US, UN routed in Korea 1950

[Melvin Loh]

WI the initial fiascos faced by US and UN forces in Korea after the NK invasion in June 1950, had resulted in a total rout, say to the extent of the Pusan perimeter being breached, the US, ROK and British Cth forces being overrun, and the compelled non-Communist evacuation to Japan ? Could the US and allies have been compelled to accept some sorta Dien Bien Phu-like settlement with the Reds, or would Truman and MacArthur simply have wanted to have gone on fighting ?

 

[Norman]

WI the initial fiascos faced by US and UN forces in Korea after the NK invasion in June 1950, had resulted in a total rout, say to the extent of the Pusan perimeter being breached, the US, ROK and British Cth forces being overrun, and the compelled non-Communist evacuation to Japan ? Could the US and allies have been compelled to accept some sorta Dien Bien Phu-like settlement with the Reds, or would Truman and MacArthur simply have wanted to have gone on fighting ?

I think there might have been the realization that it was going to take more, and a more general mobilization of the US and its allies would have taken place. This mobilization would have included formal declarations of war.

Once a more open war begins, it would not be a war of containment, you're just too close to WWII, it would be a war to win.

If China then intervened, it is likely that the US would have declared war against the Chinese, and if the Chinese continued with human wave attacks, the US would have bombed Beijing from bases in Japan and Taiwan.

The USSR would eye Western Europe hungrily, but I do not believe that they would actually have done anything.

 

[sunsurf]

OTL, the Korean War lasted from June 25, 1950 to July 27, 1953.

One of the big nitpicks with the TV series MASH was that the show lasted 11 years, and I think had 11 Christmas episodes!

Is there any way the actual Korean war could have lasted 11 years? If it did, there might not be a Vietnam war--unless the US also starts invading many other countries.

The anti-war protests would be against the Korean War. The civil rights marches, the countercultral movement, could have started a decade early.

 

[Wendell]

MacArthur's intentions.

WI the initial fiascos faced by US and UN forces in Korea after the NK invasion in June 1950, had resulted in a total rout, say to the extent of the Pusan perimeter being breached, the US, ROK and British Cth forces being overrun, and the compelled non-Communist evacuation to Japan ? Could the US and allies have been compelled to accept some sorta Dien Bien Phu-like settlement with the Reds, or would Truman and MacArthur simply have wanted to have gone on fighting ?

At this point, the allies might have allowed the use of nukes. It would have been a mess.

 

[Melvin Loh]

OK, another related POD- WI from 1946-47, the US decided to properly train and equip ROK defence forces, instead of just the 8 extremely lightly-equipped ROK divs armed only with small arms, light arty, a few M8 Greyhound armd cars, no heavy armr, and only a token airforce which were made mincemeat of by the NKs in 1950 ? Coupled with a US guarantee to defend the South, could the Commies have been effectively detered from trying to invade across the 38th Parallel ?

 

[Neroon]

Probably not. Because this would require the NK regime acutally being told about the ROKs armed forces defensive capabilities instead of what they wanted to hear. Thats something that does not happen very often in totalitarian regimes.

Best way for the Korean War to be avoided IMHO is:
Stalin wants to ride the post-WW2 pro-Soviet image in the West a bit more and decides that making South Korea communist is not worth loosing the peaceful fassade they have. So he tells NK to back off.

 

[MerryPrankster]

A friend of mine who's Korean said that the US was afraid of Syngman Rhee unilaterally trying to unite the Korean Peninsula on his own (he was a Korean nationalist exiled to the US after a failed anti-Japanese uprising), so the US didn't allow him much of a military.

He said when the NK tanks crossed the border, they didn't have anything heavy enough to destroy them.

 

[Mark]

If the US had actually armed and trained the ROK forces (and provided support like Germany), I doubt there would have been an open war. The NK had numerous supporters in the South, so they would have had an idea of the capabilities of the ROK forces. It's one thing to invade a country where the bombers consist of open cockpit planes and the pilots tossing small bombs (depicted in the National War Museum in Seoul) and invading a country with even a small but modern armed forces.

Question - If the Korean War was averted, would that have helped reunification?

