MacArthur dies 1938

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

MacArthur dies 1938

#1

Post by T. A. Gardner » 13 Jul 2022, 05:55

In 1938, Douglas MacArthur dies. The cause is irrelevant, he's stone cold dead. He has to be replaced and the US government selects one the few 4-star generals lying about to replace him. The choices are:

John Pershing
Charles Summerall
Peyton March
Malin Craig

All four have combat experience from the Philippine insurrection to WW 1. They've all served for decades in the US Army. Some of them are retired, much as MacArthur was when he went to the Philippines. You can look the four up easily, so I won't burden the thread with links.

Once there, what would the general you chose change or keep the same with how the Philippines was to be defended? Would they change key commanders and staff that MacArthur had in place? How would they prepare the PI for the war that is looming on the horizon?

Would having one of these generals there in place of MacArthur have made a difference such that the Philippines doesn't fall to Japan?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#2

Post by T. A. Gardner » 13 Jul 2022, 15:54

Of the four, the best would be Summerall. Here's why:

Pershing was in his 70's and really too old to replace MacArthur. Otherwise, he's not a bad choice, particularly as a field general. He would have run a far more energetic campaign than MacArthur did as one example.

Peyton March is a strong choice too. He would likely have done far, far better in organizing and getting a Philippine Army ready for a war than MacArthur did. This was his strong point. He was much more forward thinking in terms of mechanization of the military having organized the US Army's transportation and tank corps in WW 1 based on motor vehicles.
His weak point was he was mostly a staff officer and had limited combat experience.

Malin Craig, would have been the youngest of the four at 64, but he would also be the worst choice. He would have had to retire a year early to take the job, and his worst quality was his ideas on air power and the direction of the USAAC were quite strong and completely wrong. He had only limited WW 1 combat experience and was mostly a very able staff officer throughout his career.

Summerall on the other hand, was widely recognized within the Army as a combat leader and applauded for his ability in that respect. He had considerable combat experience from the Spanish-American war on. Moving from Commandant of The Citadel to the PI he would bring qualities as a trainer and organizer of units there and like March would likely have made much more of the Philippine Army than MacArthur did. He also had experience from WW 1 handling mechanized units in combat, something MacArthur lacked.

Having Summerall or maybe March would have likely made a US stalemate or victory in the Philippines more likely while placing Craig there would have almost certainly still led to defeat.


User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#3

Post by T. A. Gardner » 14 Jul 2022, 00:34

Assuming Summerall did replace MacArthur in the PI as suggested, it is likely that the Philippines wouldn't have fallen to the Japanese. The reasons for this I would give are:

1. Sutherland is replaced as CoS. Sutherland was a martinet and demonstrated a remarkable level of incompetence particularly in using air power. His controlling command style stifled subordinates and often overreached on his authority. With a different CoS this would probably be eliminated. This means Brereton, in command of the USAAC in the PI would have likely been better prepared when the Japanese declared war. While Brereton was not a great combat commander, he was a very efficient trainer and organizer. Given more leeway to conduct air operations, it's likely the USAAC wouldn't have been wiped out in the first days of the war.

2. Summerall almost certainly wouldn't have turned down FDR's an Marshall's offer to send a National Guard division to the PI after these were nationalized. While it is debatable if the division would have arrived in whole or part, having an additional US infantry division in the Philippines would have pretty much ensured the Japanese ended their offensive in a stalemate at best, open defeat at worst.

3. Summerall's previous experience says he would have made greater effort to get the Philippine Army stood up and likely would have mobilized it sooner than MacArthur did. Again, if that happened, the Japanese would have faced far more troops who were better trained, if not equipped, than they did.

4. Summerall having previous mechanized warfare experience would have likely made much better use of the armor he had available in the PI. Again, this would have made a significant difference in the outcome.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#4

Post by paulrward » 14 Jul 2022, 02:22

Hello All :

Summerall ticks a lot of boxes, but the one thing working against him is his age. He was born in 1867,
making him 71 in 1938, and he would have been around 75 in the Spring of 1942 - a bit long in the tooth
for an active field campaign against a better equipped, more numerous army.

