Korean War: WI the USSR hadn't been boycotting the UN?

[Onkel Willie]

OK, IOTL the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN because it refused to grant the communist China the seat held by Guomindang controlled Taiwan, aka the Republic of China and so, by the time the Korean War erupted, the Soviets weren't there to veto UN intervention. Suppose they hadn't been boycotting the UN and had vetoed the decision to intervene?

Then wat happens?

 

[Laqueesha]

Koreab [sic] War?

 

[Onkel Willie]

Koreab [sic] War?

I meant Korean war of course

 

[The Red]

Probably around the same outcome, the US will just ignore the UN if it doesn't agree, Britain will probably do the same.

 

[Telemond's_Lamb_Chop]

Probably around the same outcome, the US will just ignore the UN if it doesn't agree, Britain will probably do the same.

If they chose to ignore the UN which was after all primarily set up by the USA and British Commonwealth then that organisation is effectively finished as its instigators are rejecting it. Do you really think the US Government would be that foolish and unwise? I doubt it, I know the British Government would never do anything that dumb, the FO and CS would never let it.

 

[The Red]

If they chose to ignore the UN which was after all primarily set up by the USA and British Commonwealth then that organisation is effectively finished as its instigators are rejecting it. Do you really think the US Government would be that foolish and unwise? I doubt it, I know the British Government would never do anything that dumb, the FO and CS would never let it.

If the alternative is losing the Korean peninsula and tunring Japan into the Finland of the Far East then yes.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

I can see the Communist Nations declaring the UN useless and leave and set up their own UN equivalent. Also, if PRC still intervene in Korea, saving North Korea, then Korean diplomacy would be even worse due to North Korea not being in the UN.

Also, with two UNs many Third World nations would join neither, since it would just be another Cold War tool.

 

[Devolved]

I can see the Communist Nations declaring the UN useless and leave and set up their own UN equivalent. Also, if PRC still intervene in Korea, saving North Korea, then Korean diplomacy would be even worse due to North Korea not being in the UN.

Also, with two UNs many Third World nations would join neither, since it would just be another Cold War tool.

Do you really think being in the UN matters at all to the leaders of North Korea?

Also why didn't the Communist countries declare the UN useless in 1950 when they saw Americans, Britsh, Turks and Ethiopians going to Korea to fight their socialist brothers under a UN banner?

The Communist countries would stay in the UN because it was an excellent stick to beat the western countries with. It was a cheap propaganda platform for the dictator states, they would not throw that stick away easily.

 

[Telemond's_Lamb_Chop]

I can see the Communist Nations declaring the UN useless and leave and set up their own UN equivalent.

No the Communists have no reason to leave the UN. The situation as described by The Red based on the OP's scenario is that the North Korean invasion (in response to southern Korean incursions don't forget) is submitted to the UN Security Council and the resolution(s?) that were voted for and acted upon in OTL are vetoed by the Soviets in council. Then the USA and the British invade anyway. The Soviets can sit back and use the full majesty of the UN as it tears itself apart as a soap box to (rightly in this instance) condemn the USA and Britain as treaty breakers, war mongers and trying to set up one set of rules for themselves and another for the rest of the world.

If anyone leaves or indeed is expelled (I'm not sure about the mechanism for that) it would be the USA and the British.

The Soviets have as I say no reason to leave and every reason to stay whilst the Americans and British destroy the UN. THEN they can think about sponsoring a new organisation which would of course consist of far more than just the Communist world, it would be nearly everyone infact apart from the USA, Britain and a few other members of the anglo-sphere.

Which is why the whole idea of the USA and British sending significant troops to the south to oppose the northern incursions is more than a little unrealistic. What might happen is that we migh end up with a proxy war or the rest of the world lets the Koreans get on with it. In the former case it is anyones guess who wins (unless the Chinese get involved - they of course are not bound by the UN as they have been blocked from doing so by the USA), in the event the Koreans are left to sort it out the North Koreans win.

Japan is the Pacific Finland it has been demilitaried, the only difference is the USA demilitarised it instead of the Soviet Union.

 

[Devolved]

No the Communists have no reason to leave the UN. The situation as described by The Red based on the OP's scenario is that the North Korean invasion (in response to southern Korean incursions don't forget) is submitted to the UN Security Council and the resolution(s?) that were voted for and acted upon in OTL are vetoed by the Soviets in council. Then the USA and the British invade anyway. The Soviets can sit back and use the full majesty of the UN as it tears itself apart as a soap box to (rightly in this instance) condemn the USA and Britain as treaty breakers, war mongers and trying to set up one set of rules for themselves and another for the rest of the world.

