DBWI:Soviets don't veto UN intervention in Korea

Apparently the Soviet ambassador had to hurry to reach the vote and could have missed it.

If the UN had intervened, most likely under American leadership, could the communists have been halted?
 

NothingNow

Banned
Hell yes, unless it turned in to ww3 and even then the UN forces might be able to force the Chinese and Russians into a stalemate.
 
Hell yes, unless it turned in to ww3 and even then the UN forces might be able to force the Chinese and Russians into a stalemate.

I don't know if the Americans managed to push the Koreans back China and the Soviets would almost certainly get involved and then it would likely go nuclear.
 

NothingNow

Banned
But who has more nukes, and Naval superiority? the UN does of course. Maybe B-47 raids on Beijing, Vladivostok, and Port Arthur?
 
But who has more nukes, and Naval superiority? the UN does of course. Maybe B-47 raids on Beijing, Vladivostok, and Port Arthur?

True but that could lead to a Soviet invasion of Europe with possible Germany,France and the US West Coast being hit by soviet nukes if America were to use Nukes in Europe.

This could be a very bad scenario for Eurasia.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Bah, Tu-4s are vulnerable to any 1st gen. Jet fighters. The Tu-4 was the most up to date aircraft long-range aviation had. The Soviets wouldn't have a chance.
 
I don't know if the Americans managed to push the Koreans back China and the Soviets would almost certainly get involved and then it would likely go nuclear.

I really doubt that. Seriously, why would Russia throw the whole world onto the fire over NK? Unless the UN is crazy enough to invade Russian territory, I doubt nukes would be involved....
 
I really doubt that. Seriously, why would Russia throw the whole world onto the fire over NK? Unless the UN is crazy enough to invade Russian territory, I doubt nukes would be involved....

I dont think they would willingly but Mao was rash and he might have jumped in and then the Americans would be screwed.
 
No biggie. The Americans might not have been so heavy handed in Vietnam in the 60s, though. The loss of Korea really jabbed at them. The opinion their allies suffered after the loss of an ally in South Korea, since it showed their tails. Their actions in Nam were, to say the least, heavy handed. If not for the fall of Korea, they might have eventually left Southeast Asia!
 
True but that could lead to a Soviet invasion of Europe with possible Germany,France and the US West Coast being hit by soviet nukes if America were to use Nukes in Europe.

This could be a very bad scenario for Eurasia.
Any full out nuclear is improbable until about the 60s. In 1950, the US had over 298 nukes, while the Soviets had...3

It does improve significantly by 1953 (135 nukes), but the US still vastly outnumber them with 1161 nukes. Further, ICBMs are still years ahead, and the only way to deliver them would be with bombers. Soviet bomber capablity in the 50s was very limited, and striking the US would have been close to impossible. If the war did turn nuclear, the Soviets would have lost badly.
 
Setting aside consuming the world in nuclear fire...how would a conventional war in the Korean Peninsula have played out? Obviously, the Soviets and Americans couldn't engage each other directly...heavy Red Army aid to the PLA? Not sure how well Red Army mechanization would work with the strengths of the PLA back then, though, given its light infantry focus.

Maybe if the Chinese elite units were issued the AK-47 and RPG-2? I could see that giving UN forces some serious trouble.
 
Top