Decisive Victory in Korea

[Thucydides]

I read yesterday that the loss in Korea prompted the US to not seek conventional conflict, but rather nuclear deterrent with the USSR. So I was wondering whether a decisive victory over North and South Korea (that is to say, uniting them) would give the US hope of winning a conflict against the USSR.

Maybe not as much money towards nuclear weapons? Maybe intervention in the Hungarian revolt?

 

[yourworstnightmare]

I read yesterday that the loss in Korea prompted the US to not seek conventional conflict, but rather nuclear deterrent with the USSR. So I was wondering whether a decisive victory over North and South Korea (that is to say, uniting them) would give the US hope of winning a conflict against the USSR.

Maybe not as much money towards nuclear weapons? Maybe intervention in the Hungarian revolt?

Have PRC choose to not intervene.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I don't think the US would think it could beat the USSR by defeating the North Koreans alone, but perhaps defeating the Chinese and North Koreans would get this outcome.

However, it would be a local war defeating an incursion by the PRC, not a triumphant march to Beijing. And the Chinese at the time did not have nuclear weapons, while the Soviets did. The Soviets also had a much more mechanized army, while IIRC the PRC intervention force was largely infantry.

I did read somewhere that the Soviets would have withdrawn from Hungary if NATO intervened but the U.S. did not know that at the time and was not willing to risk a nuclear war of the issue. Furthermore, I think the US at the time believed the Soviet nuclear arsenal to be much larger and more destructive than it actually was.

Conclusion: I doubt anyone would want to march on Moscow, but there might be more willingness for confrontations in the border zone. Maybe, given the differences betwen the Soviets and the PRC.

 

[Atlantic Friend]

Maybe not as much money towards nuclear weapons? Maybe intervention in the Hungarian revolt?

Hungarian revolt was in 1956, while the military operations of the Korean War ended in 1953. At this point, the problem is nuclear deterrence (and the staggering cost of a war against the USSR).

To have the US score a decisive victory in Korea, you have to stop the PRC from intervening as YWN posted. Problem is, what would be the drive for Beijing not to intervene? The honeymoon with the USSR is still on, and China has a permanent interest in having Kim-il-Sung rule over a Communist North Korea.

 

[Timmy811]

To have the US score a decisive victory in Korea, you have to stop the PRC from intervening as YWN posted. Problem is, what would be the drive for Beijing not to intervene? The honeymoon with the USSR is still on, and China has a permanent interest in having Kim-il-Sung rule over a Communist North Korea.

I don't know that's true. I could see Dewey escalating enough to beat the Chinese if he was President. It could have been done if there had been political will to do so.

 

[von kressenstein]

I don't know that's true. I could see Dewey escalating enough to beat the Chinese if he was President. It could have been done if there had been political will to do so.

only problem being that there wasnt..and he never became president..

America at the time was not all that gung-ho to have WW III.. conventional or nuclear.. ok MacArthur was .. but most others not so much.. that little conflict called WW II had just ended 7 years prior. The American populace just didnt have the stomach for it at that point. If America went all in .. and i mean ALL in (yeah i know we pretty much were all in.. but it was a POLICE ACTION, not a DOW against NK and PRC and as such was hampered)...sure they could have beat the NKA back into China, They were doing that conventionally.. but they were not going to go trying to take China down.. to damn big, to damn many people with sharp chop sticks.. and guns and tanks.. ( ask Japan how that went... and they did that during a civil war) and if .. if we went nuclear.. Russia would surly come to the rescue of its buddies then you have a much much bigger mess. and that was what was trying to be avoided ..

Nuclear bombs were the game changer and no one wanted to escalate to that, except again MacArthur

 

[Tank Cdr]

I have always said it was a mistake not to totally defeat North Korea and unite Korea. How much needless human tragedy and suffering would have been prevented in North Korea, plus the butterflies regarding any other communist aggression I think would be significant. The big question of course is how to acheive that victory without either nuclear weapons, or escalation into a larger war.

 

[MerryPrankster]

There's a difference between defeating Chinese attempts to maintain North Korea and "beating China down."

The Japanese were attempting to conquer all of China--the US would be more interested in uniting Korea under non-Communist auspices.

 

[LeX]

Why don't you just have Mao decide that the PRC can't afford to fight, considering the civil war ended just ten months prior?

 

[Julia Augusta]

only problem being that there wasnt..and he never became president..
/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure it would be not too hard to get Dewey to be president.

 

[Orry]

I have been reading Hastings book on Korea.

If the Americans had continued the advance during the 30 day lull for talks the Chinese proposed they could have established a good defensive line holding 70% + of Korea including all the bits worth having and then dared the Chinese with what ever numbers they could use in that area to do anything about it.

