as Nuclear Winter from WW3 has caused a global famine in the North, countries like South Africa, Australia and Brazil are some of the last unaffected countries left.
"On the beach"
It's set in the 50-60's and Australia is the last "haven" for the Yanks after you fucked up the world with a cobalt bombs
@@richardcostello360 America: At least the military is the first to conquer the world
Captive Australians: you did that, but at what cost?
@@richardcostello360 Boers caused an apocalypse?
Based! Everyone deserves it
I think most of south America will be unaffected, since most of the nations there are agricultural economies like Brazil.
@@ovs8691 I didn't talk about the Boers though?
"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*
Least depressing cold war scenario
Good job again possible history thanks again! ❤
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.
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.
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.
Terrifying scenario, great video as always
I really like that second ending. Truly a better world.
@@JackSmith-mk1ru
No one really cares about the flu
The Ultimately Good Timeline:
bad timeline
MacArthur was right about China
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
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
MacArthur: Nuke 'em!
Truman: no.
MacArthur: Nuke 'em!
Truman: No!
MacArthur: Aw c' mon!
Truman: your fired.
Everyone after WW2: thank goodness the war is over! I hope there are no more wars and we all live in peace!
President MacArthur: lmao Ight bet
bro, 2nd scenario is just a late operation unthinkable scenario.
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.
Great Video! Tons of effort but not enough attention. You deserve way more views!
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
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.
very level-headed and intelligent exploration of such a crazy scenario. very well done. new sub here
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.
What if Patton attacked Russia like he wanted to?
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🥺🥺🥺 »
“If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight!”
-you know who’s quote this is
Me: *sees a vid about MacArthur*
Also me: *immediately scrolls through comments to find the oversimplified quote*
Eyyyyyyyy! Just subbed, great stuff!
Also on Discord now :)
Imagine Europe, Asia and North Africa getting drawn into WW2 in the 1950s. They've barely finished recovering from WW2 and now there's yet another war
Probably one of the best thumbnails I have seen in a while
McArthur was right
Based MacArthur! 💪🏻
MacArthur is right about China
Sweden belongs to Finland
@@scottanos9981 Now it's too late.
God forbid someone challenges the US hegemony
Interesting thought. Here is something to ponder. Truman’s policy of containment contributed to involvement in Korea and Vietnam. I’d be curious how things would’ve played out with Mac or even Dewey (who actually ran in 48).
Failure then failure
Wow, McArthur really was right. We never should've given the Chinese an inch
What if Austria had allied with France after the end of the Franco-Prussian War?
I saw your chat gbt video it's a pretty good system but it's still very young it has a long way to go but it is still entertaining I'm using it to create alternate history stories
the one I'm currently working on the most is the German Japanese empire or German Japanese Union
great video!
MacArthur was already a general in World War I, having earned his first star at the age of 38, in 1918
And was one of the few recently promoted buck generals , who wasn't demoted at the end of WW1 .
and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a nuke; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.
The end of days came early in that timeline
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
Call me psychotic, but I prefer this WW3 timeline.
Alternate History Mao and Stalin: We were bad, but now we're good
"Nuke 'em"
"No"
"NUKE 'EM!"
"NO!"
Ah a man of culture I see
@@Xilir2009 mhm
Oversimplified Reference
@@loaderstation5277 yes
MacArthur was a general long before WWII. At one point he was also a Field Marshal of the Philippine Army.
I like this video I didn't even know this channel exist.
There's so much UA-cam that I don't know
Good work on this video.
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
B-29s could reach far into the Soviet Union already in 1948. Maybe not Moscow, but certainly the western areas.
0:22 "his head was big but his balls were bigger"
“It was for the sake of this day that he had first decided to run for the Presidency, a decision which had sent waves of astonishment throughout the Imperial Galaxy-Douglas MacArthur? President? Not the Douglas MacArthur? Not the President? “
-the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
MacArthur would be a true hero...
yeah hero who dropped more than 50 nukes wow real hero
@@germanreich2.0 this, but unironically
@@germanreich2.0 ya but America would be the top superpower.
@@anthk.4846 Imperialism fuck yeah
American hegemony and imperialism is the canon timeline
Nice detail about Tibet there!
1st of all, I enjoyed the scenario. Great job!
2nd, THANK YOU for explaining the M.A.D. absolutely did not apply in the 50s and there were no ICBMs. Seriously, I can't tell you how annoying people are for thinking that.
3rd, despite all the books, articles, slanderous biographies, and even history books, General MacArthur never actually asked Truman to use nukes in Korea. Incredible, I know. The only time Nukes were actually discussed was when Truman's administration asked for an assessment on what their use and effect could be if they were used in Korea.
Truman removed MacArthur because he kept vocally advocating for conventionally expanding the war into China, unlike Truman, who only wanted to try and win in Korea despite having no plan to cut off the Chinese. MacArthur was still very popular though, so in an interview, Truman was the first to bring up the myth that MacArthur had been demanding he be allowed to use nukes in Korea and China along the boarder. MacArthur then publicly called him out, and Truman publicly retracted his statement. However, after MacArthur passed away, the myth started circulating wider and wider, making its way into official press records, despite official military records never being brought up on the matter. Now, another common myth is taken as fact.
You should do a scenario where John Brown's plan for a slave revolt actually worked
Patton and MacArthur were right, and there’s no debate to be had.