No Vietnam or Korean war

Say kim il sung doesn't give the go ahead for the Korean war and France leaves Vietnam in it's entirety to ho chi minh

Whats the impact on the United States

Would the United States go to war in another part of the world
 
Say kim il sung doesn't give the go ahead for the Korean war and France leaves Vietnam in it's entirety to ho chi minh

Whats the impact on the United States

Would the United States go to war in another part of the world

I’m only addressing the Korean War here. I think if Kim Il Sung for whatever reason (suddenly losing appetite in reunification) doesn’t want to invade ROK, does he have what it takes to convince Stalin not to make a big deal about the Koreas?

And if Stalin is convinced by ITTL Kim Il Sung, where in the world would he seek to “test” US resolve?
 
Say kim il sung doesn't give the go ahead for the Korean war and France leaves Vietnam in it's entirety to ho chi minh

Whats the impact on the United States

Would the United States go to war in another part of the world

Not likely: US policy towards Communism was called "containment" for a reason. The goal was to prevent the radical leftist regimes from establishing themselves in areas that were already considered "capitalist", rather than trying to purge it from where it already existed. Without Vietnam being considered "lost/falling" because it was never part of the Capitalist world in the first place, nor North Korean attempts to seize South Korea for Communism, there's little motivation under the broader global strategy on the part of The United States to go out and start a war.
 
Likely if Vietnam were left to Ho Chi Minh he would have tried to overthrow Laos, Cambodia and very likely Thailand as well. There is also the prospect of Indonesia turning Communist if the US (or Australia) did not intervene, and then the Communists, assuming they were all pro-Soviet, might have tried to take over mineral-surfeited Australia. An Australian takeover would have had major consequences for industry in Japan and Europe that substantially depends on Australian minerals.

In the most extreme scenario, mass industrial production would have shifted to Stalinist nations, which would have severely affected either the economic diversity or the prosperity of Europe, Japan and South Korea.
 
Likely if Vietnam were left to Ho Chi Minh he would have tried to overthrow Laos, Cambodia and very likely Thailand as well. There is also the prospect of Indonesia turning Communist if the US (or Australia) did not intervene, and then the Communists, assuming they were all pro-Soviet, might have tried to take over mineral-surfeited Australia. An Australian takeover would have had major consequences for industry in Japan and Europe that substantially depends on Australian minerals.

In the most extreme scenario, mass industrial production would have shifted to Stalinist nations, which would have severely affected either the economic diversity or the prosperity of Europe, Japan and South Korea.

Excuse me for asking a possibly dumb question here, but HOW could the Communists have taken over Australia? I mean, Australian politics can get a bit weird at times, but there's no chance they're all going to wake up one morning and decide they're good little Soviets, right? So we're talking about an external invasion, which sounds frankly insane. Indonesia is close enough to be able to be able to land forces in "the top bit", but that's still thousands of km to the bits that matter, across some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world, with no supply lines worthy of the name, in the face of interdiction by the RAAF and RAN at the very least. I think we need to know about more about how this takeover is meant to happen before we just accept it as a fact, y'know?
 
Excuse me for asking a possibly dumb question here, but HOW could the Communists have taken over Australia? I mean, Australian politics can get a bit weird at times, but there's no chance they're all going to wake up one morning and decide they're good little Soviets, right? So we're talking about an external invasion, which sounds frankly insane. Indonesia is close enough to be able to be able to land forces in "the top bit", but that's still thousands of km to the bits that matter, across some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world, with no supply lines worthy of the name, in the face of interdiction by the RAAF and RAN at the very least. I think we need to know about more about how this takeover is meant to happen before we just accept it as a fact, y'know?
I am not sure they would have succeeded because of the extraordinarily weathered and impoverished soils of tropical Australia, which ancient Austronesians knew to be impossible for farming. However, that they would have attempted because of the limitless mineral wealth I have no doubt. If they could have just seized the most exploitable mineral wealth, which was known even in the days of Vietnam, the Communists would still have held substantial power, but it would have been very tough to hold even from Jakarta, you are right.
 
