"What if.... The USA had ignored the Korean War?" Topic
16 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleYou wanted more photos of the Santa Claws Gang? Here is Santa and two of his companions.
Featured Profile ArticleScenario ideas from Afghanistan in 2002.
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Winston Smith | 18 Apr 2015 5:29 p.m. PST |
So. What if the USA had ignored the North Korean invasion of the South in June of 1950. Let's suppose that the Acheson statement that excluded Korea from the vital interests was followed. What would be the result? |
Battle Phlox | 18 Apr 2015 5:31 p.m. PST |
|
Only Warlock | 18 Apr 2015 5:55 p.m. PST |
The entire Korean peninsula at night would be a pitch black hell hole now instead of just the north. |
ochoin | 18 Apr 2015 6:48 p.m. PST |
It's fashionable to mock the Domino Theory & to be honest, it's a concept that's full of holes. However, a line was drawn & though the UN (& the US, Winston. They weren't alone) fought to keep a fairly dodgy S. Korean regime in power, S. Korea is now one of the world's successful democracies. So the answer is we would be worse off without the 'Police Action'. |
Rubber Suit Theatre | 18 Apr 2015 9:01 p.m. PST |
On the other hand, without a divided country to give despots a convenient place to blame for their problems, Vietnam is better off than North Korea and a lovely place to visit by all accounts. As Dad (who has a campaign medal) put it: "If they'd seen things our way in the first place we could have avoided all that unpleasantness back in the '60s." |
raylev3 | 18 Apr 2015 9:32 p.m. PST |
A dark hole and a rearmed Japan. |
Risaldar Singh | 19 Apr 2015 12:03 a.m. PST |
No M.A.S.H., no Hot Lips? |
FreddBloggs | 19 Apr 2015 3:09 a.m. PST |
No UN, The US would have returned to being isolationist, no NATO, a Chinese dominated communist South East Asia (because without the communist alarm bells from Korea, no assistance to the French in Indo-China), except probably Japan. |
bsrlee | 19 Apr 2015 6:24 a.m. PST |
Ho Chi Min was trying to become a US ally in 1945 but was first ignored then demonised for his ideology, but it seems his communism has simply something to pin his aspirations for Vietnamese independence on. The return of the French to Vietnam can unhappily be blamed on the British who along with their own forced used un-repatriated Japanese troops to repress the Viet Minh as the French did not have any forces available to retake their S.E. Asian possessions. Korea on the other hand – yeah, a black hell hole and a lack of interesting restaurants. Possibility for a shooting war later with the Russians and their then friends the Chinese over Japan if the Comintern thought the Allies too war weary after WW2. The US had recently fouled things up in China too with supplying then withdrawing support for the Chinese Republic when they were fighting Mao's Communists. |
Dynaman8789 | 19 Apr 2015 8:11 a.m. PST |
Really too hard to say. A non-response might very well have have started a Domino effect, get away with something once and others decide to give it a try. |
Weasel | 19 Apr 2015 10:21 a.m. PST |
Noone can know for sure but some possibilities: De-colonization may have happened sooner around the world. China never becomes involved in Korea to the same extent. China-US reconciliation happens sooner. Our car would probably be Japanese instead. Without the pretense of decade-old rivalry on the border, the DPRK becomes slightly less paranoid. Japan becomes a lot more interested in defence. The Vietnam war drags on longer, because the US becomes more paranoid about Eastern Asia. |
Lion in the Stars | 19 Apr 2015 11:40 a.m. PST |
If the US had ignored the Korean fight, there would not be a democratic government in Taiwan right now. You see, back in 1949, the US had told Mao to go ahead and finish off the civil war, wipe out the remains of the Kuomintang on Formosa. But by the time Mao had moved enough forces and transport there, an idiot by the name of Kim had started the Korean War, which lead to the US telling Mao that if he wanted to take the island of Formosa he'd have to go through the US 7th Fleet to do it. This would probably have lead to normalized relationships between the US and China a lot sooner. Of course, the entirety of Korea would be a black hole of despair. Also, Japan would not have rebounded as fast as they did. UN troops passing through Japan en route to Korea and US troops stationed in Japan after the war spent a lot of money and really kickstarted the Japanese recovery in the 1950s. |
piper909 | 19 Apr 2015 12:12 p.m. PST |
