North Korea Invades South Korea in 1975

CaliGuy

Banned
I read that Kim Il-Sung wanted to invade South Korea again in 1975 due to him feeling confident after North Vietnam's victory over South Vietnam that year. However, China told him that it wouldn't support such a move and thus he didn't do it.

Anyway, what if China--for whatever reason--would have supported such a move on Kim Il-Sung's part--thus giving him the necessary confidence to go ahead with this plan of his?

Would the U.S. have militarily intervened in Korea in 1975 after seeing South Vietnam fall? Also, how exactly would the Second Korean War have looked like?

Any thoughts on all of this?
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
I read that Kim Il-Sung wanted to invade South Korea again in 1975 due to him feeling confident after North Vietnam's victory over South Vietnam that year. However, China told him that it wouldn't support such a move and thus he didn't do it.

Anyway, what if China--for whatever reason--would have supported such a move on Kim Il-Sung's part--thus giving him the necessary confidence to go ahead with this plan of his?

Would the U.S. have militarily intervened in Korea in 1975 after seeing South Vietnam fall? Also, how exactly would the Second Korean War have looked like?

Any thoughts on all of this?

Would the US intervene? Yes. They would have to because their invention would be brought on by the NK attack with regards to where the US Eighth Army had troops behind the DMZ. Hit SK, hit the Americans. It would be impossible to miss them.
This is leaving aside the politics where I believe even without the massive US military losses incurred at once, the US would go full-out. SK was not SV.
 
I think the North Korean Army will be well armed and could capture Seoul within a week after heavy fighting, considering there is now only 27,000 U.S. troops there I'd assume they would withdraw to a defensible perimeter on the coast while a relief force can be mustered.
 
Last edited:
Unlike the geography in South East Asia, the Korean peninsula has a nice little "bottleneck" the 38th parallel
where the communist forces could be pinned down. American firepower will eventually force them back.
 
Given the anti-war fever among the congressional class of 1974 they might defund the troops before enough troops are lost and the public forces them to.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Given the anti-war fever among the congressional class of 1974 they might defund the troops before enough troops are lost and the public forces them to.
Hang on--are you suggesting that this troop de-funding is going to be reversed by Congress due to public outrage?
 
Hang on--are you suggesting that this troop de-funding is going to be reversed by Congress due to public outrage?

After enough of them get overrun and die then perhaps, but it might be way too late.

The 1976 election would be interesting.

The Soviet's might even roll the dice on Western Europe if America lets its troops in Korea get overrun.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
After enough of them get overrun and die then perhaps, but it might be way too late.

How long could South Korea hold out, though?

The 1976 election would be interesting.

Carter would win in a landslide, no? Or would Scoop Jackson have been the 1976 Democratic nominee in this TL due to his vehement anti-Communism?

The Soviet's might even roll the dice on Western Europe if America lets its troops in Korea get overrun.

I doubt it; after all, Western Europe would be much more important for the U.S. than South Korea is, no?
 
After enough of them get overrun and die then perhaps, but it might be way too late.

The 1976 election would be interesting.

The Soviet's might even roll the dice on Western Europe if America lets its troops in Korea get overrun.

Uh..have you forgotten about nukes?
 
Uh..have you forgotten about nukes?

If America is too frozen or broken by Vietnam to use small tactical ones in Korea to save their troops from being overrun there will be a big assumption by Moscow America will be too frozen to do it over Germany.

They might even send an emissary to France when the tanks start rolling to tell them they won't cross into France to protect against the French using them. The British at the time weren't going to go nuclear over Germany.

It's not good for your opponent to believe your morale is totally shattered.
 
Last edited:
If America is too frozen or broken by Vietnam to use small tactical ones in Korea to save their troops from being overrun there will be a big assumption by Moscow America will be too frozen to do it over Germany.

They might even send an emissary to France when the tanks start rolling to tell them they won't cross into France to protect against the French using them.

It's not good for your enemy to believe your morale is totally shattered.

lol wah?
Why would the US let either happen when it has a strategic arsenal to large enough to wipe out any Red Army advance?
It wouldnt, so this makes zero sense
 
lol wah?
Why would the US let either happen when it has a strategic arsenal to large enough to wipe out any Red Army advance?
It wouldnt, so this makes zero sense

If the US doesn't save its troops in Korea using tactical nukes then why save their troops in Germany with them?

