Korea Today if the North Won the Korean War

[TheTuck]

What would Korea be like today if the North had won the Korean War and unified the peninsula? Would the expanded DPRK even survive the collapse of Communism, would it have reformed like China or would it be just as Stalinist and Orwellian as today? Would it have pursued nuclear weapons?

 

[Lalli]

Probably it would look like bit like OTL Vietnam. With united Korea there hardly would be Kim Dynasty and their maniac regime.

 

[Yossarian]

Probably it would look like bit like OTL Vietnam. With united Korea there hardly would be Kim Dynasty and their maniac regime.

This seems right to me. Really they'd probably be more prosperous than modern Vietnam by the present day because they'd have had peace for the whole post-war era rather than Vietnam's long series of brutal conflicts.

 

[ReconGuy02]

Nuclear wasteland. USA would've bombed the f out NK and China.
USSR had 50-70 nukes as in 1950, none of which was capable to reach GB/Canada/USA

 

[Lalli]

Nuclear wasteland. USA would've bombed the f out NK and China.
USSR had 50-70 nukes as in 1950, none of which was capable to reach GB/Canada/USA

Only if USA would want use nukes and take risk of WW3.

 

[ReconGuy02]

Only if USA would want use nukes and take risk of WW3.

I said, USSR wasn't a menace for USA. 400-600 nukes aganist 50-70?

 

[iVC]

I said, USSR wasn't a menace for USA. 400-600 nukes aganist 50-70?

USSR was a menace for Middle East and Europe, so there was no need to risk so much for the dubious idea of nuking the crap out of NK and China (and possibly USSR too).

 

[RousseauX]

I said, USSR wasn't a menace for USA. 400-600 nukes aganist 50-70?

The USSR would have being hit worse than the US but it's not clear that the US would risk Paris or London being hit over who controls South Korea

 

[marathag]

Nuclear wasteland. USA would've bombed the f out NK and China.
USSR had 50-70 nukes as in 1950, none of which was capable to reach GB/Canada/USA

1950
USA 369 USSR 5
1951
USA 640 USSR 25

 

[marathag]

The USSR would have being hit worse than the US but it's not clear that the US would risk Paris or London being hit over who controls South Korea

The first B-4 bomber was finished in the spring of 1947 and carried out its' first flight on 19 May 1947. Flight tests continued through 1949. Full-scale production of the aircraft, under the designation Tu-4. began in 1947 at the plant Nr. 22 in Kazan and at plant Nr. 18 in Kuibyshev. In 1948, an additional construction plant in Moscow, Nr. 23, was adapted to build the TU-4. Production in Moscow began in 1950 and when total production of the TU-4 finally finished in 1952, a total of 847 bombers had been produced [according to Russian sources -- according to Western estimates, a maximum of about 1,300 were deployed by 1954].

The deployment of the TU-4 bomber began in 1949, and they replaced wartime bombers such as the IL-4, B-25, PYE-8, B-17 and B-24 aircraft in Long-Range Aviation units. Patrolling mainly over Soviet territory, the bombers had a capability to strike at Europe, Northern Africa, the Near East and Japan.

Immediately after serial production of the Tu-4 was initiated, work began to adapt the bomber to strike at American territory. Some airplanes were outfitted to carry nuclear bombs and were designated as TU-4A. During re-equipment, the bomber was equipped with a thermostatically controlled heated bomb bay, a suspension unit for the bomb was developed, and biological protection devices for the crew were supplied

They had very few Tu-4A in service, per http://www.tupolev.ru/en/aircrafts/68_(tu-4) 10 of them. Regular Tu-4 could not carry the first Generation Soviet bombs like the RDS-5, all the Soviets had thru 1954

 

[Thon Taddeo]

We now know about the massive gap in nuclear capabilities in the eraly '50s, but did Truman or anyone else in the American government know about the disparity? Even if the CIA suspected that Russia had few nukes, how many in America and Europe would trust such estimates?

 

[sloreck]

The issue was that the Europeans were scared to brown trousers that the massive Soviet ground forces with WP support would move west. Potentially the US could use atomic weapons in a tactical mode, flying B-29s from the UK, but this would be difficult as the airspace would be heavily contested. Needless to say the NATO folks were not pleased with the idea of even temporarily losing swathes of territory to the Russians, and even less about the US using atomic weapons on their territory in the effort to expel said Russians. In the 1950-54 time frame, the odds of any Soviet atomic weapons landing in America were extremely slim, although not zero. OTOH, no matter what, all of the work done in Western Europe since the end of WWII to rebuild would be undone by such a conflict. The other reality is that with the primary nuclear delivery being the B-29, with some help from the B-36 (maybe) dropping atomic weapons on the USSR except around the edges would be difficult given the appearance of jet fighters.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

Probably it would look like bit like OTL Vietnam. With united Korea there hardly would be Kim Dynasty and their maniac regime.

Well, it's likely though not guarranteed. Expect a total bloodbath in the aftermath of the Secret Speech.