Add to it he was an enemy of Billy Mitchell, and that made him anathema to the Bomber Barons of the
USAAF. Of which Brereton was one.

As for Brereton, and Sutherland, it wouldn't have mattered. Brereton had been in theatre about three
weeks, and nearly two weeks of that had been spent in a conference with his British Empire and Dutch
opposite numbers, preparing for a joint air defense of the Colonial Pacific Area. ( And we saw how well
that turned out ! ) To make it plain, on the morning of December 8th, Brereton wanted to send his
bombers on a mission of bomb Formosa. He had no maps of Formosa, had conducted no reconnaisance
of the island, had no intelligence as to where and what type of Japanese installations were there - he
just wanted to get them big four engined babies revved up and headed off to war ! If he had been
successful in his plan, his three dozen B-17s would have arrived over Formosa, and then begun orbiting
at about 20,000 feet, looking for something to bomb... anything to bomb..... " Oh, what the hell - Let's
just drop the goddamn bombs and head home ! ......"

The P-40 pilots wouldn't have been any better trained, because they were untrained when they arrived
in the PI, and their aircraft had no spare parts and no infrastructure to keep them operational. The
P-35s were a little better, but historically, Brereton had ordered a bunch of their pilots to take over
some of the P-40s, which they didn't know how to fly, and give their P-35s to the new pilots, which
meant that NOBODY in the PI knew how to fly their fighters ! Except, of course, the Philippine pilots
who were flying about a dozen P-26s.......

As for the National Guard, historically, none of the ones who did get to the PI were very happy about
being sent there, their morale was lousy, they were trained in WW1 tactics, and lots of them were
overaged ' Peacetime Soldiers '. They fought bravely, but not particularly well.

The real question is: Would Summerall be stupid enough to accept the assignment ? At that time, he
was the President of The Citadel, and was making it an equivalent to West Point in terms of academic and
professional prestige. A man would have to be an idiot to allow himself to be sent to a Malaria infested
Jungle Island, to possibly face an overwhelming enemy in a hopeless fight. Especially at age 71 !


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward


P.S. - When MacArthur's body was found, stone cold dead, in 1938, where was Eisenhower, and what
was he doing in the hours leading up to MacArthur's death....... ? Did he have an alibi witness ?HMMMMMMMMMM........
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

jbroshot
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 18 May 2009, 02:33

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#5

Post by jbroshot » 14 Jul 2022, 04:58

Why not add Fox Conner to the list of candidates for the Philippines job?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Conner

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10058
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#6

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 14 Jul 2022, 18:06

paulrward wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 02:22
...
P.S. - When MacArthur's body was found, stone cold dead, in 1938, where was Eisenhower, and what
was he doing in the hours leading up to MacArthur's death....... ? Did he have an alibi witness ?HMMMMMMMMMM........

Justifiable homicide Id think. Write up a letter of comendation for his record and get him a battalion command as soon as eligible.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#7

Post by T. A. Gardner » 15 Jul 2022, 06:59

paulrward wrote:
14 Jul 2022, 02:22
Hello All :

Summerall ticks a lot of boxes, but the one thing working against him is his age. He was born in 1867,
making him 71 in 1938, and he would have been around 75 in the Spring of 1942 - a bit long in the tooth
for an active field campaign against a better equipped, more numerous army.

Add to it he was an enemy of Billy Mitchell, and that made him anathema to the Bomber Barons of the
USAAF. Of which Brereton was one.

As for Brereton, and Sutherland, it wouldn't have mattered. Brereton had been in theatre about three
weeks, and nearly two weeks of that had been spent in a conference with his British Empire and Dutch
opposite numbers, preparing for a joint air defense of the Colonial Pacific Area. ( And we saw how well
that turned out ! ) To make it plain, on the morning of December 8th, Brereton wanted to send his
bombers on a mission of bomb Formosa. He had no maps of Formosa, had conducted no reconnaisance
of the island, had no intelligence as to where and what type of Japanese installations were there - he
just wanted to get them big four engined babies revved up and headed off to war ! If he had been
successful in his plan, his three dozen B-17s would have arrived over Formosa, and then begun orbiting
at about 20,000 feet, looking for something to bomb... anything to bomb..... " Oh, what the hell - Let's
just drop the goddamn bombs and head home ! ......"