Frankly the US might end up using them and WW3 goes nuclear, but you have to understand there is a high chance the Soviet's construe America letting South Vietnam fall without conventional air power and then Korea fall and their troops overrun without bringing out the big guns as America's morale is shattered.

A country whose morale is shattered can not function properly so no it doesn't make logical sense, but humans aren't logical beings they are emotion based ones. Morale is necessary to fight wars and broken countries can not fight them and the Soviet's know that so they will be watching American actions in Asia very closely during the second Korea War here to see if America really is a broken nation and no longer willing to defend its troops and foreign allies.

Military units whose morale is shattered can't put up a real fight and the same is true of nations.
 
Last edited:
If the US doesn't save its troops in Korea using tactical nukes then why save their troops in Germany with them?

Frankly the US might end up using them and WW3 goes nuclear, but you have to understand there is a high chance the Soviet's construe America letting South Vietnam fall without conventional air power and then Korea fall and their troops overrun without bringing out the big guns as America's morale is shattered.

A country whose morale is shattered can not function properly so no it doesn't make logical sense, but humans aren't logical beings they are emotion based ones. Morale is necessary to fight wars and broken countries can not fight them and the Soviet's know that so they will be watching American actions in Asia very closely during the second Korea War here to see if America really is a broken nation and no longer willing to defend its troops and foreign allies.

Military units whose morale is shattered can't put up a real fight and the same is true of nations.

You don't need high troop/national morale to enter launch codes.
In fact, the lower morale in the fields, the higher likelihood someone presses the button.
 
You don't need high troop/national morale to enter launch codes.

It's not so simple as a game. The idea that they won't screw with us cuz we can just launch with a button was never true as they tested our resolve repeatedly around the world and in Europe.

If they feel our resolve is gone... trying to push us again out of Berlin and if we don't respond all of West Germany might be in the cards.

Frankly I think there is a vast underestimation on how important national resolve was as a factor in avoiding WW3. It wasn't just the threat of the almighty bomb that got even Stalin to back down at times.
 
It's not so simple as a game. The idea that they won't screw with us cuz we can just launch with a button was never true as they tested our resolve repeatedly around the world and in Europe.

If they feel our resolve is gone... trying to push us again out of Berlin and if we don't respond all of West Germany might be in the cards.

Frankly I think there is a vast underestimation on how important national resolve was as a factor in avoiding WW3. It wasn't just the threat of the almighty bomb that got even Stalin to back down at times.

National resolve is moot when you can annihilate your enemy before you even have to mobilize your reserves.
M.A.D was a thing afterall and the NATO nuclear umbrella that came with it covered all of western Europe.
It's bordering on the absurd to think the Red Army could launch a full scale advance and not get a nuclear response
 
National resolve is moot when you can annihilate your enemy before you even have to mobilize your reserves.
M.A.D was a thing afterall and the NATO nuclear umbrella that came with it covered all of western Europe.
It's bordering on the absurd to think the Red Army could launch a full scale advance and not get a nuclear response

We had nothing to worry about, heck we didn't even need troops in Western Europe. We had the bomb so the Soviet's would never act on West Germany.

I have heard that argument before many many times often with those arguing troops in West Germany were completely unnecessary because we had the bomb and that was the ultimate trump card, I will just say I think the line of thinking is wrong.
 
I'm offended I wasn't tagged on this. ;(
The quickest answer is that South Korea/US sees pyrrhic victory. If you want I'll elaborate on that later.
 
If MAD is what stopped the Soviets rolling West (which I'm unsure of. It wasn't MAD that stopped NATO rolling East) then the question they'll be asking isn't "does America have nukes?". It's will America swap New York for Seoul or West Berlin or Munich or Hamburg. Letting American troops get rolled over would certainly strengthen their belief that America was bluffing about the NATO nuclear umbrella.
 
If MAD is what stopped the Soviets rolling West (which I'm unsure of. It wasn't MAD that stopped NATO rolling East) then the question they'll be asking isn't "does America have nukes?". It's will America swap New York for Seoul or West Berlin or Munich or Hamburg. Letting American troops get rolled over would certainly strengthen their belief that America was bluffing about the NATO nuclear umbrella.

If it stopped the Soviets from sending ships past the Blockade of Cuba - it would certainly stop tanks from rolling into West Berlin.

M.A.D as a deterent was real.
 
Why does everyone assume US forces crushed? It would be the Summer/Fall 1975, US forces were not defunded. NK attacking SK and US 8th army. Even in 1975 America there would be moral outrage. US would fight. Many Korean War veterans would be behind it.
 
Top