 

[Jukra]

What would Korea be like today if the North had won the Korean War and unified the peninsula? Would the expanded DPRK even survive the collapse of Communism, would it have reformed like China or would it be just as Stalinist and Orwellian as today? Would it have pursued nuclear weapons?

I think the only realistic window of opportunity would be right in the beginning of the conflict - the US decides not to react militarily to the attack. Thus, NK captures SK with fairly minimal casualties and damage. We'll butterfly away other chances of Soviet sponsored military opportunism.

Japan will be militarized more strongly than OTL due to proximity of Communist Korea. When the inevitable Sino-Soviet split occurs, perhaps earlier than OTL, the Korean-Chinese border becomes somewhat unstable. We might even have a war there where USSR backs NK. More likely occurrence might be a situation in which China probokes guerrilla activities and USSR backs NK regime.

As for economy, for the Cold War I would expect Korea to be East Germany of Asia, more prosperous than China.

 

[Whiteshore]

What happens to Jeju Island? Does it become a mini-Taiwan?

 

[Jukra]

What happens to Jeju Island? Does it become a mini-Taiwan?

Without having specialized knowledge on the issue, it's hard to see how, as the island is so small. I think if US would abandon Korea, it would abandon it entirely as Korea was so insignificant at the time. Of course it might be possible that USN would lobby to keep it as a base when SK collapses, and SK refugees grasp the opportunity to have an exile government there.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Much better than OTL North Korea, definitely pretty bad compared to OTL South Korea. Kim Il-sung is likely to resign at some point, or otherwise will have limits on his power which OTL he was able to remove. Kim Jong-il will remain a political figure of some note, but will probably stick to propaganda films and other artistic works. The regime might get overthrown in the early 90s, or otherwise reform like China did. Even if the ROK and the US keep Jeju and other offshore islands, there isn't nearly the justification DPRK had OTL to militarise so heavily.

Without having specialized knowledge on the issue, it's hard to see how, as the island is so small. I think if US would abandon Korea, it would abandon it entirely as Korea was so insignificant at the time. Of course it might be possible that USN would lobby to keep it as a base when SK collapses, and SK refugees grasp the opportunity to have an exile government there.

Proportionately Jeju compared to Korea isn't that much smaller than Taiwan compared to China in terms of late 40s population, and is larger proportionately in terms of area. The ROK notoriously conducted a brutal suppression of left-wing influence on Jeju in 1948-49. Combined with American troops, the remnant ROK, and refugee populations, Jeju wouldn't be in danger of falling anytime soon.

Further, the remnant ROK wouldn't just be Jeju, since it could easily keep control of Ulleung off the east coast of Korea, and probably some of the smaller islands off the southwest coast of Korea, which would be like ROC's Fujian Province, consisting of a few small islands scattered off the coast of PRC's Fujian Province. So ROK could retain a decent amount of land, and probably have a population of perhaps 1-1.5 million people.

If the DPRK reforms, then Korean unification is pretty likely. The remnant ROK is too small to develop like Taiwan or OTL ROK, and the economy would be largely based on the American military bases and remittances from Koreans in Japan and the US. So the economic disparity is not likely to be as high as OTL between the two Koreas, although ROK might have a slightly higher GDP per capita compared to DPRK (which will have a much higher GDP per capita compared to OTL DPRK).

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

With no SK (assuming Jeju becomes TTL’s Taiwan) Kim Il-Sung can only beat the “fuck America and Japan” drum so hard, and the second that sweet Soviet support dries up, all that’s left is China and they won’t put up with the Kim dynasty’s shit anymore. So realistically, Papa Kim gets to run Korea like his own personal playground until the 90s, and then when he dies and the famine sets in, expect China to be pretty heavy-handed about reform and for Deng-style reforms to kick in by 2000. A new leader will industrialize the shit out of Korea, and you can expect a lot of cheap goods to be made there a la China or Vietnam.

I’m sure there will be a similar “one Korea” policy that includes Jeju much as one China does Taiwan, and you can expect that reforms will include capping the number of children people can have - even Vietnam fines parents who have a third.

I don’t see Korea being especially devastated or much worse than OTL simply because Truman wouldn’t stand for it. MacArthur was thiiiiiiiis close to nuking Korea back to the Stone Age and Truman fired the shit out of him for it - no reason to believe he won’t do the same here.

 

[Prof_Chemical]

regardless of who wins korea, a united korea would do better than a divided one. Now back then south korea was the mental one, but over time they switched, south becoming less fascist and north becoming a neo korean style monarachy. If communist korea owns all of korea then thatd butterfly the kims, doesnt mean some other wack shit wont happen tho. id wager that korea would be the least mental of the asian communists comparable to some members of the eastern block.

 

[Panzer Zodiark]

A united Korea under the communist would basically be the Cuba of Asia under the dynasty of the Kim family with refugees crossing in boats to Japan on a regular basis.