No Korean war option 3

[Derek Jackson]

WI the Soviet leadership had clearly told the North Korean leadership not to take the gamble.


There would be not be a Korean war as such.

What effect does this have on US events- Is Truman re-elected in 1952?

What effect does this have on Britain. Lots of folk think that the decison to MASSIVELY increase military spending did great damage.


Again without the war would South Korea have experienced the Economic miracle.

Also would the Cold War have thawed earlier?

[Roberto]

Is there going to be a No Korean War Option 4? :rolleyes:

[Simon Darkshade]

British rearmament had begun prior to the Korean War, so it would not have a major impact on a lot of developments. The year of maximum peril would stay fixed at 1957 rather than advanced to 1954, so there would be a steady rise in expenditure along the way.

[Derek Jackson]

British rearmament had begun prior to the Korean War, so it would not have a major impact on a lot of developments. The year of maximum peril would stay fixed at 1957 rather than advanced to 1954, so there would be a steady rise in expenditure along the way.

The scale of rearmament attempted by the Attlee government was a consequence of Korea. Lots of people in the UK and US thought that this might easily have been a precursor to WW3.

[Derek Jackson]

Is there going to be a No Korean War Option 4? :rolleyes:

This time line is inspired by reading Peter Hennessy's "Never Again" which does seem to suggest that Korea's consequences were rather rather serious here (in the UK).

I thought about just saying No Korean war but realized that there were several ways this could happen. I listed the 3 obvious ones. If anyoene can suggest another way that war could have been avoided I would be interested.

[Simon Darkshade]

The scale of rearmament attempted by the Attlee government was a consequence of Korea. Lots of people in the UK and US thought that this might easily have been a precursor to WW3.

Korea was a factor in it going up somewhat, and in the urgency attached to a number of programmes. It is correct that it was thought to be the opening stages of a new conflict.
However, even without it, rearmament had well and truly started several years prior to Korea and would continue to gather pace in the 1950s under Churchill. For example, the RN design and production plans were centred on 1957 as the year of maximum peril, or the year when the Soviets would be able to make war, and from at least 1948 reflected this. Eric Grove's Vanguard to Trident has some interesting sections on this area.

[Derek Jackson]

Korea was a factor in it going up...

However, even without it, rearmament had well and truly started several years prior to Korea and would continue to gather pace in the 1950s under Churchill. For example, the RN design and production plans were centred on 1957 as the year of maximum peril, or the year when the Soviets would be able to make war, and from at least 1948 reflected this. Eric Grove's Vanguard to Trident has some interesting sections on this area.

In fact under the tories the pace of reamarment went DOWN as compared to the Labour government's plans.

[Simon Darkshade]

That can be ascribed to a certain extent to Korea, and the pushing forward of the target date to 1954; certain production was curtailed or lowered in priority due to it not being available in time. In addition, certain expectations and subsequent production decisions of the late 1940s and early 1950s were not followed through with; the fast anti-submarine frigate conversion and new construction programme being an example.

Nevertheless, rearmament was not something that swung purely on the pendulum of Korea. The outbreak of war had an impact on its increase, but it was already happening before the war. The cuts of 1946 and 47 were heavy, but developments were changing.

Would you care to outline the great damage done by increasing military spending?

[Derek Jackson]

That can be ascribed to a certain extent to Korea, and the pushing forward of the target date to 1954; certain production was curtailed or lowered in priority due to it not being available in time. In addition, certain expectations and subsequent production decisions of the late 1940s and early 1950s were not followed through with; the fast anti-submarine frigate conversion and new construction programme being an example.

Nevertheless, rearmament was not something that swung purely on the pendulum of Korea. The outbreak of war had an impact on its increase, but it was already happening before the war. The cuts of 1946 and 47 were heavy, but developments were changing.

Would you care to outline the great damage done by increasing military spending?

I believe that in the British context it shifted the international balance of payments form surplus to deficit. It also meant that consumer goods were delayed.

[Roberto]

This time line is inspired by reading Peter Hennessy's "Never Again" which does seem to suggest that Korea's consequences were rather rather serious here (in the UK).

I thought about just saying No Korean war but realized that there were several ways this could happen. I listed the 3 obvious ones. If anyoene can suggest another way that war could have been avoided I would be interested.

Hmm... I'm going to have to ponder that last part to rise to the challenge. How about Japan retains Korea? Or China gets it? Remember, Korea had been ruled by outside forces for centuries, it was sheer luck the trend ended then.