Not sure it would be totally decisive but it would NOT appear to be a draw - though China could still claim to have maintained a buffer zone it would be clear that the UN forces had achieved something.

Even the Chinese can only lose so many men - and Korea has some great defensive positions that would allow the 'allies' to play to their strengths in massed firepower

 

[loughery111]

Problem is, what would be the drive for Beijing not to intervene? The honeymoon with the USSR is still on, and China has a permanent interest in having Kim-il-Sung rule over a Communist North Korea.

You can either go with the above strategy and tell the Chinese to screw themselves, or offer them a security buffer under their control along the Yalu... I vaguely recall reading somewhere that they asked for 30 miles on the Korean side of the border as the price for letting the DPRK get the crap kicked out of it and allowing the US to reunify Korea.

 

[Blackfox5]

MacArthur proceeded to the Yalu with the thought that there was no more organized resistance and that the PRC would not intervene. Thus, the troops going north were not prepared for real, prolonged combat with a strong enemy.

If the US gave real consideration that the PRC would intervene, then the drive to the Yalu would be very different. It means there is no sudden surprise that overwhelms the front lines, and that defensive lines could be formed north of the 38th parallel. UN troops might inflict horrendous casaulties in such a scenario, and might even be able to counter attack and regain some lost ground. I don't know if they could reach the Yalu, but it's at least a possibility.

At that point, negotiations would begin. I don't know if Mao or Stalin would consider a rump North Korean state viable or desirable, and they might be convinced to allow a united Korea provided certain things happened. Perhaps no-US troops after the war, and a neutral Korean state not allied to the US, like in Austria.

The problem lies with MacArthur and his ego.

 

[tormsen]

To have the US score a decisive victory in Korea, you have to stop the PRC from intervening as YWN posted. Problem is, what would be the drive for Beijing not to intervene? The honeymoon with the USSR is still on, and China has a permanent interest in having Kim-il-Sung rule over a Communist North Korea.

The Chinese were preparing to invade Taiwan when this unholy distraction came along. It could be possible that they decide to deal with their own problems first, and leave the Soviets to look after Korea. The Soviets don't bother, the North falls to the South, Taiwan falls to the Communists. Future political tensions in East Asia are eased, maybe.

 

[GenghisKhanfan]

The Chinese were preparing to invade Taiwan when this unholy distraction came along. It could be possible that they decide to deal with their own problems first, and leave the Soviets to look after Korea. The Soviets don't bother, the North falls to the South, Taiwan falls to the Communists. Future political tensions in East Asia are eased, maybe.

The fact that China moved against the UN forces when they did indicated that China still had imperial sensitivities about Korea. Korea had just been freed from Japanese imperialism, and Mao Tse-tung wanted to make sure Japan could never again threaten China......which meant an independent Taiwan would not be allowed.....and it meant that a Beijing-friendly Korean government was viewed as strategically important. Even if Beijing had allowed for a US-reunification of Korea, that 'barrier' along the Yalu River would've been used as a staging area for a later invasion of Korea under the assumed threat of a Japanese invasion. Korea has always been a battleground between Japan and China, and the Cold War-and the entry of two superpowers into the contest-would not have ended that struggle.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Could the Chinese be bought off with a neutralized Korea with no U.S. troops?

Think an East Asian Austria.

 

[Barry Bull]

Could the Chinese be bought off with a neutralized Korea with no U.S. troops?

Think an East Asian Austria.

The problem is would the US agree to such terms? Could the US Administration deal with domestic opinion backleash? ("All the blood, sweats, toils and tears for a neutral Korea w/o US Basing Rights?")

 

[Cook]

Could the Chinese be bought off with a neutralized Korea with no U.S. troops?

Think an East Asian Austria.

China would have jumped at such an offer.

They would never have honoured it of course, merely sent insurgents and ‘volunteers’ over the border to undermine such a state until they could sieze power.

 

[Coalition]

Could the Chinese be bought off with a neutralized Korea with no U.S. troops?

I'd rather the Chinese be bought off, by being bought off.

I.e. China gets the 30 mile strip, and then the United States buys the land (and any improvements) from China. Raw materials, trade deals, finished products, whatever China prefers.

After that, use the border region to try and build up better ties between China and the United States. People living on the border can see what happens when the United States helps their country, vs what happens if they go it alone.

 

[tormsen]

A decisive and short war might mean that there would be significantly less massacres of leftists in the south and moderates on both sides. Individuals such as Pak Honyong and Kim Gu might remain alive and active, while Kim Sung Il would probably be executed. In that scenario, there would be a _lot_ of scope for communist subversion (centred around Seoul instead of Pyongyang) and fifth columnism in case the Chinese decide to invade later. If Korea is dominated by military dictators as South Korea was in OTL, then the opposition movements are going to be even further to the left than in OTL.