Effects on local and world politics of no Korean War

[Mr.J]

So let's say that the US makes it clear that South Korea as well as Japan is under its "Nuclear Umbrella" and because of this (or just a simple change of opinion) Stalin refuses to give Kim il Sung the go-ahead to try to unify the Koreas. As such, there is no Korean War, at least not as in OTL in 1950. How, in your opinion, does this change history?

- Does North Korea still become a terrifying garrison state?

- Without the war demand, how much is Japan's economic recovery slowed?

- Is there an earlier rapproachment between the US and Communist China? And does it change Mao's personality at all to not have his son die in the Korean War?

- How are US military doctrine, politics and society affected by the lack of the war?

- How does the lack of the only war declared and fought by the U.N. change perceptions and the structure of that institution?

Thoughts? I honestly don't have a clear idea on this, but it's certainly an interesting PoD.

 

[phoenix7846]

- Does North Korea still become a terrifying garrison state?

- Is there an earlier rapproachment between the US and Communist China? And does it change Mao's personality at all to not have his son die in the Korean War?

I read somewhere that without a Korean War, the US was willing to let Taiwan eventually fall, they weren't gonna be supporting a losing side of a civil war in China, and ultimately, they might have at least recognized the PRC a lot earlier.

As for North Korea, one thing that might be interesting is how it would change the dynamics of potential reunification, because while both sides would still be tense, there wouldn't be the whole detail of a war killing millions and turning both sides extremely hostile to each other.

Dunno enough about my history to answer the other questions.

 

[Apollo 20]

While it may not matter, one problem here is that the US really didn't have a "nuclear umbrella" circa 1950. The H-bomb was not tested until 1952. On the other hand, it is probably sufficient to have the US declare South Korea's continued independence a significant US national security interest.

One thing you might get from no Korea is a third Truman term; his unpopularity in 1952 had a lot to do with Korea and the firing of MacArthur. No Korean War means Truman may wind up being more popular in 1952 than he was OTL. Insofar as the economy was back on track by 1952, Truman might have had success running on a "I delivered peace and prosperity" message. I'm not sure even Ike could beat that. Given Truman's proclivities toward far-reaching progressive policies, a win in 1952 might well have delivered a meaningful civil rights bill, Medicare and universal health care provided he got a Democratic Congress to go with his '52 win. The repercussions from that would have been significant; it would have both sped up the social change that eventually hit the country in the '60s and may have accelerated the alienation of the South from the Democrats.

 

[EternalCynic]

Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson had publicly stated that the US has no intention to interfere in the internal affairs of China - that is, the US will no longer save Chiang on Taiwan. He also stated that in fact, it's the Soviet Union which poses the greatest threat to China's territorial integrity, hinting the US is willing to do business with Mao on a friendly basis. Mao had also paid lip service to building good relations with the US.

So no Korean War means Mao completely wipes out the KMT by mid-1950. The US and western powers recognize him as the only legitimate government of China. Truman also offers huge financial assistance to China, effectively turning Mao into a second Tito, privately infuriating Stalin.

Stalin blames fascist Trotskyists for losing China to the imperialists and sends them to Siberia.

The butterflies are massive. There will be no Red Scar and no Vietnam in the US. There will be no Great Leap Forward and no Cultural Revolution in China. There will be two Communist Blocs of equal size and prestige, with major consequences for the Cold War.

 

[Pomphis]

Germany´s Wirtschaftswunder will be slowed down.
Germany´s rearmement will be slowed down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder

The demands of the Korean war in 1950-53 led to a global shortage of goods that helped overcome lingering resistance to the purchase of German products. At the time Germany had a large pool of skilled labour, partly as a result of the deportations and migrations which affected up to 16.5 million Germans. This helped Germany to more than double the value of its exports during and shortly after the war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany#History

The outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat.

 

[stevep]

Guys

It would also probably be a big boost for Britain. Having struggled to repair the economy after 45 and get exports expanded to pay for debt commitments and the rebuilding of industry things were starting to pick up when the Korean war meant a lot of extra expense and diversion of resources to the military.

Not going to be a paradise but can probably end the remaining rationing earlier and see a more substantial boom in the 50's. Probably also some of the social changes of the 60's occurring earlier because the country is richer and more confident.

Steve

 

[Mr.J]

The butterflies are massive. There will be no Red Scar and no Vietnam in the US. There will be no Great Leap Forward and no Cultural Revolution in China. There will be two Communist Blocs of equal size and prestige, with major consequences for the Cold War.

Wow, that's probably the biggest consequence right there. But wouldn't Mao want to try some sort of crash-industrialization scheme regardless of any Sino-Soviet split?

 

[Julius Vogel]

Might worsen the NZ economy, as we did pretty well due to the War it seems.

 

[The Red]

Guys

It would also probably be a big boost for Britain. Having struggled to repair the economy after 45 and get exports expanded to pay for debt commitments and the rebuilding of industry things were starting to pick up when the Korean war meant a lot of extra expense and diversion of resources to the military.

Not going to be a paradise but can probably end the remaining rationing earlier and see a more substantial boom in the 50's. Probably also some of the social changes of the 60's occurring earlier because the country is richer and more confident.

Steve

You also remove a major factor in the disunity of the Labour party during the Fifties. Labour might even hold onto their majority in 1951, or deprive Churchill of one.

 

[freivolk]

The U.S. defence budget jumped from 15 billions to 60 billions and stayed at such a level after the war. Without the massive decrease of U.S. budget, would the Soviet Union propably win military superiority in the late fifties?

 

[EternalCynic]

Wow, that's probably the biggest consequence right there. But wouldn't Mao want to try some sort of crash-industrialization scheme regardless of any Sino-Soviet split?

That's a given, but he's also dependent on western aid against the Soviets. His sort of socialism may resemble Lenin's NEP or even Tito's acceptance of private enterprise than the ghastly mess of OTL.

What happens in North Korea though? With a China now hostile to the Soviets, North Korea is supported literally through one railway bridge.

 

[Mr.J]

What happens in North Korea though? With a China now hostile to the Soviets, North Korea is supported literally through one railway bridge.

Well, I could imagine a pro-Chinese coup in NK - though North Korea survived a China hostile to the Soviets for decades IOTL.