And if Stalin is convinced by ITTL Kim Il Sung, where in the world would he seek to “test” US resolve?

Iran, perhaps? There had already been a US-Soviet standoff over Russia’s continued occupation of Northern Iran in 1946, and Tudeh was still pretty powerful in the early 1950s.

Likely if Vietnam were left to Ho Chi Minh he would have tried to overthrow Laos, Cambodia and very likely Thailand as well. There is also the prospect of Indonesia turning Communist if the US (or Australia) did not intervene, and then the Communists, assuming they were all pro-Soviet, might have tried to take over mineral-surfeited Australia. An Australian takeover would have had major consequences for industry in Japan and Europe that substantially depends on Australian minerals.

In the most extreme scenario, mass industrial production would have shifted to Stalinist nations, which would have severely affected either the economic diversity or the prosperity of Europe, Japan and South Korea.

While the communists coming to dominate Indochina and Indonesia is somewhat plausible, a successful invasion of Australia is most certainly not. Putting aside the implausibility of the commies mustering a force large enough to conquer Australia, the ANZACs would probably interdict any such force before it lands. Aside from that, such an action would inevitably draw the US and Britain into the fray, whereupon the curbstomping becomes more of a steamrolling
 
The only way Communism is coming to Australia is internally. The CPA was moribundly labourist; which therefore requires something very unusual happening with the ALP / ACTU, or something even more unusual happening with the CPA-ML or the anarchists / ACTU. None of which is likely to be inspired by war mongering tankies. Now, admittedly Le Duan wouldn't be responsible for a communist Indonesia, because, again, it would be an internal thing.

Regarding Stalin and Kim the relationship is precisely the other way around. Kim had been begging for a 10 division offensive army and permission was sought prior to invasion. Stalin's eye, and staff planning Andy exercises, was firmly placed on Yugoslavia as an extension of the Rajk purge paranoia.

Yours,
Sam R.
 
However, that they would have attempted because of the limitless mineral wealth I have no doubt. If they could have just seized the most exploitable mineral wealth,

"How" still applies. It's SeaLion-esque in terms of difficulty rating and likelihood.
 
Say kim il sung doesn't give the go ahead for the Korean war and France leaves Vietnam in it's entirety to ho chi minh

Whats the impact on the United States

Would the United States go to war in another part of the world

Without any context it isn't a given that they go to war anywhere else. They didn't fight in Korea or Vietnam just for the heck of it.

Assuming the space programme progresses as per our time line, no Vietnam budget suck means at least three more moon landings (Apollo 18, 19 and 20 which were cancelled in this TL), and likely continued development of the Saturn V, along with the initial NASA vision of the time. Manned moon bases, proper space stations rather than using leftover Apollo components, planning for manned Mars missions 40 years ago rather than now. And a proper Space Shuttle rather than the compromise which was built. No Vietnam means potentially a continued golden age for NASA.
 
Without any context it isn't a given that they go to war anywhere else.
Wouldn't they be more willing to use military force in other parts of the world threaten by communism or soviet allies without those two wars.

No. Unlikely the Soviets would tolerate that and the US isn't going to risk WW3 over the hostages. Also, see Operation Eagle Claw.
Could they make it a joint operation or limit the United states response to the southern part of the country ?
 
Putting aside the implausibility of the commies mustering a force large enough to conquer Australia, the ANZACs would probably interdict any such force before it lands. Aside from that, such an action would inevitably draw the US and Britain into the fray, whereupon the curbstomping becomes more of a steamrolling
I have always assumed that Communism had enough mass support in East and Southeast Asia that the size of the force would not be what prevented an external conquest of Australia, rather the uniquely harsh environments (uniquely ancient and infertile soils, plus among the most erratic climates) would have defied attempts even by the very large forces that a Communist Southeast Asia would have drawn on.

However, what would less direct pressure (e.g. for favourable trade deals) by a uniformly Communist southeast Asia have done to Australia? Would it have drawn Britain and the United States in even when the Communist bloc was not attempting an invasion? Would internal politics (like Aboriginal affairs) in Australia have become linked to conflicts over relationships with a wholly Communist Southeast Asia (I ask this because of my familiarity with such Trotskyist groups as Socialist Alternative, the International Socialist Organization, and the Democratic Socialist Party)? Would Australia have militarized much more (say, to the extent Israel does today) to fight off a united Communist front?
 