The P-40 pilots wouldn't have been any better trained, because they were untrained when they arrived
in the PI, and their aircraft had no spare parts and no infrastructure to keep them operational. The
P-35s were a little better, but historically, Brereton had ordered a bunch of their pilots to take over
some of the P-40s, which they didn't know how to fly, and give their P-35s to the new pilots, which
meant that NOBODY in the PI knew how to fly their fighters ! Except, of course, the Philippine pilots
who were flying about a dozen P-26s.......

As for the National Guard, historically, none of the ones who did get to the PI were very happy about
being sent there, their morale was lousy, they were trained in WW1 tactics, and lots of them were
overaged ' Peacetime Soldiers '. They fought bravely, but not particularly well.

The real question is: Would Summerall be stupid enough to accept the assignment ? At that time, he
was the President of The Citadel, and was making it an equivalent to West Point in terms of academic and
professional prestige. A man would have to be an idiot to allow himself to be sent to a Malaria infested
Jungle Island, to possibly face an overwhelming enemy in a hopeless fight. Especially at age 71 !


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward


P.S. - When MacArthur's body was found, stone cold dead, in 1938, where was Eisenhower, and what
was he doing in the hours leading up to MacArthur's death....... ? Did he have an alibi witness ?HMMMMMMMMMM........
This is both simplistic and mostly wrong. There were a lot of problems in the PI with the chain of command, and removing MacArthur and Sutherland with almost anyone else would have solved many of them.

With respect to the Far East Air Forces / USAAC in the Philippines, the problems started well before Brereton arrived and were largely left to fester because MacArthur and Sutherland refused to do anything about them even when they were pointed out and subordinates wanted specific action taken.

The first problem was an official air force in the Philippines didn't happen until 1941. In May the Philippine Department Air Force was created and Brig. Gen. Henry B. Clagett was put in command. Prior to this, there was a composite group for aircraft in the Philippines but no higher command. The colonels running the show prior to Clagett arriving, Richards and Churchill, showed immediate and nearly open hostility to Clagett coming in and wanting to completely reorganize the chain of command, expanding it into a full air force versus a single group.
They actively sought to undermine Clagett's decisions and when Clagett tried to relieve them, he got no support from Sutherland and MacArthur. The result was serious foot dragging and lack of action even when it was permitted.

Aside from problems in the chain of command, neither MacArthur or Sutherland took any sort of aggressive stance towards preparing the Philippines for war. For them, it was peacetime business as usual with no urgency on projects. Clagett with the problems he faced in command didn't press in the least to change that. The result was that many projects to improve airfields, build new ones, and improve infrastructure crept along.

The necessary engineers and materials for airfield improvement were present for the most part in the PI, but because the top command didn't press for immediate completion, the projects proceeded at a leisurely pace. This resulted in a high accident and damage rate among aircraft that could have been otherwise avoided.

It wasn't so much that the pilots were untrained, they were. They just needed more hours on their combat planes than they had, and having to fly from poor grass fields in sometimes poor weather did nothing to improve things.

Brereton showed up just before the war started and was handed this mess. Had MacArthur and Sutherland not been in command it may well have been very different.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#8

Post by ljadw » 15 Jul 2022, 12:42

Why should MacArthur or Sutherland prepare the Philippines for war ?
And ,could they do it ?
Given the deficiencies of the US defense and the fact that Europe had priority it is very questionable that Washington would have given them more resources .
And, even if they got more resources and did more, there is always the point that Japan would still remain stronger .
To give US pilots more hours on their planes does not mean that they would defeat the Japanese air force .
It is too easy to say that US defeats were caused by local US commanders and to deny the Japanese their role in their victories .
US did not lose in the Philippines : Japan won in the Philippines .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#9

Post by Takao » 15 Jul 2022, 14:13

If the US did not lose the Philippines, then the Japanese did not win the Philippines.
For one to win, another must lose.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#10