Commentators above have covered the most salient points. Some other factors to consider: Stalin was increasingly isolated, cautious, and risk-averse by 1950 and would still have died when he did, presumably, so the chances of serious Soviet adventurism in the Far East were always going to be limited. The USSR was going to be sorting out its internal power struggle. Did the Soviets OR the Red Chinese have sufficient amphibious or naval capacity then to really threaten Japan with invasion? I don't think so. Even the US took a long time to gird itself for that prospect in 1944-45 and the projections beyond. So I believe the chances that the Commies take Japan are slim to none. More likely, Korea becomes a unified, despotic state that exists in isolation for a few decades, then liberalizes starting in the 1970s and 1980s as the rest of the Communist bloc did. Japan follows more the West German path -- it rearms with American help and encouragement and remains the defense perimeter for the US in the Pacific. Not to say that a North Korean victory wouldn't have come at a cost to the South, but without a long, major war, millions of people, mostly Koreans and Chinese, live out their full lives. That might have changed a lot of things, too. |
Dal Gavan | 19 Apr 2015 3:17 p.m. PST |
No UN, The US would have returned to being isolationist, no NATO, a Chinese dominated communist South East Asia (because without the communist alarm bells from Korea, no assistance to the French in Indo-China), except probably Japan. Malaya-Singapore and Burma were never under French rule, so the anti-CT campaigns there would have gone on as they did historically. Possibly even have been wound up more quickly, without the distraction of Korea. Thailand was never under French rule and was already putting down the insurgency there. When the French abandoned French Indo-China Campuchea and Laos were set up as kingdoms. Communist insurgents attempted to destabilise both kingdoms, but the two governments were on top of them, keeping the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge at nuisance levels. When the US intervened in RVN they not only gave the CT's a new life, by encouraging the NVN to invade to protect the Ho Chi Mihn trail, the US was also were implicated in the coup that overturned the Cambodian government, allowing the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot into power. So I see it the opposite to you. If the US hadn't intervened in Korea and RVN then Laos and Cambodia had a better chance of avoiding the years of communist terror, "The Killing Fields" and their historical fates. That's assuming that the PRC doesn't invade, of course. The disadvantage- the PRC and USSR would probably become far more aggressive. The PRC pushing further into SE Asia in the latter case (NVN, Laos and possibly Cambodia, their "historical possessions"- the PRC remind me of the Sassanids at times), so not net change. They may have tried for Thailand and Burma, but that would over-extend them- they'd never in history been able to conquer Thailand. The USSR may move into Yugoslavia, then Greece and Turkey, move back into Austria and probably into West Berlin. The question is whether the British Commonwealth and Europe resist? Don't look for Australians fighting in Greece again, though- we'd learned to stay in our own backyards in 1942. Dal. |
David Manley | 19 Apr 2015 8:49 p.m. PST |
"we'd learned to stay in our own backyards in 1942." History and recent events would say otherwise |
Legion 4 | 20 Apr 2015 2:33 p.m. PST |
"What if…. The USA had ignored the Korean War?" Well you'd have one Korea … no North and South. And it would be under Communists rule. Did the Soviets OR the Red Chinese have sufficient amphibious or naval capacity then to really threaten Japan with invasion? I've heard some historians say the USSR was preparing to invade Japan. And in turn maybe there would be a North and South Japan ? I believe, the main thing that stopped them was the US dropping nucs. Then the Japs surrendering. Had the USSR invaded Japan, it would have been a very bloody campaign. The USSR rolled up the IJFs in China in about than a week or so. link After the German surrender. The IJFs were completely outclassed. Imagine a Type 97 going toe-to-toe with a T34/85 or SU152. Had the USSR landed in Nothern Japan. The entire country of Japan would have fought to the death to stop the invaders. It was also believed the same would happen if the US invaded the Japanese Mainland. We saw how desperate the IJF fought on Iwo, Okinawa, etc. … Losses would be massive for all involved. The Japanese would lose eventually. With much of their population dead. As far as China invading Japan. Like today, I don't think they had or have the naval assets to do so. But they are building up those force projection capabilities as we speak … er … type. |
|