 

[MerryPrankster]

What was the nature of the NK supporters in the South? Were they Communists, anti-Rhee Korean nationalists, or regular people PO'd at the US for keeping so many Japanese collaborators (the only folks who had governmental experience) around?

 

[Johnestauffer]

I doubt that 'upgrading' ROK forces would have been significant. The US front line forces were poorly equipped, mostly with WW-2 era equippment.
There would have been more inadequated equipped and trained forces to throw in the meat grinder.

 

[Mark]

What was the nature of the NK supporters in the South? Were they Communists, anti-Rhee Korean nationalists, or regular people PO'd at the US for keeping so many Japanese collaborators (the only folks who had governmental experience) around?

From what I understand - all the above.

 

[jolo]

If the US had actually armed and trained the ROK forces (and provided support like Germany), I doubt there would have been an open war. The NK had numerous supporters in the South, so they would have had an idea of the capabilities of the ROK forces. It's one thing to invade a country where the bombers consist of open cockpit planes and the pilots tossing small bombs (depicted in the National War Museum in Seoul) and invading a country with even a small but modern armed forces.

Question - If the Korean War was averted, would that have helped reunification?

In (former) communist states, it is generally believed that the south started the war - western media are not clear on this matter - even the conservative publications (with reputation) usually only state that the north invaded the south - not who actually started the war.

If that's true, the war could not have been avoided by making the south stronger. And winning against China was probably only possible with a genocide. That would have been pretty unacceptable with the own side being considered the aggressor.

 

[Melvin Loh]

UNCOK

fellas, immediately after the NK invasion on 25th June 1950, there was a UN observer team right on the DMZ-UNCOK (including a couple of Australian officers)- who were able to definitively verify that it was the NKs who were the aggressors, and not the ROKs. Therefore, with this info avail so quickly, the UNSC was able to mount a speedy response with the Resolns authorising all member states to furnish all avail military assistance to South Korea. So whatever former Commie countries believed that the South were in the wrong, were totally in error.

 

[jolo]

I'm not talking who was more successful at the beginning - just who started the fighting. Did it begin with a border skirmish? Or was it a coordinated surprise attack?

Here something from globalsecurity.org (doesn't look leftist at all): "Fighting between South and North Korea began on 4 May 1949, in a battle probably started by the South".

 

[MerryPrankster]

Jolo,

I think there were border skirmishes dating very early on. Some lefties like Noam Chomsky claim the South started it, as does GlobalSecurity. Since this is someone who isn't an ideologue saying, there's a much better chance they're right.

EDIT

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea.htm

It seems that the NKs were meddling with SK from the very beginning, but the SKs, with their blundering, thuggish gov't, seemed to have spent a good bit of time shooting themselves in the foot.

Plus the battle the SKs "probably started" was an attempt to eject North Korean infiltators from some territory they occupied.

 

[jolo]

Plus the battle the SKs "probably started" was an attempt to eject North Korean infiltators from some territory they occupied.

Hello Prankster,

The above is true - but couldn't the South Koreans have answered the same way - infiltrating the north, infiltrating the infiltrators, limit their army to their own territory, and so on? Maybe not - if their regime was in peril due to all the help the North got from China and Russia - but that still doesn't change the likely beginner of the war.

 

[Mark]

I would argue that if you are trying to drive back infiltrators, the infiltrators started it. Otherwise, you could argue that the NK just sent a large number of infiltrators into the ROK in June 1950.

As to responding in kind, the ROK was trying to get organized with minimal US help. The NK had extensive Soviet help. In addition, the NK were setting up a Communist nation, with all the attending brutality. The ROK didn't have the resources to infiltrate or invade the North.

Even if the ROK and NK armed forces were still unequal, I think if the US had provisioned and trained the ROK with tanks (they had none in June 1950), anti-tank weapons, fighters & bombers (instead of only 20 trainers), the NK would have been detered from invading.

 

[jolo]

Don't forget that everyone who was a little bit to the left was considered an infiltrator, especially if he had relatives on the other side of the border (north and south the same) or another reason to regularly cross the border.

Also, the South Korean regime wasn't really soft on their people either.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

South Korea at its worst never compared to North Korea, nor did they have the armed forces needed for defense, let alone aggression.

The size and scale of the North Korean invasion of 1950 leaves no doubt as to which nation started the war.