Post by ljadw » 15 Jul 2022, 14:38

I did NOT say that the US did not lose the Philippines :I said that they did not lose in the Philippines ,which means that Japan conquered the Philippines not because of mistakes from US generals, but by their own strength .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#11

Post by Takao » 15 Jul 2022, 15:17

If the US did not lose IN the Philippines, then the Japanese did not win IN the Philippines.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#12

Post by T. A. Gardner » 16 Jul 2022, 01:23

ljadw wrote:
15 Jul 2022, 12:42
Why should MacArthur or Sutherland prepare the Philippines for war ?
And ,could they do it ?
Given the deficiencies of the US defense and the fact that Europe had priority it is very questionable that Washington would have given them more resources .
And, even if they got more resources and did more, there is always the point that Japan would still remain stronger .
To give US pilots more hours on their planes does not mean that they would defeat the Japanese air force .
It is too easy to say that US defeats were caused by local US commanders and to deny the Japanese their role in their victories .
US did not lose in the Philippines : Japan won in the Philippines .
MacArthur could have mobilized the Philippine Army far faster than he did. Even if the troops lacked arms, they could be trained in military behavior and used as construction troops until arms became available.

He could have gotten the US to pay for more construction and made projects a bigger priority. Building airfields with all the amenities was possible as the US sent the troops to do that early on to the PI.
So, airfields could have had concrete runways, taxiways, and hardstands, etc. They could have had the necessary buildings erected. Infrastructure like building LOX plants or compressed air plants at these (for oxygen for the aircraft) was fully possible.

As I pointed out, the US command in the Philippines had two serious issues:

MacArthur and Sutherland made an assumption about when the Japanese would attack and worked off that rather than pressing forward as rapidly as possible with improving the PI's readiness. They continued to work at a peacetime rate. They also did nothing to work out problems lower in the chain of command.

There were serious issues with the chain of command where Sutherland in particular allowed subordinates to undermine the command as he interfered in that chain.

This doesn't mean that replacing MacArthur and Sutherland would have fixed everything, it might not have. But it might have fixed some of the issues. For example, let's assume that MacArthur's replacement takes war warnings more seriously and works off the assumption that war is coming next week, not next year. That replacement puts far more hustle on getting infrastructure in place and on readiness for a war than MacArthur did.

Let's assume for a moment that the PI holds out for just five additional months and that the Japanese have to toss in say two more infantry divisions. At that point, the US has invaded Guadalcanal (Sept 1942). If the PI is still hanging on at that point, the Japanese are screwed trying to take it. It may well become a 'lost battalion' that is being supplied and fed enough to continue to resist.

It would likely put a crimp on Japan heading into New Guinea at all. The US in the Philippines doesn't have to win. All they have to do is ensure the Japanese don't win.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#13

Post by paulrward » 16 Jul 2022, 20:03

Hello All :

This is addressed to Mr. Gardner:

Sir: I have been, for most of my professional career, an Engineer in the Electronics and Semiconductor
Industries in California's Silicon Valley. Throughout my career, I have worked with other Engineers who
had different educational backgrounds than my own. In college, I majored in Chemistry, with additional
studies in Electronics, Semiconductor Physics and Technology, and Water Chemistry.

My fellow Engineers came from a variety of backgrounds, and I have worked with other Engineers who
were Electrical Engineers, Chemical Engineers, Materials Scientists, Physicists, Chemists ( like myself )
and even one Engineer who had a B.A. in Botany and a M.A. in Theatre Arts ( He claimed that the M.A.
was extremely useful in his career, because, as he put it, at least once a month he had to put on a song
and dance for upper management.......)

The reason I am mentioning this is because, in your most recent postings, you have made several statements
that I disagree with. In going forward, I feel it would be helpful if I knew something of your educational
training and professional experience. In other words, what do you know, and what have you done ?

I feel that this could help our discussion going forward, and hope that you will oblige me by providing at
least an outline of your background.

