Soviets veto UN intervention in Korea

In march 1950 the UN passed Resolution 82, to aid South Korea from unlawful invasion. They managed this because of a Soviet boycott over Taiwan having China's seat on the Security Council, hence USSR did not use its veto. However the Russians no doubt knew about the invasion, the CIA did. It seems they had interpreted UN bylaws wrong, believing the absence of a SC member would deadlock any deal, much like an active veto. Arguably they hoped such a route would be more subtle than retaking their seat in time to help their comrades.

However lets say the Soviets do resit in time for Resolution 82 and veto it. They did have some legal (if pedantic) reasons to hold it up, namely North Korea's lack of representation and UN laws stating that technically the invasion was a civil war, so not an illegal invasion of a sovereign state.

I'm pretty sure the US and others would still want to jump to South Korea's aid but with a bogdown discussion in the UN would in come in time, the UN relief forces literally arrived as the South Koreans were falling into the sea.
 
Truman laughs, shrugs, calls up Attlee, and orders Douggie Mac and the US Eighth Army into Korea. The fact that the UN is all but useless in the Cold War becomes apparent even sooner.
 

Cook

Banned
U.S. and Allied intervention would have to take place for the United States and Truman Doctrines’ to have any credibility. A Soviet Veto isn’t going to prevent that. No non-American Allied nation took park in the United Nations forces so a lack of United Nations authorisation is unlikely to delay or reduce the commitment of any of the involved nations.

It would have severely dented the credibility of the United Nations but I don’t think terminally. Instead it would have made people appreciate the UN’s real limits sooner and possibly have prevented it becoming the ridiculously pompous organisation it is instead of a place for negotiations between the major powers.
 

The Vulture

Banned
U.S. and Allied intervention would have to take place for the United States and Truman Doctrines’ to have any credibility. A Soviet Veto isn’t going to prevent that. No non-American Allied nation took park in the United Nations forces so a lack of United Nations authorisation is unlikely to delay or reduce the commitment of any of the involved nations.

It would have severely dented the credibility of the United Nations but I don’t think terminally. Instead it would have made people appreciate the UN’s real limits sooner and possibly have prevented it becoming the ridiculously pompous organisation it is instead of a place for negotiations between the major powers.

This. I don't think it really stops anything though probably it'll be less of a multinational effort than it was OTL.
 

Cook

Banned
Incidentally; the Korean War in 1951 saw Australian and Turkish troops fighting along side each other and had planned joint ANZAC day Ceremony. The Chinese interrupted proceedings with what became the Battle of Kapyong on April 24th, 1951.
The 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment was awarded the US Presidential Citation for it’s part in the battle.

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/kapyong/index.asp
 

Thande

Donor
I tend to think (with a boatload of disclaimers) that this could almost be comparable to the 2003 Iraq War - if the Soviets vetoed it so there was no UN backing, I think we might see a situation where some of countries who sent troops to Korea in OTL might hesitate, thinking the UN was going to turn into another irrelevant League of Nations and there's no sense in sending our boys to die for nothing. Examples might include Turkey, Iran, Colombia, and the European members like France and the Netherlands. It might end up just being the USA and its closest allies (Britain, Canada, Australia, the Philippines etc.).

While that wouldn't make all that much difference in troop numbers - the countries I mention mostly made much smaller contributions to show willing (after all, many of them were still recovering from the war) - it would have a drastic effect on international relations, with a divide between the interventionist, unilateralist "Anglo-Saxons" and other democratic/rightist countries kicking in earlier on. Maybe see a bigger and more coherent Non-Aligned Movement founded on Westphalian principles?
 
Could the US ignorance of the UN Veto push Stalin into more direct action? An example would be faster deployment of the Russian flown MiG-15s. Would Stalin's poor mental state make him go as far as cutting off West Berlin again, only this time he orders the Red Air Force to shoot down any Allied Airlifts?
 

Cook

Banned
Could the US ignorance of the UN Veto push Stalin into more direct action? An example would be faster deployment of the Russian flown MiG-15s. Would Stalin's poor mental state make him go as far as cutting off West Berlin again, only this time he orders the Red Air Force to shoot down any Allied Airlifts?

I can’t see Stalin risking it. This is only six years after World War Two and the Soviet Union was still recovering from the devastation of that war, and Stalin was well aware of how weak his empire was in comparison the West.

Korea seems to have been a case of the Soviets pushing a proxy state to make a quick land grab in an area which they didn’t think was covered by the Truman Doctrine; gambling that it would be over before any response was organised and America would be presented with a fait accompli.
 