If anyone leaves or indeed is expelled (I'm not sure about the mechanism for that) it would be the USA and the British.

The Soviets have as I say no reason to leave and every reason to stay whilst the Americans and British destroy the UN. THEN they can think about sponsoring a new organisation which would of course consist of far more than just the Communist world, it would be nearly everyone infact apart from the USA, Britain and a few other members of the anglo-sphere.

Which is why the whole idea of the USA and British sending significant troops to the south to oppose the northern incursions is more than a little unrealistic. What might happen is that we migh end up with a proxy war or the rest of the world lets the Koreans get on with it. In the former case it is anyones guess who wins (unless the Chinese get involved - they of course are not bound by the UN as they have been blocked from doing so by the USA), in the event the Koreans are left to sort it out the North Koreans win.

Japan is the Pacific Finland it has been demilitaried, the only difference is the USA demilitarised it instead of the Soviet Union.

No one is joining a Soviet sponsored UN in 1950 unless they are communists. The UN was/is a creation of Anglo American idealism. Without the US and Brtiain the UN would have been just a Communist international that means nothing outside of Communist rhetoric.

Attempts by third world countries (such as the Bandung conference of 1955) to set up a new international organisation slowly faded because apart from vague anti-western feelings and nationalistic chauvinism there was NOTHING to keep them together.

Most third world countries don't and never did care about the UN. They attended because the rich and powerful countries with money were there.

 

[Telemond's_Lamb_Chop]

No one is joining a Soviet sponsored UN in 1950 unless they are communists. The UN was/is a creation of Anglo American idealism. Without the US and Brtiain the UN would have been just a Communist international that means nothing outside of Communist rhetoric.

In our 1950s the USA and Britain were not stupid enough to cynically destroy the organisation over a single issue (Korea). In the response to the Soviet veto as described by The Red for this scenario they are going to completely ignore the UN charter and the will of the Security Council of the organisation they themselves had a big part in setting up. At which point the UN falls apart. Even western allies won't want to support the USA and Britain in this situation. Once the UN has fallen apart you are simply not in the same world as OTL you are in a world where the new superpower and the old colonial power are ignoring the will of the rest of the world as manifest by the Security Council. There is every chance of a Soviet proposed replacement for the UN being accepted by countries that would not have given it a second thought in OTL, France, India and Brazil for example.

 

[stevep]

Telemond's_Lamb_Chop

Not sure I agree as there was a lot of concern about communist expansion at the time and allowing the North Koreans to attack and invade the virtually unarmed south would be a big blow to western prestige. In the event that with the Soviets deadlocking the UN nothing happens in time to save the south I can see:

a) Especially in the US but probably in Britain, France and some other countries a big swing to the right.

b) A number of smaller, formally neutral states. probably seeking to come to terms with the SU because they fear that western guarantees of defence no longer carry weight.

c) Earlier re-arming of western Germany. [Also Japan will be re-militarised but not in conditions as favourable as OTL as it's not a partial reaction to and obscured by the Communist attack in Korea]. It will also see an economic boost from US military investment and basing of more forces in the area but not as great as the economic effect from the OTL Korean conflict.

This could be a markedly less stable and more violent world that OTL, which is saying something.

Steve

In our 1950s the USA and Britain were not stupid enough to cynically destroy the organisation over a single issue (Korea). In the response to the Soviet veto as described by The Red for this scenario they are going to completely ignore the UN charter and the will of the Security Council of the organisation they themselves had a big part in setting up. At which point the UN falls apart. Even western allies won't want to support the USA and Britain in this situation. Once the UN has fallen apart you are simply not in the same world as OTL you are in a world where the new superpower and the old colonial power are ignoring the will of the rest of the world as manifest by the Security Council. There is every chance of a Soviet proposed replacement for the UN being accepted by countries that would not have given it a second thought in OTL, France, India and Brazil for example.

 

[Telemond's_Lamb_Chop]

Stevep,

Not sure I agree as there was a lot of concern about communist expansion at the time and allowing the North Koreans to attack and invade the virtually unarmed south would be a big blow to western prestige.

I am not sure that it would have been the big blow to western prestige if the USA (and Britain) simply lets the Koreans get on with it and the North wins as they have not drawn a line in the sand across the peninsula so to speak.

In the event that with the Soviets deadlocking the UN nothing happens in time to save the south I can see:

a) Especially in the US but probably in Britain, France and some other countries a big swing to the right.