Respectfully

Paul R. Ward

Just as a note: For a number of years, I worked with a VERY brilliant Engineer who's background was
Physics and Mathematics, along with Electronics. But, in order to protect the lives of myself and my
fellow employees, on at least two occasions I had to physically prevent him from handling Chemicals........
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#14

Post by Takao » 16 Jul 2022, 20:25

paulrward wrote:
16 Jul 2022, 20:03
Hello All :

This is addressed to Mr. Gardner:

Sir: I have been, for most of my professional career, an Engineer in the Electronics and Semiconductor
Industries in California's Silicon Valley. Throughout my career, I have worked with other Engineers who
had different educational backgrounds than my own. In college, I majored in Chemistry, with additional
studies in Electronics, Semiconductor Physics and Technology, and Water Chemistry.

My fellow Engineers came from a variety of backgrounds, and I have worked with other Engineers who
were Electrical Engineers, Chemical Engineers, Materials Scientists, Physicists, Chemists ( like myself )
and even one Engineer who had a B.A. in Botany and a M.A. in Theatre Arts ( He claimed that the M.A.
was extremely useful in his career, because, as he put it, at least once a month he had to put on a song
and dance for upper management.......)

The reason I am mentioning this is because, in your most recent postings, you have made several statements
that I disagree with. In going forward, I feel it would be helpful if I knew something of your educational
training and professional experience. In other words, what do you know, and what have you done ?

I feel that this could help our discussion going forward, and hope that you will oblige me by providing at
least an outline of your background.

Respectfully

Paul R. Ward

Just as a note: For a number of years, I worked with a VERY brilliant Engineer who's background was
Physics and Mathematics, along with Electronics. But, in order to protect the lives of myself and my
fellow employees, on at least two occasions I had to physically prevent him from handling Chemicals........
Wonderful! We are discussing history with IBM's lead sanitation engineer.

If you wish to brag about your education, I humbly suggest you go elsewhere.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: MacArthur dies 1938

#15

Post by T. A. Gardner » 16 Jul 2022, 22:21

paulrward wrote:
16 Jul 2022, 20:03
Hello All :

This is addressed to Mr. Gardner:

Sir: I have been, for most of my professional career, an Engineer in the Electronics and Semiconductor
Industries in California's Silicon Valley. Throughout my career, I have worked with other Engineers who
had different educational backgrounds than my own. In college, I majored in Chemistry, with additional
studies in Electronics, Semiconductor Physics and Technology, and Water Chemistry.

My fellow Engineers came from a variety of backgrounds, and I have worked with other Engineers who
were Electrical Engineers, Chemical Engineers, Materials Scientists, Physicists, Chemists ( like myself )
and even one Engineer who had a B.A. in Botany and a M.A. in Theatre Arts ( He claimed that the M.A.
was extremely useful in his career, because, as he put it, at least once a month he had to put on a song
and dance for upper management.......)

The reason I am mentioning this is because, in your most recent postings, you have made several statements
that I disagree with. In going forward, I feel it would be helpful if I knew something of your educational
training and professional experience. In other words, what do you know, and what have you done ?

I feel that this could help our discussion going forward, and hope that you will oblige me by providing at
least an outline of your background.

Respectfully

Paul R. Ward

Just as a note: For a number of years, I worked with a VERY brilliant Engineer who's background was
Physics and Mathematics, along with Electronics. But, in order to protect the lives of myself and my
fellow employees, on at least two occasions I had to physically prevent him from handling Chemicals........
My background, briefly, is in commercial and industrial electrician work, industrial and manufacturing engineering / production planning, and an MA for fun in military history.
I'm the sort of guy that figures out how to get from nothing to product by the shortest route.

My method for dealing with upper management (aka idiots in charge), was to work to make whatever I was doing bigger than they were. That is, I got people just as important or more important from outside the immediate chain-of-command involved and then when management did something clearly stupid I'd get those people involved and management would run and hide leaving me to get things done.

As a Navy Chief, I was the sort of guy that made officers very nervous, but the smarter ones quickly realized I was going to make their resume look really good if they let me be rather than tried to reign things in and play it safe. I was the same way on the civilian side of things too.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”