I can’t see Stalin risking it. This is only six years after World War Two and the Soviet Union was still recovering from the devastation of that war, and Stalin was well aware of how weak his empire was in comparison the West.

True enough. He will have the bomb, but America has a lot more. Plus with a war on in Korea, I don't think Truman would have too many quams about ordering the US forces in Germany to reopen LOCs with Berlin.
 

Cook

Banned
...Examples might include Turkey, Iran, Colombia, and the European members like France and the Netherlands. It might end up just being the USA and its closest allies (Britain, Canada, Australia, the Philippines etc.)...

All the Europeans, including Turkey had the experience of World War Two very fresh in their memory and were fully aware of the need for joint action in the face of aggression. They all committed their forces to that purpose, not because of the authority of an international body less than six years old.
 

Thande

Donor
All the Europeans, including Turkey had the experience of World War Two very fresh in their memory and were fully aware of the need for joint action in the face of aggression. They all committed their forces to that purpose, not because of the authority of an international body less than six years old.
I think you underestimate how important the UN was considered in the 1950s: it was the last best hope for humanity's survival. I was somewhat taken aback when I read some 1950s children's literature a while back and people who were against the UN and one world government were basically painted as being war criminals - and with a stigma that I find hard to get across if you haven't seen this stuff, but basically not unlike how the media portrays paedophiles now. Impossible not to stress this enough.
 
I think you underestimate how important the UN was considered in the 1950s: it was the last best hope for humanity's survival. I was somewhat taken aback when I read some 1950s children's literature a while back and people who were against the UN and one world government were basically painted as being war criminals - and with a stigma that I find hard to get across if you haven't seen this stuff, but basically not unlike how the media portrays paedophiles now. Impossible not to stress this enough.

I wasn't aware you had been looking at Turkish or French children's books from the era.
 

Cook

Banned
In Max Hastings “The Korean War” has the anecdote of an American Army Signals unit putting up a sign saying: “Second to none”.

The New Zealand Army Signals Unit located just down the road replied with a sign of their own saying simply: “None”.
The Kiwi’s have a talent for dry humour at times.
:)

 
In Max Hastings “The Korean War” has the anecdote of an American Army Signals unit putting up a sign saying: “Second to none”.

The New Zealand Army Signals Unit located just down the road replied with a sign of their own saying simply: “None”.
The Kiwi’s have a talent for dry humour at times.
:)

Reminds me of a story I read somewhere about European Guard formations although I can't remember which country's guard units were involved. Maybe the British Foot Guards?

The second regiment of guards had an informal motto "second to none" which the first regiment constantly changed to "second to one"....Which led to a lot of fights between them....
 
Reminds me of a story I read somewhere about European Guard formations although I can't remember which country's guard units were involved. Maybe the British Foot Guards?

The second regiment of guards had an informal motto "second to none" which the first regiment constantly changed to "second to one"....Which led to a lot of fights between them....

That story is about 2 of the British Guards regiments, specifically the Coldstream (whose motto, IIRC, is 'nulli secundus', which roughly translates to 'second to none') & the Grenadier Guards.

The Coldstream Guards trace their ancestry back to a Parlimentary unit formed around 1650, during the Engligh Civil War, Monck's Regiment. General Monck and the regiment he formed were among the first parts of the army to declare for Charles II upon the restoration of the Stuarts in 1660, and played a role in defeating an attempt to rebel against this, for which they were rewarded by being one of two units of the New Model Army of the English Commonwealth that were retained instead of being disbanded at that time.

The Grenadier Guards are a slightly younger unit, tracing their ancestry to several companies raised in 1656 as a personal guard for the future Charles II then in exile. Despite this, the Grenadiers were given seniority over the Coldstream Guards by Parliment, to the displeasure of the latter, leading to that enduring rivarly you mentioned.
 
I think you underestimate how important the UN was considered in the 1950s: it was the last best hope for humanity's survival. I was somewhat taken aback when I read some 1950s children's literature a while back and people who were against the UN and one world government were basically painted as being war criminals - and with a stigma that I find hard to get across if you haven't seen this stuff, but basically not unlike how the media portrays paedophiles now. Impossible not to stress this enough.

THat is interesting, but just because it's being pushed in educational materials doesn't mean that it was the convential wisdom.
 
I think in the beginning the differences would be marginal. But a big change could com after Inchon. Would the USA cross the 38th parallel without a UN-Mandat legitimizing Korean Unification by force?
If not the, then Truman could simply declare Victory and there would be no chinese intervention and the war ends in autum 1950. Korea stays divided, but with several million death less and Truman will propably gain a third term.
 
Top