I have always assumed that Communism had enough mass support in East and Southeast Asia that the size of the force would not be what prevented an external conquest of Australia

I have a sneaking suspicion that a lack of naval and long range air assets will prevent an invasion.

However, what would less direct pressure (e.g. for favourable trade deals) by a uniformly Communist southeast Asia have done to Australia?

Some kind of CIA coup against a centrist Labor PM? Kind of a soft Chile?


Would it have drawn Britain and the United States in even when the Communist bloc was not attempting an invasion?

Australia's foreign policy, of paying "the insurance premium" in blood, is predicated on this fact. ANZUS, however, does not require any of the contracting parties to do more than consider.

Would internal politics (like Aboriginal affairs) in Australia have become linked to conflicts over relationships with a wholly Communist Southeast Asia (I ask this because of my familiarity with such Trotskyist groups as Socialist Alternative, the International Socialist Organization, and the Democratic Socialist Party)?

These three groups (two now defunct) represent broadly the Australian post-1990s left. Trotskyist. Student focused. Pathetically parliamentary or "social" rather than industrial. They are not a good representative of the state of the Australian far left prior to 1989.

Prior to 1989 Australia's left was composed of the left of the ALP and labourist Unionists, the CPA/Tankies (Czech the reason for the split ;) and the Maoists. All of whom were MUCH more serious, much more industrial and oriented towards middle class intellectuals and the ALP, rather than students and social causes.

The CPA had to be lectured early in its history about Aboriginal rights by the International, this is due to the White Wages / Stolen Land themes inside Australian labourism. (It is easier to consider the CPA as an alternate labour party, rather than a communist party.) While the CPA did attempt to break this down, the assistance provided to indigenous activists tended to be training rather than movement control. The CPA had some quality of fighting "white australia" until… well until right wing emigres from Eastern Europe were brought in by the ALP. Then it got messy.

While the communist movement (CPA / Tankies / Maoists) from the late 1950s were much better on aboriginal rights, Aboriginality needs to be understood not so much as a "colour" line, but as a "culture" line. Depending on how people of aboriginal descent situate their aboriginality as culture, they can be accepted as "white" or cast out as "black." Similar processes happen with "wogs" and "asians" in the period. But unlike ethnicity, aboriginality has the latent threat of land rights backing its persecution.

The biggest issue for internal politics will, of course, be the chockos, the chocolate soldiers. Nobody will want conscription to fight the red/yellow peril in West Papua. Historically this is what radicalised the Australian working class politically in the late 1960s.

Now the industrial radicalisation will still occur as the "growth" economy is even more under pressure.

So that's why I suggest an Allende/Pinochet solution to Australia's internal politics is likely.

yours,
Sam R.
 
There's always India, Africa, Greece, the Middle East...so many potential tripwires. Though if there is no Korea or Vietnam, this likely means no Stalin or a USSR so wounded it isn't able or willing to project it's influence. If so, the US doesn't become the international policeman. Instead the UN evolves into a true international force. This may mean a US willing to work with it's Allies (UK, France) and accept spheres of influence. That could mean slower decolonization, a bloodier decolonization, and all sorts of horrors that entails.
 
Though if there is no Korea or Vietnam, this likely means no Stalin

Nope. Korea was an indigenous desire from the Soviet Aligned Jucheist faction, the Soviet Aligned Soviet Faction, the China aligned faction AND the indigenous genuinely "c" communist faction.

Stalin gave a "go" on begging, but the begging wasn't Jucheist. You'd need Mikoyan AND Beria to oppose in the Soviet Union. Which is a lot of factional effort for a small reward.

Compare this to the demand to chastise Yugoslavia (historical, exercises, invasion plan) and you can see that there's a limit on "stalin" as a personality. Korea is a "go" because the Southern revolutionaries think they can take Seoul through insurrection (haha).

yours,
Sam R.
 
Top