A Different Korean War

In 1950, with Russia's secret assent, Communist North Korea under the leadership of Kim Il Sung invaded South Korea. With North Korea crushing the South's defenses and the conquest of the South seeming likely the US brought Resolution 84 to the UN security Council which passed, authorizing a US-led UN military intervention in Korea. The resolution only passed because the USSR was absent due to it boycotting the proceedings due to the People's Republic of China not getting a Seat at the Security Council. Had the Soviets been there they would have assuredly vetoed Resolution 84. My question is what effect would a Soviet veto have had? Would this handcuff direct US involvement ad essentially leave South Korea to its fate (would we see a much more powerful communist Kim led Unified Korea today?)? Or would the US intervene anyway (likely with something akin to a "Coalition of the Willing") and thus undermine the legitmacy of the UN Security Council early in the Cold War? Ultimatly what effect would this Soviet veto have on the Cold War at large?
 
Last edited:
As you may be aware the Soviet boycotts occurred as a response to the PRC being unrecognised by the UN. So this may require a POD that directly deals with that matter.
On ramifications, I think the opposite of one spectrum would be, as noted, a US-led coalition that marches into Korea regardless of the lack of a UN resolution. This may result in the UN becoming less significant, as per the League of Nations(Korean War led the UN into becoming a significant party in diplomatic matters); the other spectrum would be the US simply accepting that Korea couldn't be held and Korea becoming overrun by the NK army. With the Soviets realising how uncontrollable Kim is however he may face opposition within the newly found government(namely the Communists from the south) with help form the USSR. This is another interesting ramification.
 
Out of curiosity were the Russian aware that the US planned to proposed a UN sponsored military action? If not, would a POD of somehow getting this info to them in advance of the vote been enough to get them back to the Council, at least just to veto Resolution 84?
 
Surely, given how embedded the Soviets were in the French and British intelligence services there is a solid chance of them getting some information. Also, I'd like to add that I think the Soviets made a major miscalculation when they boycotted the UNSC. Obviously it seems ridiculously stupid now, but I think Stalin's idea was that by delegitimising the UN as a Western tool it would undermine criticisms of Stalinist doctrine at home and in Eastern Europe as Western propaganda.

The Soviets probably thought that something like the intervention in Korea (which they did not anticipate) would make the UN appear like an obvious tool of bourgeois imperialism, as opposed to giving credence to it's peacekeeping mission.
 
So if the Soviets getting wind of what the US was planning at the Security Council before hand being a realistically possible POD what do you guys think would be the result of them pulling out a veto on resolution 84? With the Korean war being perhaps the first major proxy war of the Cold War this seems like it could send a lot of ripples through how the Cold war will develop.
 
The US would intervene with or without Security Council authorization. The UN charter, after all, recognizes the right of nations to individual and collective self-defense. Nothing would prevent other countries from aiding the US and South Korea, with or without a Security Council resolution. The US and the ROK would of course supply most of the troops, but they did in OTL as well. And in any event the General Assembly, where there is no veto, could have given formal backing to the intervention as it ultimately did in OTL with the "Uniting for Peace" resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377

As I said in a post in soc.history.what-if some years ago:

In short, I think that those who regard Stalin's boycott as a terrible
blunder (because it led the UN to approve intervention) and those who see it
as a clever move (because UN involvement supposedly put restraints on the US)
are both wrong. It just had very litlle effect, one way or the other. (What
"restrained" the US was not the UN but fear of a wider war, a belief that
Erurope rather than Asia was the most important battleground of the Cold War,
etc.) It may not even have affected the issue of whether the war would have
formal UN approval. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/rfe72FCDn4E/h8Azv9ydqy4J
 
Top