I’m not quite in agreement with you. I would argue that if, in order to keep South Korea in the western orbit the USA and British are willing to ignore the will of the UN and hence the rule of international law (which Britain at least has spent over 100 years developing by that point) destroying the UN before it has really got started then the USA at least is already far to the right of what it was in OTL and Britain is either being leaned on financially or has also gone far to the right.

b) A number of smaller, formally neutral states. probably seeking to come to terms with the SU because they fear that western guarantees of defence no longer carry weight.

Yes.

c) Earlier re-arming of western Germany. [Also Japan will be re-militarised but not in conditions as favourable as OTL as it's not a partial reaction to and obscured by the Communist attack in Korea]. It will also see an economic boost from US military investment and basing of more forces in the area but not as great as the economic effect from the OTL Korean conflict.

I think this may well be true but by boosting US military investment the development of the USA’s overall post war economy and hence the world’s will be retarded somewhat, maybe quite a lot.

This could be a markedly less stable and more violent world that OTL, which is saying something.

I could not agree more. Assuming we accept The Red’s statement on the USA and Britain ignoring the UN and in effect ignoring it then we have the two principal western powers acting either as rogue states or as petulant schoolchildren to start off with and no UN to act as a global forum for discussion.

 

[bguy]

OK, IOTL the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN because it refused to grant the communist China the seat held by Guomindang controlled Taiwan, aka the Republic of China and so, by the time the Korean War erupted, the Soviets weren't there to veto UN intervention. Suppose they hadn't been boycotting the UN and had vetoed the decision to intervene?

Then wat happens?

The Uniting for Peace Resoultion gets enacted 4 months earlier than it did OTL.

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

The US then immediately refers the NK invasion to the General Assembly, which promptly votes to authorize UN intervention. (OTL the General Assembly voted 47-5 with 5 absentions to authorize the liberation of North Korea. A vote for defending South Korea will probably pass by an even more lopsided margin.)

From there history proceeds as it did OTL though the Soviets have gotten a nasty diplomatic black eye and the credibility of the Security Council has probably been greatly weakened.

 

[Telemond's_Lamb_Chop]

That is interesting. It does not seem to have overturned the many hundreds of 'vetos' by the USA and USSR over the years however so I am unclear if it would work in this case.

 

[Faralis]

IMHO, if the soviets stop the resolution the US would create a NATO analog and thats all, not a really big butterfly seeing the UN record ...

 

[tallwingedgoat]

I see no reason US has to go to the UN to defend it's protectorate. How many ""police actions" have the US entered that began with a UN mandate? Sure many of the countries that did send troops wont in TTL, but US and British Commonwealth put up 90% of foreign troops anyways and more than that in terms of combat duty.

The main difference might be Truman would hesitate to invade North Korea after Inchon in the absence of UN approval. The Korean War could then be much shorter and a lot less bloody.

 

[Telemond's_Lamb_Chop]

I see no reason US has to go to the UN to defend it's protectorate.

UN Charter Chapters VI and VII

South Korea was not a protectorate of the USA it was part of an independent republic (which claimed sovreignty over the north).

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The US and the west act as OTL to save South Korea, the only change being that the free world decline in respect for the UN as a possible force for good takes place twenty years earlier.



Telemond's_Lamb_Chop, the comments about rogue states, petulant children and the destruction of international law show a remarkable ignorance of the entire subject. The US, UK and others are not flouting the will of the UN by saving South Korea from aggression since the Soviet veto means the Security Council has taken no stance on the Korean War, not that the UN has in any fashion opposed action to support South Korea.

Nor will the Soviet Union enjoy any of the benefits you imagine in the UN as the votes in the General Assembly go heavily against Moscow and the US and UK and France undoubtedly sponsor an entire series of Security Council resolutions which an isolated Soviet Union is forced to keep vetoing.

Also most other western nations and neutrals near the Soviet Union would be far more likely to break with the US and UK if the latter failed to act in the face of Soviet sponsored aggression than because the Anglo-Americans chose to protect 21 million people from aggression after the Soviets stopped the UN from taking a stand.

Your image of France, European neutrals or Latin America joining a puppet UN after Moscow kills the original I shall treat as a failed joke.

 

[Darth Revan]

Wait, how exactly is the U.S. and Britain violating the will of the U.N. by intervening? If I understand the scenerio correctly, the Soviet Union is simply vetoing any UN force from going to save SK. So unless the U.S. and UK are idiots enough to either a)commandeer UN troops and equipment or b) refer to their expeditionary forces as a UN task force; sending troops to Korea does not violate any UN resolution. The Soviet veto means that there is no OTL UN condemnation of NK and UN forces sent, not that NO COUNTRY can send forces there. For all intents and purposes the U.N. as a military force is NEUTRAL. Unless the UN passes a resolution that says no country should become involved in the conflict, the US and UK are fully within their rights to become involved per agreements