Korea turns into Vietnam

Is it possible? Or is the Korean conflict too fundmentally different? I'm not sure how it worked so... help! If yes, it could have turned into a loss, I wonder how that would've mixed with the McCarthy era. Could've lead to... rather scary results.
 
I think he means the USA loosing.

There are a lot of similarities between the Vietnam war and the Korean. For example both where Proxy wars, USA versus Communism.

Basically the US intervention was the same. But the difference i think was that North Vietnam fought a war of guerrilla tactics(through the VC also with terrorism) while the Noth Korean did not and it ended up a trenchwar.

Much more then that i do not know of the Korean war, but if the north Koreans would have gone into the same tactics as the North Vietnamese did they could have lengthened the war in the same way and causes morale of the US army to drop and caused the population to eventually oppose the war.
 
Invade China, that's the only way really.
Korea was viewed as the quagmire as it is before Vietnam took it's place BTW. Compared to Vietnam, it was viewed more rosy and Truman was more popular as a result.
 
South Korea government not as corrupt and lazy as the South Vietnam government. South Korea wanted to win. It Seemed like the south did not want to win the war either.
docfl
 

pnyckqx

Banned
Is it possible? Or is the Korean conflict too fundmentally different? I'm not sure how it worked so... help! If yes, it could have turned into a loss, I wonder how that would've mixed with the McCarthy era. Could've lead to... rather scary results.
Strongly doubt that Korea could in any way resemble the Vietnam conflict. What would be required is popular support of the government of Kim Il Sung among the population, and wide spread attrocities by S. Korean and UN forces.

Neither condition existed to any great extent.

Kim was no Ho Chi Minh.
 
Good. Namely, a loss in Korea could've set the USA down a VERY dark path, to say the least with the Red Scare in play.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
The circumstances of Korea are too different (starting from geography) so no, it can't be a Vietnam.
Terrain is not relevant to strategic concerns, even though it and logistics determine your tactics.

Strategically, what the OP is looking for is some form of insurgency war, as was the case of the Viet Cong.

The terrain of Afghanistan is radically different than Vietnam, yet the Taliban pursue an insurgency war against the ISAF.

For sure the two wars are tactically different. The Viet Cong and NVA would "hold on to the belt" against US forces, getting in too close for the US to use it's huge Indirect fire support/Air support without blue-on-blue casualties.

In Afghanistan, the insurgents don't dare close with US forces. Rather they use IED's and long range sniping --and then bug out before a strike can be called on their position.

Still, the strategic concerns and goals are the same.

In Korea, the best place to fight an insurgency war is in the eastern part of the peninsula, which is mountainous, and not a good place to fight.

There is no way to make Kim Il Sung into Ho Chi Minh. These are two different men with two different temperments, and two different backgrounds.


 

Sumeragi

Banned

In Korea, the best place to fight an insurgency war is in the eastern part of the peninsula, which is mountainous, and not a good place to fight.
The problem here is that you're thinking a mountainous terrain would automatically mean a good place for an insurgency war. It is not, since while it is true that there are the high mountains, those are not the type to be able to sustain the number of troops needed for a continuous conflict, both in terms of food, cover, and ideological support. There's a reason why by 1950, almost all guerrilla forces were destroyed before the Korean War broke out.


There is no way to make Kim Il Sung into Ho Chi Minh. These are two different men with two different temperments, and two different backgrounds.
This is correct.
 
Top