Title. Idk how realistic this is but lets say somehow it goes horribly wrong and his boat is sunk by Japan. Who would replace him? Would it have made a difference in the long run?
It could definitely have happened. It wouldn't have a massive impact on the war, but it might lead to different campaign strategies, namely not returning to the Philippines if at all possible. One fascinating alternate history would've had the US invade Formosa, which would have given post-war Chinese politics quite a shakeup.
Would it have made a difference? Not really. Japan was overextended and outmatched in every capacity. Their defeat was inevitable.
What may change is the Philippines. MacArthur pushed to go through them but Nimitz pressed to go for Formosa instead. Had Nimitz taken MacArthur's place, the US may have bypassed the Philippines altogether, or postponed their invasion in favor of Formosa. With American troops in Formosa, Japan's Ichi-Go Offensive may have been an utter failure. It was an attempt to link up their bases in north and south China, destroy American airbases, and crush the Kuomintang. With the Americans in Formosa, Chiang Kai-Shek may have secured a base in Southern China, leading to a Nationalist victory, or a North-South China situation like Korea and Vietnam.
Another question is who takes over the Occupation of Japan. MacArthur chose to rule via the Emperor rather than outright replace him. With a different man in charge, Japan may have taken longer to reconstruct.
In the long run, probably not. MacArthur was acting on real time intelligence via Japanese messages de coded. Putting someone like Simon Buckner Jr, who kind of made a mess in the attacks in the Aleutian Islands and the Battle of Okinawa, would be a worst choice than MacArthur, in my opinion.
JFK was killed on a public square with the most protection that the US def. complex could offer to a President at the time, and yet all he got in return, for remembrance, was an airport. The gatelines seem to be working in order, at the very least.
Maybe more of an impact on postwar Japan and Korea than WWII itself.
It could definitely have happened. It wouldn't have a massive impact on the war, but it might lead to different campaign strategies, namely not returning to the Philippines if at all possible. One fascinating alternate history would've had the US invade Formosa, which would have given post-war Chinese politics quite a shakeup.
Would it have made a difference? Not really. Japan was overextended and outmatched in every capacity. Their defeat was inevitable.
What may change is the Philippines. MacArthur pushed to go through them but Nimitz pressed to go for Formosa instead. Had Nimitz taken MacArthur's place, the US may have bypassed the Philippines altogether, or postponed their invasion in favor of Formosa. With American troops in Formosa, Japan's Ichi-Go Offensive may have been an utter failure. It was an attempt to link up their bases in north and south China, destroy American airbases, and crush the Kuomintang. With the Americans in Formosa, Chiang Kai-Shek may have secured a base in Southern China, leading to a Nationalist victory, or a North-South China situation like Korea and Vietnam.
Another question is who takes over the Occupation of Japan. MacArthur chose to rule via the Emperor rather than outright replace him. With a different man in charge, Japan may have taken longer to reconstruct.
In the long run, probably not. MacArthur was acting on real time intelligence via Japanese messages de coded. Putting someone like Simon Buckner Jr, who kind of made a mess in the attacks in the Aleutian Islands and the Battle of Okinawa, would be a worst choice than MacArthur, in my opinion.
There's no such thing as North Korea.
JFK was killed on a public square with the most protection that the US def. complex could offer to a President at the time, and yet all he got in return, for remembrance, was an airport. The gatelines seem to be working in order, at the very least.